Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...This was taken from the NH Bass Federation statement against the speed limit..."

Link, please.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I am not familar with this one...Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

It's hardly a revelation to the people of Gilford: speed limit opponents GWC and SIKSUKR posted it at this very site:

Posted By: GWC...
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 at 1:18 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Baja "gets air", hits car

"...Don't you "remember" the "professional" (doctor/lawyer type) that put their "go fast" into a cottage?

It ended up upside down in the cottage - apparently, the hull design, deep V, caused the boat to roll when it encountered the shore.

Sadly, death arrived at the scene, as well, if I remember correctly.

Followed by:

Posted By: Stinger
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 at 4:54 p.m.

In Response To: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (GWC...)

It was a cigarette boat, traveling at high speed after dark. The boat hit a dock and flew into the air, flipped, and landed in a cottage, all three on board were killed..."

Followed by:

Posted By: SIKSUKR
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 at 7:44 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (Sweeper)

I believe the accident that you refer to was driven by the owner of Davidson construction of NH.It was a high speed night incident and alcohol was involved.He was killed in the accident. SS

Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-ttt...it doesn't count because the dock probably caused the launch into the cottage, and the cottage was probably too big a target and it was probably built too close to the water, and it was after dark, and the "driver" was probably drinking, and he was probably distracted and he probably was not observing the 150-foot rule and he probably didn't have his boater certificate, and nobody in the cottage was killed anyway...and it probably happened in an area known to be crowded...and it probably happened a long time ago...ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I am sure you are too busy searching the net for additional pictures of GFBL's to add to the same 3-4 that you continue to post over and over..."

Like this one?



This is a brand-new panorama image of the same ½-mile shoreline showing various people on two different days—fortunately. (The middle photo is a small rowboat pacing a teen gal swimming a "long swim".)

(Actually, I was preparing tomorrow's post here, but since you were kind enough to provide still another opportunity... )

Originally Posted by Cal

"...If you're talking about Lake Hopatcong...it's...the size of Alton Bay, if that..."

I can't speak to speeds on Alton Bay, but how did Lake Hopatcong happen to get such a serious speed limit of only 30-MPH? (And they ticket 35-MPH!) Does such an "exclusionary" law cause high-performance boaters to trailer to Lake Winnipesaukee?

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...In fact - your point in posting any of those pics...again, what's the point...!?"

Oh, I dunno. Trying to express the empathy that is missing for your less-important neighbors?

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?
All this time I thought he was against it.

We've seen that most of The Opposition are their own worst enemy—even off the water!

Who was opposed to 25-MPH-Night (only) as early as in 2002?

Who was the first to educate us that, "Radar doesn't work on water"?

Who was the second to educate us on Radar? Excerpted:

"...the obvious visual deterrant of the MP boats in the first place which would probably slow someone down anyhow..."
—codeman671

Seems to corroborate one of the eight major errors in The Survey, doesn't it...?

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...Let's hope that this is over and done with soon..."

"This?"

Watch for more "incidents" irrespective of the outcome this week.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...I agree - common sense can't be taught..."

A speed limit violation comes with a fine and consequently, an insurance surcharge. Violating a sign like this one comes with a ticket for those who lack the common sense to park other than in front of your driveway:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What is not logical is allowing powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow moving boats.

Even boating on The Broads, I've been seeing a lot more tiny inflatables (smaller than this off-season inflatable off my dock) with whole families in them!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I can't speak to speeds on Alton Bay, but how did Lake Hopatcong happen to get such a serious speed limit of only 30-MPH? (And they ticket 35-MPH!) Does such an "exclusionary" law cause high-performance boaters to trailer to Lake Winnipesaukee?

I don't care if the speed limit on Hopatcong is 110 mph. It's not big enough to be worth a 100 mile drive to get there. It deserves a speed limit. It's not much bigger that a puddle.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Cal

I don't care if the speed limit on Hopatcong is 110 mph. It's not big enough to be worth a 100 mile drive to get there. It deserves a speed limit. It's not much bigger that a puddle.

Having been on Lake Hopatcong on a weekend, trying to exceed 30 MPH would be like trying to speed on the Cross Bronx Expressway at rush hour! Not likely to happen!!

You cannot compare Jersey swamps, oops I mean lakes to Lake Winnipesaukee!

Its not speed that kills it is the sudden stop! You can have all the laws you want but that does not prevent people from breaking them. The 150' law is a prime example!!!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander
I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

So if someone writes something 65 days ago, then REPEATEDLY tries to deny that they wrote it or attempts to deny he was trying to link high performance boats and the fear of a summer camp director that kids will be run down by boats doing 130 MPH then that’s okay because, what? He forgot what he wrote 2 months ago? Forgot to go back and look?

He denied writing it; he denied trying to link the two issues. Period.

Originally posted by APS

Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.

So are you saying the accident 33 years ago was the first fatal boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee? Seriously, are you?

Originally posted by APS
Quote:

Huh??? Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.

30 years ago drinking and driving was not a crime. Drinking and driving was something that was dismissed as bad judgment and anyone caught doing it was sent on their way. Today those standards, practices and laws have thankfully changed and you are responsible for your actions.

Originally posted by APS
FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Duh! Wait, there is already a law against Boating While Intoxicated!

Originally posted by Bear Islander
There are many other lakes that have horsepower limits and enforce them without to much trouble.

That’s true, and I can tell you personally, that as someone looking to expand waterfront holdings on lakes in NH that I have rejected three very nice properties that fit my criteria because they are what my family calls on “no fun lakes” , those that ban petroleum based motors, and even one where you were only allowed to use a PWC or waterski counter clockwise during certain hours of the day! RIGHT! I’m going to buy into something like that! Granted, the lakes or ponds were small but those restrictions, I believed were excessive and I didn’t buy. Looking to make Lake Winnipesaukee something like that and I'll leave here as well and I don't own a high performance boat!

Again, I call on the speed limit crowd to tell me, if safety is the actual concern why not adopt Rule 6?

ADOPT RULE 6 AND BOTH SIDES GET WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT!

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-ttt...it doesn't count because the dock probably caused the launch into the cottage, and the cottage was probably too big a target and it was probably built too close to the water, and it was after dark, and the "driver" was probably drinking, and he was probably distracted and he probably was not observing the 150-foot rule and he probably didn't have his boater certificate, and nobody in the cottage was killed anyway...and it probably happened in an area known to be crowded...and it probably happened a long time ago...ad nauseum.

Are you serious?A drunk guy drives his boat into a cottage at night and you use this example to show a need for a speed limit?If you believe a speed limit would have changed his behavior that night than there really is no reasoning with you.Wow,were really reaching now!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Are you serious?A drunk guy drives his boat into a cottage at night and you use this example to show a need for a speed limit?If you believe a speed limit would have changed his behavior that night than there really is no reasoning with you.Wow,were really reaching now!

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation.

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation.

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall.

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

Once again, the driver was drunk, and that is already illegal, and IMO the most egregious boating violation you can commit. If you're willing to get in your boat drunk and take a nighttime cruise, I'm sure that there are very few laws that you would even consider following.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. :

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I'll bite on this one... So, say there was a - what... 500hp limit!?!? Will that work in this case!? Yup! ok - so, how about a 20' boat with saaaaayyyyy a 250hp outboard motor that could travel at 75mph!?

Like this one: http://www.hydrostream.com/models_voyager.html

(Insert remaining data from situation here and you have your answer).

NEEEEEXT!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

I'll bite on this one... So, say there was a - what... 500hp limit!?!? Will that work in this case!? Yup! ok - so, how about a 20' boat with saaaaayyyyy a 250hp outboard motor that could travel at 75mph!?

Like this one: http://www.hydrostream.com/models_voyager.html

(Insert remaining data from situation here and you have your answer).

NEEEEEXT!

Are you arguing for even lower HP limits? How do your numbers work for 10 HP. Many NH lakes have 10 HP limits. Personally I think that low is unnecessary.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Are you arguing for even lower HP limits? How do your numbers work for 10 HP. Many NH lakes have 10 HP limits. Personally I think that low is unnecessary.

NO - I am saying that your argument for a horsepower limit offers no potential avoidance for this accident. If he was driving a boat with 1,000 hp or 250hp., he was DRUNK and that was the cause of the accident - not the hp.

And if a particular boat is regulated off or leaves voluntarily - you think that will prevent and solve ANY accidents from happening!? Brotha' - I need some of whatever it is you are smoking - it must be THAT good!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I can't...... ha ha ha ha ha ha still laughing..... ha ha ha ha the silliness, the speculation.... too much to compute..... overload..... ha ha ha ha ha

I have another one for you. Maybe if God made the lake different and moved the island slightly to the left..... ha ha ha ha ha

Sorry.... I just can't stop laughing at that post.

Especially because drunks behind the wheel are SO law abiding.

OK ha ha ho ok please give me the made up limits that you have in mind and I will concoct a tale to fit within your numbers.

Still howling... one things for sure this thread has given us some good laughs.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Especially because drunks behind the wheel are SO law abiding.

Take a deep breath and think of something not funny. Like the upcoming vote in the Senate.

Then take just a minute to outline a scenario that fits the criteria. Remember they are a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed that ends up hitting a cottage and a triple decapitation, on a lake with a 300 horsepower limit. The horsepower limit is fictional, the rest is factual.

[jrc]

Can someone post a link to any information on this three head decapitation? It's not that I don't beleive it but wow that's one heck of an accident.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Take a deep breath and think of something not funny. Like the upcoming vote in the Senate.

Then take just a minute to outline a scenario that fits the criteria. Remember they are a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed that ends up hitting a cottage and a triple decapitation, on a lake with a 300 horsepower limit. The horsepower limit is fictional, the rest is factual.

Hey thanks you already did it for me.... ha ha ha ha

Three drunks launch a cigarette boat on winni for the day and drive it up on land and die.

Oh wait too improbable for you? I mean three drunks wouldn't disobey a law ould they?

Ok how bout this 3 guys in a 20 foot Skeeter with a 200hp go out fishing for the day. Unfortunately these guys like to drink while they fish. Well after 8-10 beers each they figure what the heck lets see what she'll do. It has gotten dark and they were a bit farther out than they originally planned. On the way back to the docks whamo they hit the shore launch it and at over 70MPH all were killed instantly.

I used a fishng boat for this example because we aren't targeting one type of boat are we BI.


Still laughing at the original post...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Three drunks launch a cigarette boat on winni for the day and drive it up on land and die.

Oh wait too improbable for you? I mean three drunks wouldn't disobey a law ould they?

We are talking about a real accident with a Cigarette boat and three deaths.

So in your scenario the owner didn't know there was a horsepower limit? Or he knew and decided to launch the boat anyway? Nobody at the launch ramp told them about the limit? Nobody called the Marine Patrol when they saw the Cigarette boat on the lake? The Marine Partrol were not in Meredith Bay that day?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We are talking about a real accident with a Cigarette boat and three deaths.

So in your scenario the owner didn't know there was a horsepower limit? Or he knew and decided to launch the boat anyway? Nobody at the launch ramp told them about the limit? Nobody called the Marine Patrol when they saw the Cigarette boat on the lake? The Marine Partrol were not in Meredith Bay that day?

So are you dismissing the second scenario? I mean we're not targeting a particular type of boat ARE we?

Wow the true colors are showing through......

Further clarification to avoid the inevitable. You maintain that the HP limit and Speed Limit would prevent an accident like this. Get a clue it doesn't have to be a "cigarette" boat. I gave you an example but I'm sure they'll be some spin......

...waiting to laugh......again.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So are you dismissing the second scenario? I mean we're not targeting a particular type of boat ARE we?

Wow the true colors are showing through......

BI - Why do you bother with this guy. He is not taking any of this seriously.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

BI - Why do you bother with this guy. He is not taking any of this seriously.

Yeah I see Islander, when the wheels are falling off step one is to discredit me by saying, I don't take any of this seriously. WOW!

Whatever.

So Bear Islander any spin on the latest? Did I answer your question?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Islander

BI - Why do you bother with this guy. He is not taking any of this seriously.

For a while I figured he was confused. Didn't realize we were talking about a real accident. Maybe he is drunk.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

For a while I figured he was confused. Didn't realize we were talking about a real accident. Maybe he is drunk.

Yeah thats it keep digging.... It's all you've got now because your credibility is now the joke of the forum..... Sorry but it's true.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Yeah thats it keep digging.... It's all you've got now because your credibility is now the joke of the forum..... Sorry but it's true.

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

Islander,

I am sorry if you think it is personal to state facts.

This person (I won't name names) uses an accident from 30 years ago without any details to back his claim that winni needs a Horsepower and Speed limit?? I mean come on are you kidding me. Actually the more I find out about this accident the more ridiculous it is that he used it as "fact" supporting his argument. How can ones credibility even be considered when they push garbage like that. It happened 30 YEARS AGO! If anything I can use it in my argument stating how SAFE the lake is. Here I'll do it... pretend you've never heard about the accident....... Guys, winni doesn't need speed limits or horsepower limits. Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

Sounds silly doesn't it? Any more silly than using it to prove we DO need limits. So this persons credibility shatters more and more as they kick and scream about this accident. Sorry Islander facts is facts.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

He did not bring up this accident, it was talked about in this thread for a day before he talked about it. I believe he is doing an excellent job of supporting his opinion against the majority in the forum. His posts are far less personal, and frankly silly, as yours. I am only asking that we raise the bar a little. I am not Islander.

The cigarete hit a dock, the teenager hit a piling, same difference to me.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

Am I missing something? I recall an accident of a teenager on a PWC dying, but not ending up on land...??? Someone who had NO RIGHT being on that machine. Hardly any damage to the machine, I remember talk of a piling strike but definitely not ending up on land. Hardly any damage to the machine either...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

[hazelnut]

Here chew on this one everyone

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/10/...-speed-limits/

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

[Woodsy]

BI..

If the best you can do to bolster your position is bring up an accident that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee over 33 years ago... You are really, really reaching! In fact, that argument could be spun to show how safe the lake really is!

I ALMOST agree with you on one point... as weight and speed increase, the POTENTIAL for damage also increases. That is just simple physics. However, the POTENTIAL for an accident or death does not necessarily increase! In fact, if you looked at the annual NHMP or even the annual USCG Safety Reports, the opposite is true!! The slowest of watercraft, canoes & kayaks are far, far more deadly...

Lake Winnipesaukee is home to about maybe 5-6 boats that can top 100, and over the summer maybe 5-6 others may frequent the lake. While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake! They will trade them in for big cruisers... then what? Oh wait! You think that can be solved by a HP limit!

Do you honestly think the NH Legislature is going to enact any sort of HP Limit or Size Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? Do you have any idea what that will do to the economy of the lake? The marinas? The businesses? The people that rely on those businesses for thier livelyhood? Good luck trying to get that passed on the state largest lake! The economy is tough enough as it is...

You have stated that the speed limit is about safety, yet you have no data to support your position. The WINNCRABS crowd dismisses the MP study as flawed, when in fact as far as UNFUNDED studies go, they did a pretty damm good job. WINNCRABS just didn't like the results! Ultimately, your goal is to rid YOUR lake of people you consider undesireable... What you don't like is thier ostentatious lifestyle, compared to what you consider your relatively low key lifestyle. However others might find your $200,000 6 minute spaceflight a bit ostentatious.

I suggest you move to Squam Lake, where they long ago enacted all types of snobbish rules to keep THIER lake to themselves! A speed limit that has NEVER been enforced, no boats with porta potties or cuddy cabins etc, etc. (I guess they want you to relieve yourself in the lake?) In fact until just a few years ago, there was NO PUBLIC ACCESS on Squam. The Squam Lake Assoc would purchase the properties the State proposed for use as a boat launch. It wasn't until the state threatened to take a VERY EXPENSIVE piece of property by emminent domain, that a compromise was reached for a small public launch!


Woodsy

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Then practice what you preach...

Move on.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Sorry if you feel that way... I'll try not to laugh anymore. But come on when you posted about that accident 30 years ago were you serious? And if you were didn't some small part of you twinge and say "this is a stretch?"

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

For a while I figured he was confused. Didn't realize we were talking about a real accident. Maybe he is drunk.

Please post a link to the details of this accident. I have never heard of it before, I'd like to see the story. I assume it had to be quite a while back, otherwise it would have been brought up more.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Please post a link to the details of this accident. I have never heard of it before, I'd like to see the story. I assume it had to be quite a while back, otherwise it would have been brought up more.

Don't hold your breath..

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Don't hold your breath..

Way back in the 70's a Cigarette hit a dock in Gilford at high speed. Went airborne, rolled upside down and landed on a cottage. Three dead. Just one of those high speed fatal accidents you guys tell each other never happened. And it was not boat-to-boat so it doesn't count.

Now please call me a liar so you can eat your words later.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Way back in the 70's a Cigarette hit a dock in Gilford at high speed. Went airborne, rolled upside down and landed on a cottage. Three dead. Just one of those high speed fatal accidents you guys tell each other never happened. And it was not boat-to-boat so it doesn't count.

Now please call me a liar so you can eat your words later.

Do you really think after 30 years that that has any kind of relevance to our discussion?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Do you really think after 30 years that that has any kind of relevance to our discussion?

Yes!

We still have Cigarette boats, docks, cottages, alcohol. What has changed since then that would prevent it from happening this summer? Nothing!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Way back in the 70's a Cigarette hit a dock in Gilford at high speed. Went airborne, rolled upside down and landed on a cottage. Three dead. Just one of those high speed fatal accidents you guys tell each other never happened. And it was not boat-to-boat so it doesn't count.

Now please call me a liar so you can eat your words later.

Back in the 70's? I think an accident 30+ years ago is pushing it in this conversation. I am not calling you a liar, but I think this being brought into the burden of proof in todays arguments is a bit much.

High speed? How fast? How fast were "cigarette boats" back in the 70's? Alcohol involved?

Why not make it illegal for a person operating a boat to have any drinks whatsoever? It seems like alcohol has played a factor in just about every boating accident mentioned. Does a sober person crash their boat into a dock and land on a cottage? Does a sober person run over another boat in Meredith at night while traveling at low speeds? Does a sober person run over another boat on Long Lake on a night with good visibility?

The common denominator is alcohol and the answer to all above is NO!!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Back in the 70's? I think an accident 30+ years ago is pushing it in this conversation. I am not calling you a liar, but I think this being brought into the burden of proof in todays arguments is a bit much.

High speed? How fast? How fast were "cigarette boats" back in the 70's? Alcohol involved?

Why not make it illegal for a person operating a boat to have any drinks whatsoever? It seems like alcohol has played a factor in just about every boating accident mentioned. Does a sober person crash their boat into a dock and land on a cottage? Does a sober person run over another boat in Meredith at night while traveling at low speeds? Does a sober person run over another boat on Long Lake on a night with good visibility?

The common denominator is alcohol and the answer to all above is NO!!!

Hazelnut has pointed out in recent posts that drunks don't obey the laws. You want to pass a no alcohol on boats law, fine by me.

If there had been a horsepower limit on the lake in the 70's this accident could not have happened, or at least it would have been a smaller, slower boat hitting the cottage.




What happened to Hazelnut?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation.

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall.

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

I believe he already answered the question, but I'll answer it as well:

No.

To say otherwise is to imply that a 200 to 300 hp boat could not possibly strike land and kill its occupants, when of course it could. What do you think would happen to me if my 260 hp boat struck a rocky shore at its maximum speed of approximately 52 mph? If you ask me, I would say the most likely scenario would be death. Survival would be pure luck.

Why are there no bass boats in this scenario? Does your horsepower limit also contain a ban on bass boats?

[chipj29]

The point that BI is trying to make is that if there had been a horsepower limit in place, that particular boat would not have been on the lake, therefore the accident would have been prevented. In his eyes anyway.

In my eyes, the accident still would have happened, just on a different boat. Many many boats, with a lot less than 300 HP have the power and speed to get in that same accident.

[Woodsy]

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

[hazelnut]

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

I have explained this several times, so I think you know the answer and are only doing this for effect. Here it is one more time, try and get it straight.

I have NEVER claimed I am not targeting high power boats. My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

[chmeeee]

Here you say that its only for new boats:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Here you say that its only for new boats:

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

I'm not contradicting myself. But I can understand that you are confused.

I would like to see a horsepower limit. To be fair I think it should be grandfathered so it doesn't force existing boats off the lake. I have said 2008 but it may be more like 2020 by the time it happens.

In another discussion I was suggesting hypothetically that a horsepower limit would have prevented an accident that happened in 1975.

My comment about selling a boat was to demonstrate that a horsepower limit does not change the value of a boat. And just because I think grandfathering is a good idea doesn't mean that's what the law will say when passed. The legislature rarely checks with me before they pass a law. If they did HB847 would be a horsepower limit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

What science are you basing this on. You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

What science are you basing this on. You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

[Skip]

Man, this thread is really starting to get a little nasty.

You know, I have had the pleasure to share healthy give & take with most of you here for years, and found you all to (under some of the occasional gruffness ) really be a great bunch of folks.

I have even had the pleasure of meeting some of you personally at a couple of forum fests, and know that in person you guys are really quite pleasant to be around (right Rich?)....

A simple request from me...as the one who started the thread. Could we all (myself included) find our way back to the orignal intent of the thread, try to keep the personalities in check and maybe gracefully bow out if we don't have anyting new or substantial to offer?

We all frequent Don's great site out of our love for the same Lake and its surrounding beauty, many of us just enjoy the freedom to worship it in our own unique way.

And lest we forget; in the end, no matter what the outcome, we all have to share the same beautiful gift Mother Nature has gracefully bestowed upon us!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

He is not "yelling" with capitals. He is not using long strings of !!!!!!!!!, he doesn't post things like "OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it."

I am amazed at his patience!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet...

Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.



Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

[Airwaves]

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, perfomance boats and and summer camps.

“And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com

Posted By: Waterbaby
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 10:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (SIKSUKR)

You are right, and it was my uncle and his sister and brother-in-law who were killed. At the time it was the only Cigarette on the lake, and it was late March or early April of 1975.

The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, performance boats and and summer camps.



By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com


The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island...it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale...!

They didn't "just hit the island": They hit shallows before running out of inertia. If they hadn't hit shallows (and a bunch of trees), the cottage that they landed at would have been their terminal destination. (Add the hazard of downed electrical wires for them—and rescuers).



The Mount advised NHMP that the boat was "traveling at a high rate of speed", and never reappeared on the other side of Eagle Island.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH...they were amazingly HEAVY boats..."

Suitable for ocean waters? An ocean-racer? Heavy and slow? And now they are fast?

Originally Posted by Seeker

"...Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit..."

Anyone know how many years we've been complaining about the ineffectiveness of "Unsafe Passage", and how many years complaining of the ineffectiveness in the enforcement of "Unsafe Passage"?

We tried "The New Hampshire Way", but I think it's proven: "Unsafe Passage" was a well-intentioned flop from the 50s. Ridding the lake of unproven high-speed "drivers" with a proven track record remains the task for the terminal safety of us "lesser boaters".

Originally Posted by jrc

"...BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident...So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing..."

Here's the link: (Interesting reading, but don't expect The Opposition to elaborate favorably.)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...The ONLY Cigarette on the lake...!"

Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.

Had those same headlines made their appearance last year, even Woodsy would have tossed in his hand.

(Well, maybe not Woodsy—make that Winnilaker).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago..."

Huh??? Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)...(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)..."

FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

(But I repeat myself).

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

To be fair BI,this incident was from recall and I can't substantiate fact.What my aging brain remembers(and I could be wrong but this is how I remember)was that the driver was the owner of Davidson Construction which I believe at the time was located in Manchester.I recall that a "cigarette boat",not necesarily the brand but the type,crashed into a home on the lake at night and the driver was DWI and killed.I don't know of other fatalities whether they were on land or in the boat.That's pretty much all I recall.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

But I thought the speed limit wasn't about regulating a certain type of boat off the lake?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

But I thought the speed limit wasn't about regulating a certain type of boat off the lake?

Here we go again!!!

The speed limit is NOT about regulating a certain type of boat of the lake. I support a speed limit.


************************************************** ******


As a TOTALLY SEPARATE MATTER I personally believe in a horsepower limit. My idea is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008. This idea would keep high performance boats and cruisers from coming to the lake. And, over time, virtually eliminate them.


************************************************** *****

Now this is a third TOTALLY SEPARATE ARGUMENT

The recent exchange is about how do you prevent a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed from hitting a cottage and killing people. The answer is simple, don't allow him on the lake in the first place.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Here we go again!!!

The speed limit is NOT about regulating a certain type of boat of the lake. I support a speed limit.


************************************************** ******


As a TOTALLY SEPARATE MATTER I personally believe in a horsepower limit. My idea is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008. This idea would keep high performance boats and cruisers from coming to the lake. And, over time, virtually eliminate them.


************************************************** *****

Now this is a third TOTALLY SEPARATE ARGUMENT

The recent exchange is about how do you prevent a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed from hitting a cottage and killing people. The answer is simple, don't allow him on the lake in the first place.

What's to stop a drunk from driving a truck into a house? I guess we should also ban trucks from driving through town so this can't happen either. Man your logic is horrible.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by chipj29

But I thought the speed limit wasn't about regulating a certain type of boat off the lake?

It really is but some people just won't admit it no matter how obvious it is

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

Nice try.HE OWNED A HOUSE ON THE LAKE.Please tell me what part of him being drunk and having a speed limit would have changed that situation.I can't even believe what I'm reading here.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Nice try.HE OWNED A HOUSE ON THE LAKE.Please tell me what part of him being drunk and having a speed limit would have changed that situation.I can't even believe what I'm reading here.

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

*shouting*
Horsepower Limit!

The only one talking about a horsepower limit here is you. We are talking about a speed limit.

How is a speed limit going to drive these people away, when most of them live on or near the lake?

Does a speed limit stop people from owning and driving a fast car? The base Corvette has a top speed of 186 miles per hour. Thats a fairly popular car in New Hampshire, where the highest speed limit is 65 mph, or 34% of the Corvette's max speed.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

I find this post offensive and rude in nature.

I am officially registering my complaint now.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Dear Islander,

Please tell me who posted this and please tell me if I see it correctly. Is it in all bold with exclamation points? Please once again I request that you remove your rose colored glasses. I admire that you are sticking up for your friend but please butt out as it I never addressed you in the first place. Your comments are unwanted and biased. This is the last time I will address the issue, please refrain from getting involved. Bear Islander is a big boy and he can handle himself....