Bill Filed to Modify and Enhance Speed Limits in NH

[Skip]

It is interesting that none of the three senators supporting the legislation to eliminate the recently enacted speed limits is from, or represents, the Lakes region directly. One is from Manchester, another from Hookset and the third from Chesire County in the far western part of the State.

I remember during the rhetoric of the debate that a number of individuals opposed to the implementation of speed limits decried the fact that many supporters (and voting politicians) were not "from the Lakes region".

Does SBONH have a list of elected or newly elected politicians that directly represent the greater Winnipesaukee watershed and are signing on to this legislation?

Also, has Director Barrett been contacted and if so what is the NHMP's opinion of legislation designed to repeal the speed limits?

Finally, when will SBONH post the exact language of these "enhancements" so the public can judge the validity of their claims to safety. That would be in addition to the language proposed in other bills SBONH claims to have a hand in. In particular I am very interested in the language of the Bill that will change the notification requirements for No Wake zones. I would like to see the legality of the criteria the proposed legislation would use to define "abutter", which is the crux of that particular Bill.

I think these would be very important questions for SBONH to have answers to, as it would seem to me that the supporters of retaining speed limits would be jumping all over these issues when they attack the proposed legislation.

I am hoping that in addition to vague press releases with very limited detail, SBONH practices what it preaches and will post all of these legislative details here on this thread that Don has provided as soon as they emerge from legislative services.

Like my grampa used to be fond of saying..."the Devil is always in the details".

Anxiously awaiting.....

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Skip

It is interesting that none of the three senators supporting the legislation to eliminate the recently enacted speed limits is from, or represents, the Lakes region directly. One is from Manchester, another from Hookset and the third from Chesire County in the far western part of the State.

I remember during the rhetoric of the debate that a number of individuals opposed to the implementation of speed limits decried the fact that many supporters (and voting politicians) were not "from the Lakes region".

Does SBONH have a list of elected or newly elected politicians that directly represent the greater Winnipesaukee watershed and are signing on to this legislation?

Also, has Director Barrett been contacted and if so what is the NHMP's opinion of legislation designed to repeal the speed limits?

Finally, when will SBONH post the exact language of these "enhancements" so the public can judge the validity of their claims to safety. That would be in addition to the language proposed in other bills SBONH claims to have a hand in. In particular I am very interested in the language of the Bill that will change the notification requirements for No Wake zones. I would like to see the legality of the criteria the proposed legislation would use to define "abutter", which is the crux of that particular Bill.

I think these would be very important questions for SBONH to have answers to, as it would seem to me that the supporters of retaining speed limits would be jumping all over these issues when they attack the proposed legislation.

I am hoping that in addition to vague press releases with very limited detail, SBONH practices what it preaches and will post all of these legislative details here on this thread that Don has provided as soon as they emerge from legislative services.

Like my grampa used to be fond of saying..."the Devil is always in the details".

Anxiously awaiting.....

Careful Skip, your colors are beginning to show beneath that robe of impartiality yours...

Was it not you who not long ago praised BearIslander and other SL proponents for the way that they promoted their cause and used NH laws to their advantage to persuade the state legislature and governer in Concord to enact the SL law? I could be in error, but I believe that you remained silent regarding their mode and plan to promote their desired result. Please explain how dissimilar the manner and method of SBONH is in pursuing their agenda?

As I read it, this particular press release it is no more vague than what Winnfabs used to support their agenda. IMHO, SBONH are not attempting to increase the speed limit, but are looking to give the Marine Patrol more latitude(ie an additional tool in their toolbox) to stop boaters who operate their craft at unsafe speeds--Mirroring a USCG rule of navigation.

Your Grandfather was a wise man. In like fashion, my father who I also consider to have discerning judgment would, in this instance, offer a different but no less appropriate comment..."be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".

[Skip]

Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.

But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!

Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.

And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.

Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?

But they haven't, as of yet anyway.

I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.

In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.

Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states "...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."

I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".

When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!

Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.

I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.

Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:


SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL

RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:

X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.

[Yankee]

Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed! That is the crux of my point.

Thanks for posting the entirety of the bill, I had only read a paraphrased version of section (a). I have to generally agree with your opinion of it

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the current law or proposed bill, I believe that the pursuance of either is and was misguided. As I would agree that the burden of proof placed upon the officer is too great with this proposed bill, I would submit so it is with the current law, as shown in the rather limited number of citations given out to date.

IMO, neither have had (or woud have) any more effect upon the way people boat than the other, which is basically no effect at all.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed! That is the crux of my point.

Thanks for posting the entirety of the bill, I had only read a paraphrased version of section (a). I have to generally agree with your opinion of it

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the current law or proposed bill, I believe that the pursuance of either is and was misguided. As I would agree that the burden of proof placed upon the officer is too great with this proposed bill, I would submit so it is with the current law, as shown in the rather limited number of citations given out to date.

IMO, neither have had (or woud have) any more effect upon the way people boat than the other, which is basically no effect at all.

Very good points!

The problem with the first Bill was how it was modified throughout its process and in the end included Statewide ramifications (boating offenses Statewide being included on your license, but failure to hold statewide hearings, especially on the seacoast).

This Bill is doomed as its primary lobbying group, SBONH, seems determined to develop it in as much secrecy as possible while the President of the organization wants to throw deceptive press releases to the public, but only discuss the merits on his terms and his website. Trying to control the debate in that matter will only stiffen resistance to him & his organization. I know it has caused me to lose any trust in the organization as long as it is helmed by him!

This same debate played out a few years back in the snowmobile community. For those of you that sled you are aware of this State's 45 mph speed limit (exception being lakes) along with a number of other dependent speed limits. Some argued that this would take away from ridership. People would go to Maine where there are no limits. The limits would be unenforceable.

Years later everyone has adapted fine. And even though almost any modern snowmobile can go double, sometimes even triple the 45 mph limit the great folks at NH Fish & Game have proven that enforcement is possible.

Why does that matter? Because over time it has helped develop the belief that NH is a family friendly snowmobile community. It is a mantra stressed by Fish & Game, the NH Snowmobile Association, the Bureau of Trails and so on. I've witnessed it first hand and reasonable restricitions coupled with education and fair handed enforcement works.

But it took a number of years for the full effect to become apparent.

Quite frankly I do not see the Legislature repealing the current limits. A much more reasonable approach may have been to look at the 45 mph upper limit, or allowing an area like the Broads to have an exemption. Currently if you ride a sled you have no limit if you are on a frozen body of water, albeit there are reckless operation and other limits that still apply.

But I'm no fool. This proposal if passed as written will mean virtually no enforcement and the President of SBONH knows this. But it will probably be modified and once again have unforseen negative statewide ramifications, as the first Bill did. Coupled with the fact that I know a lot of people voted for the Legislature to tackle spending and tax issues, and not get bogged down right out of the gate tinkering with social issues.

Some enjoyed the thrill unbridled speed brought by boating in the past on Winnipesaukee with no limits. I don't condemn that mindset or the folks that enjoyed it. But a series of unneccesary accidents, whether related to speed or not, convinced the majority that additional rules needed to be put in place to curb abuse.

I may not agree with the 45/30 limits, but they are finite limits that I can easily measure and operate within.

The proposed legislation removes those finite and measurable limits, and subjects me at all times to the whim, fancy and mood that the observing officer may be in. To me that is much more unacceptable than the current law and in the end will be the flaw that leads to it being inexpedient to legislate. Believe it or not many Bills emerge each session from Legislative Services poorly thought out and not ready for prime time. This is just another example of the same.

That's my $.02 and I'll bow out now and consider other people's opinions. However if this Bill does somehow wind its way too far through the process I'll guess I'll have to send my best suit to the cleaners as a trip to Concord will definitley be in my future!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone....

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Skip

This Bill is doomed as its primary lobbying group, SBONH, seems determined to develop it in as much secrecy as possible while the President of the organization wants to throw deceptive press releases to the public, but only discuss the merits on his terms and his website. Trying to control the debate in that matter will only stiffen resistance to him & his organization. I know it has caused me to lose any trust in the organization as long as it is helmed by him!

I hope that the President of the SBONH reads your comments because you are so on the mark!

Thanks Skip!

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Skip

Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.

But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!

Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.

And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.

Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?

But they haven't, as of yet anyway.

I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.

In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.

Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states "...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."

I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".

When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!

Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.

I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.

Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:


SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL

RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:

X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.

So, the first wrong was O.K., but the second is not? Can we say double standard!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

So, the first wrong was O.K., but the second is not? Can we say double standard!

This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have rational and mature debate within these particular threads, and I hesitate to respond.

However....

If you take the time to read and understand my post you will see that I beleive the existing legislation is flawed. And I believe there are some reasonable methods that could be applied to meet a compromise that would be palpable to people on both sides of the equation (as I suggested, relaxing of restrictions in the Broads and rethinking the upper 45 mph limit).

The solution that will never make it through the Legislature is complete repeal of the current speed limit regulations, regardless of the cute phrases used to mask the word "repeal".

I just hope (and challenge) that the President and members of SBONH change course and from this point forward be perfectly honest and open with the public about their intents.

Its known in the political trade as establishing credibility.

Now it is time for me to start preparing for the Pats game and on to a fabulous dinner with family and friends!

Happy Thanksgiving All,

Skip

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Skip

This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have rational and mature debate within these particular threads, and I hesitate to respond.

However....

If you take the time to read and understand my post you will see that I beleive the existing legislation is flawed. And I believe there are some reasonable methods that could be applied to meet a compromise that would be palpable to people on both sides of the equation (as I suggested, relaxing of restrictions in the Broads and rethinking the upper 45 mph limit).

The solution that will never make it through the Legislature is complete repeal of the current speed limit regulations, regardless of the cute phrases used to mask the word "repeal".

I just hope (and challenge) that the President and members of SBONH change course and from this point forward be perfectly honest and open with the public about their intents.

Its known in the political trade as establishing credibility.

Now it is time for me to start preparing for the Pats game and on to a fabulous dinner with family and friends!

Happy Thanksgiving All,

Skip

My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?

Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.

And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.

In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.

SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.

It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.

Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.

Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.

Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....

Skip

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Skip

Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.

And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.

In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.

SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.

It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.

Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.

Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.

Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....

Skip

Skip, I appreciate your response. And not to split hairs here, however, Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are inland waterways and governed by the CG. Now I realize that they border Canada and the CG presence is needed in this situation. None the less, still inland waterways.

Have a great Thanksgiving with your family!

[classic22]

Skip,

This post is a response to some of the questions you raised regarding the proposed Speed limit modification bill that was recently filed.

As you probably know, press releases are not designed to give you every detail of the message it is releasing, by their nature they cannot. It affords the reader to get some basic information, and points them to the SBONH website for further information.

Repeal and replace is verbage used for any bill that exists and is being modified, and is not indicative of the bill itself.

The wording in this legislation is taken directly from the US Coast Guard rule. I think we can all agree that the Coast Guard is the pre-eminent organization regarding boating safety. The Coast Guard and our own State marine patrol use this rule effectively every day on our coastal waters and coastal waters around the country. I have not heard of any complaints of our marine patrol abusing this rule in their enforcement on our coastal waters, so I am confident that this would carry to our inland waters with out concern.

SBONH has consulted with our marine patrol and other marine safety organizations before this bill was drafted.

This bill unlike the law in effect today would become a statewide law, hence the reason for getting state wide support from legislators. But in answer to your question yes the bill does have “lakes region support” with two reps signing on as co-sponsors.

Our organization SBONH is open to all that have an interest in boating safety. Skip, since you have shown an interest, SBONH would welcome you to join us to help shape current and future legislation as we move forward. SBONH has grown in to a well respected organization thru out the state despite what you may hear from a few detractors on this site. Happy Thanks giving every one!

[Bear Islander]

Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) : language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Wikipedia)

Calling legislation that would repeal the 45/30 speed limit a "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL" is doublespeak.

I dislike it when people try and hide their intentions behind politically correct or misleading language. The meat of the current speed limit is in the 45/30 numbers, the rest is fluff. Any legislation that eliminates specific speed limit numbers is a REPEAL. Pure and simple!

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) : language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Wikipedia)

Calling legislation that would repeal the 45/30 speed limit a "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL" is doublespeak.

I dislike it when people try and hide their intentions behind politically correct or misleading language. The meat of the current speed limit is in the 45/30 numbers, the rest is fluff. Any legislation that eliminates specific speed limit numbers is a REPEAL. Pure and simple!

Yes, analogous to supporting a SL bill in a misguided attempt to eliminate a certain type of boat because of its involvement in a personal tragedy. A tragedy whose sequence of events had nothing to do with the boats capabilities, but was a direct result of an impaired captain behind the wheel.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Yes, analogous to supporting a SL bill in a misguided attempt to eliminate a certain type of boat because of its involvement in a personal tragedy. A tragedy whose sequence of events had nothing to do with the boats capabilities, but was a direct result of an impaired captain behind the wheel.

I have said this before, but I guess I have to say it again. Mr. Hartman was a Bear Island neighbor but not a friend. I knew him to say hello to. I have many reasons to support the SL the primary one being children's camps.

This past summer OCDACTIVE stopped by my place on Bear for a beer. We had a nice talk and then he took my son and I for a ride on his performance boat. He even let me take the controls for a short time. It was a lot of fun. If there was a way to exempt him and other responsible performance boaters from the speed limit I would be in favor of it. There isn't.

You may find it easier to believe that speed limit supporters hate performance boats. The truth is more complex.

[BroadHopper]

I seen a number of boaters this summer that is speeding around thinking it is OK as they are under 45 mph. Yet under the circumstances it is not reasonable and prudent! I and others witness this through the 6 pack, graveyard, the narrows at center harbor and even at the Weirs Channel! This has to stop! Some people just don't get it! I even argue with a guy at the Town Docks that just because the speed limit is 45 mph, it does not mean he can speed around the lake as long as he is under 45!

Marine Patrol present this summer is way down. meanwhile the boneheads are having a blast. Because of this I don't feel any safer on the lake with the new law. We need a law with teeth! This modification is a step in the right direction.

[RTTOOL]

Originally Posted by broadhopper

i seen a number of boaters this summer that is speeding around thinking it is ok as they are under 45 mph. Yet under the circumstances it is not reasonable and prudent! I and others witness this through the 6 pack, graveyard, the narrows at center harbor and even at the weirs channel! This has to stop! Some people just don't get it! I even argue with a guy at the town docks that just because the speed limit is 45 mph, it does not mean he can speed around the lake as long as he is under 45!

Marine patrol present this summer is way down. Meanwhile the boneheads are having a blast. Because of this i don't feel any safer on the lake with the new law. We need a law with teeth! This modification is a step in the right direction.

get a life ; broadhopper . You go out of yourway argue with someone at a dock because he was in law .

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

get a life ; broadhopper . You go out of yourway argue with someone at a dock because he was in law .

This guy thinks NWZs and 150 ft rule is irrelevant. He thinks the 45/15 SL law will protect him. Who wants to live now!

[fatlazyless]

howdi....hey check out today's www.cmonitor.com and its' front page "Brakes on boat speed limits" top story along with a boat & water photo....the photo looks like it was taken from an airplane or maybe from the Harry Hood "drink milk" blimp??? Ok, enough with that and on to some highly relevant and intelligent speed limits comments....I'm think'n good today but ain't got nuth'n to say now?

Ok, but here's someone with an intelligent e-mail comment from the bottom of this Concord Monitor front page article.
.........

Marine Speed by hoytbrook 12/02/10 6:38am

As a cottage owner on a small lake and former board member of our protective association, I have personally witnessed some terrifying incidents related to speed. Nearby Sunapee Lake has also had a lot of dangerous boat activity. Lack of recorded arrests and fines is probably due to a lack of manpower on a small staff of marine police. If the new Republican majority thinks that taking away the speed limits in support of a hazy definition of safe operation, they ought to spend a weekend day/night on one of our larger lakes. I wonder if these people have grandchildren who have been endangered by reckless boaters!!!

[VtSteve]

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

Barrett said speed on the lake wasn't a problem before the limits were passed, and the small number of violators suggests to him that it is still a minor concern.

Well we knew that. Interestingly enough, I believe all three accidents (at least 2), were too fast for conditions. I also take exception to people that seem to think the CG rule is vague or hard to interpret.

Any boater that can't understand CG Rule 6, should not be on the water. Period.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Ok, but here's someone with an intelligent e-mail comment from the bottom of this Concord Monitor front page article.

That's funny that you find a comment intelligent. Here is something from the actual article that I found "intelligent":

Originally Posted by David Barrett, who oversees the state Marine Patrol as head of the Division of Safety Services

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast"

and

Barrett said speed on the lake wasn't a problem before the limits were passed

[sunset on the dock]

There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase

BIM recently wrote another in a series of derogatory posts, the last one deriding some of us for saying bad things about him. The above is yet more proof why some of us continue to do so. The entire boating community seems to be doublespeak to you guys. Yet whenever you post, it's not true.

One would think that someone who had claimed to be not only a sailor, but also spent 1,000 or 2,000 hours a season on the water would know something about CG Rule 6.

Instead, he chooses to accuse others of being wild drunks. Nice guy your friend "Ed". I still wonder why the papers allow him to use so many different names

Try to clean up the act boys.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase

A "rumor" apparently created by Ed Chase himself? This is similar bad behavior that TB was caught engaging in. Notice how he never gave a proper response to the insane accusations he posted.

Now who was it that posted a huge thread containing a list of what he said were mean things? That's correct, the very same person that posts lies like the above.

Hint: That's why some of us say things like that about you

These aren't just little white lies meant to be funny, nope, their Giant Big Whoppers of lies that are made up by people fearing that they will be uncovered again. Thankfully, the Big Whopper Lies are being stated in public.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase

The editor of Laconia Daily Sun should have enough journalistic integrity to refuse to print such manure. I have a lot of business aquaintances who advertise in the Sun, so if they keep this up I will urge these people to stop advertising in this rag. While they're at it, I suppose SBONH will sponsor a bill to make everyone sail and kayak naked (and why not drunk too). This will be the next embellishment by ELMOOOSECHASER! I want some of whatever MOOSEMANCHASER is smoking.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase

You can't just make this stuff up. Oh wait, I guess you can!

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have said this before, but I guess I have to say it again. Mr. Hartman was a Bear Island neighbor but not a friend. I knew him to say hello to. I have many reasons to support the SL the primary one being children's camps.

This past summer OCDACTIVE stopped by my place on Bear for a beer. We had a nice talk and then he took my son and I for a ride on his performance boat. He even let me take the controls for a short time. It was a lot of fun. If there was a way to exempt him and other responsible performance boaters from the speed limit I would be in favor of it. There isn't.

You may find it easier to believe that speed limit supporters hate performance boats. The truth is more complex.

Not the ”I’m afraid for the campers” schtick again…I know, I know, all those menacing cowboys in their gawd awful, dangerous, fast and loud boats endangering, no terrorizing those rich and defenseless campers!

Seriously, it’s not complex at all. The needs of the entitled few caused them use their money and influence for their own selfish ends before a quiescent public was fully aware of your grand scheme. It's a sad truth that is repeated all too often in our society. Spin it any way you like, the fact is that the Hathaway accident sparked into motion the arrogance of you and others of the same opinion the desire to eliminate powerboats from the Lake. Performance boats are the only the first type on your agenda. If you had your way there would be no power boats allowed on the lake at all. Except of course for the privileged few like you who own island property.


But you didn’t count on a grass roots group such as SBONH gaining as much traction as they have, did you? It’ll be interesting to see your next move.

[BroadHopper]

We have 20 mph speed limits when approaching schools in NH. We should be able to have 20 mph speed limit aproaching summer camps. Or steer way the heck away from them, which I do for years.

45 mph near a summer camp is way too fast so this 45 mph speed limit is not the best idea to protect the campers. Perhaps placing bouy(s) where boaters have to steer away from the front of the camps is a better method than speed limits? Declaring between bouys and the camps NWZ? That is the step in the right direction. I don't see camps in the middle of The Broads.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Yankee

... those rich and defenseless campers!... ...the Hathaway accident...

1. Of the three camps on or near Bear Island, two are operated by the YMCA and the third by the Girl Scouts of America. Not exactly rich kids camps. And they all offer camperships (free tuition) to low income families.


2. His name was Hartman.

[VtSteve]

BI, I know your opinions for what needs to be changed on the lake, and your vision for the lake in general, is quite a bit more complex and different in many ways than the traditional SL supporter. Some things I agree with you about, others, not so much. But when you don't hide your intentions, it's good to hear them.

I fully understand what happened with the Hartman tragedy, and I only hope there is some way to prevent another tragedy like that one. I disagree with what many proposed as a solution to those problems, which are a curse on waterways everywhere. There are two facets of the case that seem to be prevalent in many of those cases, but certainly not all.

1) Drinking
2) Night time

I suggest people read, once again, the facts of that case, in particular the appeals Judge opinion. I will not drag that case on the thread again.

What's needed everywhere is to get the cowboys and drunks and careless people off the water. The speed limit does not address those people, whether they are being cowboys in a bowrider or a pontoon boat. I fully understand the knee-jerk reaction of people in the cases talked about the most. Unfortunately, the SL supporters did a great disservice by not addressing the facts of the cases, or even the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. They mostly supported legislation because they were angry towards a group of people, a small group at that.

The CG Rule 6 provides LEO's with a great deal of latitude in enforcing the safety aspects of boating. They also form the very basis for my own boating rules. The CG navigation rules apply equally well on inland waterways as they do in the ocean. Obviously, the ocean lends itself to different interpretations and circumstances.

People that don't understand the CG Rule 6 should not be on the water in a boat, IMNSHO. There are many people that boat within the Winni speed limits that also should be talked to my a MP, or simply ejected.

It's really too bad that the people that were overly anxious in getting their little SL law in place, did absolutely nothing else to promote safe boating. They also developed a fairly course relationship with the MP, who would ultimately be responsible for enforcing it. It seems that many problems have been pointed out, but very few solutions proposed. One of the very reasons that an organization was founded to address common sense solutions, for everyone, not just them.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

1. Of the three camps on or near Bear Island, two are operated by the YMCA and the third by the Girl Scouts of America. Not exactly rich kids camps. And they all offer camperships (free tuition) to low income families.

The two YMCA/YWCA camps located on the rising sun side of Bear Island, Camp Lawrence and Camp Nokomis look to be loaded full of campers, while the Girl Scout camp, Camp Monotomy, which is on the mainland opposite Bear Island looks to be a heavily treed wilderness and swampy area from the road and has not been operating as a traditional girls camp for aproximately five years or more. The gate at the entrance is padlocked closed for about 355 out of 365 days/year.

In the past when it was operating it was not unusual to see a few of the girl scout councilors sitting or standing just outside the gate smoking a cigarette which I assume was due to a 'no smoking' policy within camp property.

I tried to find a website for Camp Menotomy, Meredith NH, but with no success.

It is a large large area with a large totally treed and undeveloped waterfront, and presumably pays no property taxes because it is owned by the Girl Scouts. And at the same time, it is a non-operating camp with no Girl Scout campers, councilors, activities.......no-nothing....just a large empty wilderness area that is home to at least one black bear, a number of deer, and a fox or two. The 'no hunting signs' are posted all along the perimeter Meredith Neck Rd.

It is a terrific waterfront area for kayaking, canoing, and fishing. Large big rocks, boulders & outcroppings are pretty common along the waterfront area. It all looks like a set from a King Kong movie or something!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Mr. Hartman was a Bear Island neighbor but not a friend. I knew him to say hello to.

1) He could have been your pilot at American Airlines...and to have retired after forty years as a professional in air travel, he ends up fatally crushed off Bear Island by a professional in the Marina business.

2) Many didn't know him.

http://tinyurl.com/293nwh

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) He could have been your pilot at American Airlines...and to have retired after forty years as a professional in air travel, he ends up fatally crushed off Bear Island by a professional in the Marina business.

2) Many didn't know him.

http://tinyurl.com/293nwh

I know airline pilots who have put in 40, 50 years flying only to get 10 cents on the dollar in pension. Their company went bankrupt. One is working retail for $10 an hour in town.

Mrs Hartmann is a good friend of my girl friend. She ask that the incident do not get dragged into the speed limit debate. Having said this before on this site, the majority of the folks here go by her wish. You and other trolls keep bringing this up!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

...Mrs Hartmann is a good friend of my girl friend. She ask that the incident do not get dragged into the speed limit debate. Having said this before on this site, the majority of the folks here go by her wish. You and other trolls keep bringing this up!

APS didn't bring it up. Yankee did in post #24.

It is usually anti-SL people that bring it up because they believe this is the reason we have speed limits. The truth is they are wrong, but they will not let it go.

My preference is that we drop this subject forever. However, in the future, if someone makes this false claim, expect me to respond.

[BroadHopper]

I apologize in this thread. I'm not about to go to the other threads and see who's first. I'm sick of hearing this bull crap.

I just can't find it a coincidence when WinnFabs was formed shortly after the Littlefield accident. Sandy Helves, one of the WinnFabs founders, is a Bear Island resident and she have brought this accident up in a number of her speeches in the public hearings. Can't say she represent 'Bear Island' as I know a number of residents who are against the SL.

BTW APS, Littlefield is in the insurance business, he is only a nephew of the marina owner. Another accusation.