65 mph on the Broads only

[Chubby]

Stop with all of your Connecticut style regulations. It's too loud, you're going too fast, blah blah blah. Leave people alone. Try to remember why you like to live in New Hampshire in the first place.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Stop with all of your Connecticut style regulations. It's too loud, you're going too fast, blah blah blah. Leave people alone. Try to remember why you like to live in New Hampshire in the first place.

We all have different reasons. I like it because it's quiet but that's changing!

[Woodsy]

Ugh.... Here we go again!

The same talking points over and over... go fasts vs. every other possible scenario. The only thing people should be concerned about are accidents... and there have been exactly ZERO daytime accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee where speed was a factor. Both prior to and after the 45 MPH speed limit was enacted. 65 MPH isn't going to make that statistic change.

IMHO, speed doesn't really matter as the NHMP are not draconian in their enforcement with the exception of noise. (I get that) They stop and educate. I think they do a pretty good job.

Kudos to Mike Bordes for listening and at least attempting to make changes.

Woodsy

[Patofnaud]

Ditto on what Woodsy said..

If I recall the speed limit was a reaction to when a certain owner of a certain marina slammed into an island at night while OUI (impaired driver). It had nothing to do with a speed-related accident. Speed was just an additional factor given the impaired state and darkness.

If you want to dump 30 gals on fuel to get across the Broads faster, as long as you keep the DB down, enjoy. But above the waterline open headers for the whole lake to hear, pull 'em over...

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Ditto on what Woodsy said..

If I recall the speed limit was a reaction to when a certain owner of a certain marina slammed into an island at night while OUI (impaired driver). It had nothing to do with a speed-related accident. Speed was just an additional factor given the impaired state and darkness.

Just to be clear, she was never convicted of OUI...she was only convicted of "failing to keep a proper lookout". Many people believe differently and I get that but the fact is a jury who sat through all the proceedings made that decision...

Dan

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

There is already a decibel limit law for all boats in the State of NH...86 dB measured at 50 feet for any boat mfg. before 1978, 84 dB for boats mfg. between 1978 and 1981, 82 dB for any boat mfg. after 1981. Dan

Maybe check on that information?

"Fly-by" dB checks were abandoned for exams at a dock. NHMP now use their meters on the "burble" emitted while boats are stationary.(Which is easily modified later by speedsters determined to be "noticed"). Selective "open-exhausts" were guilefully made legal. (And are regularly abused).

Ironically, "Fly-by" dB exams were abandoned due to the high-speed dangers posed by ocean-racers to the examiners!

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Ditto on what Woodsy said.. If I recall the speed limit was a reaction to when a certain owner of a certain marina slammed into an island at night while OUI (impaired driver). It had nothing to do with a speed-related accident. Speed was just an additional factor given the impaired state and darkness. If you want to dump 30 gals on fuel to get across the Broads faster, as long as you keep the DB down, enjoy. But above the waterline open headers for the whole lake to hear, pull 'em over...

Three lives were changed forever by the "Captain"--the leading cheerleader for unlimited ocean-racer speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee. Because a MD-neighbor was on the death scene almost immediately, victimization was kept to just one fatality. SBONH ("Safe Boaters of New Hampshire)" suddenly went mute.

Their boat's speed could have been easily determined by comparing the extent of damage to their bow and the wide red fiberglass "signature" left at the granite ledge's waterline. Proper alignment to the ledge could be assessed by the mark left on the cottage by their boat's anchor!

The NHMP and Media were mute on such a simple computation.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by ApS

).
Their boat's speed could have been easily determined by comparing the extent of damage to their bow and the wide red fiberglass "signature" left at the granite ledge's waterline. Proper alignment to the ledge could be assessed by the mark left on the cottage by their boat's anchor!

The NHMP and Media were mute on such a simple computation.

There is a much easier way to determine the boat's speed and it was done.

After the accident the boat was barged to Glendale and taken by truck to the Marine Patrol building on 106 in Belmont.

The engine computers leave a record so they were removed and examined. By looking at the engines RPM when the accident occurred they were able to very closely determine the boat speed at the time of the accident.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by ApS

Maybe check on that information?

Sure, here ya go! As far as I know these are the latest revised statutes….

Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 270:37 (2017)
270:37 Decibel Limits on Noise. –
I. No person may operate, sell, or offer for sale any marine engine which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the following noise levels measured under any testing procedure established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39:
(a) For a marine engine manufactured in or before 1990, a noise level of 90 decibels when subjected to stationary testing.
(b) For a marine engine manufactured after December 31, 1990, a noise level of 88 decibels when subjected to stationary testing.
(c) For a marine engine manufactured in or before 1990, a noise level of 84 decibels on the "A'' scale, measured at 50 feet.
(d) For a marine engine manufactured after December 31, 1990, a noise level of 82 decibels on the "A'' scale, measured at 50 feet.
II. The director or the director's agent may order the operator or owner of any boat which he or she has articulable suspicion to believe is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the decibel limits contained in this section to subject the boat to one or more noise level testing procedures as provided in this subdivision or to inspection of the engine and mechanical systems for violations of this section or RSA 270:25.
III. A boat owner or operator shall submit a boat which is the subject of an order by the director or the director's agent pursuant to RSA 270:37, II to noise level testing by the director or the director's agent immediately or at the time and location designated by the director or the director's agent. No person shall operate the boat after the time designated until it is subjected to such noise level testing or engine and mechanical system inspection.
IV. The director or the director's agent may prohibit the operator or owner of any boat which fails a noise level testing procedure from operating the boat until the boat successfully passes the procedure. No person shall operate a boat contrary to such an order of the director.
V. Pursuant to the penalties imposed under RSA 270: 41-a, any person convicted of violating this section shall be fined not less than $250. No portion of any fine imposed under this section shall be suspended or reduced by the court.
Source. 1976, 6:1. 1977, 140:1. 1987, 370:5. 1989, 209:1. 2006, 234:2, eff. June 1, 2006.

Dan

[John Mercier]

I was under the impression that the ''noise'' that is currently being complained about was from on-board sound systems rather than motors.

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I was under the impression that the ''noise'' that is currently being complained about was from on-board sound systems rather than motors.

I'll take the sound of a throaty V-8 over rap music any day

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I'll take the sound of a throaty V-8 over rap music any day

This is not an either/or. Both types of abuses are inappropriate

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

This is not an either/or. Both types of abuses are inappropriate

OK - just my opinion - I will take a moderately loud V-8 over moderately quiet rap music any day.

[pondguy]

No rap crap, Please!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

OK - just my opinion - I will take a moderately loud V-8 over moderately quiet rap music any day.

Ha! Me too!

[Shreddy]

My boat is louder than most since it has a straight exhaust on it yet everyone I pass on boat or land tends to love it. It's amazing the watching the irony of these arguments always come up. I'm just here for the comments

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I'll take the sound of a throaty V-8 over rap music any day

Rap is not music. lol


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[steve-on-mark]

Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife

Rap is not music. lol


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

certainly not the lyric parts, but a lot of the musical parts are " borrowed " from other artists, so it's kinda music... ;-)

[lakewinnie]

Let me apologize right now for introducing rap music (I mean noise) into a thread on the speed limit, My bad.

Hope everyone can get back on track.

[steve-on-mark]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

Let me apologize right now for introducing rap music (I mean noise) into a thread on the speed limit, My bad.

Hope everyone can get back on track.

too late....damage is done! :-)

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by steve-on-mark

too late....damage is done! :-)

“Dr Drip” and “Snoop Doggie Poop”??

You can’t make this stuff up!

Dan

[steve-on-mark]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

“Dr Drip” and “Snoop Doggie Poop”??

You can’t make this stuff up!

Dan

'Lil Wayne is now so old he's changing his name to 'Lil Wheeze.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Ugh.... Here we go again!

The same talking points over and over... go fasts vs. every other possible scenario. The only thing people should be concerned about are accidents... and there have been exactly ZERO daytime accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee where speed was a factor. Both prior to and after the 45 MPH speed limit was enacted. 65 MPH isn't going to make that statistic change.


Woodsy

Really? You are somewhat misinformed.

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. — Aug 2015 WMUR News
Authorities say a swimmer is recovering from injuries he suffered when he was struck by a motor boat in Lake Winnipesaukee.

The State Police Marine Patrol says an 18-foot outboard fishing boat carrying two men struck the swimmer Sunday morning in Moultonborough.

Both occupants of the boat said they saw a person in a kayak, but they did not see the man swimming alongside the kayaker.

The victim was taken onto the fishing boat and brought to shore. He was being treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.

And this is the report from Capt. Dunleavey:. Spoiler alert...the boat was going 65 MPH.

In response to your request we spoke about earlier this week, specifically related to accident on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last ten years. Marine Patrol has completed an extensive manual search of its accident data.

The following accidents have been identified as being related to speeds potentially in excess of limits set by RSA 270-D:2 X:

2013
July 7th 5:00 pm Operator of PWC (Personal Watercraft) fell into handle bars 45 mph
July 20th 8:00am Operator struck underwater object and boat sunk 45 mph

2015
August 23rd 8:17am Powerboat struck swimmer 65+mph

2018
September 2nd 2:56pm PWC fall over board 50 mph


Sincerely,

Timothy C. Dunleavy
Marine Patrol Captain

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Really? You are somewhat misinformed.

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. — Aug 2015 WMUR News
Authorities say a swimmer is recovering from injuries he suffered when he was struck by a motor boat in Lake Winnipesaukee.

The State Police Marine Patrol says an 18-foot outboard fishing boat carrying two men struck the swimmer Sunday morning in Moultonborough.

Both occupants of the boat said they saw a person in a kayak, but they did not see the man swimming alongside the kayaker.

The victim was taken onto the fishing boat and brought to shore. He was being treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.

And this is the report from Capt. Dunleavey:. Spoiler alert...the boat was going 65 MPH.

In response to your request we spoke about earlier this week, specifically related to accident on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last ten years. Marine Patrol has completed an extensive manual search of its accident data.

The following accidents have been identified as being related to speeds potentially in excess of limits set by RSA 270-D:2 X:

2013
July 7th 5:00 pm Operator of PWC (Personal Watercraft) fell into handle bars 45 mph
July 20th 8:00am Operator struck underwater object and boat sunk 45 mph

2015
August 23rd 8:17am Powerboat struck swimmer 65+mph

2018
September 2nd 2:56pm PWC fall over board 50 mph


Sincerely,

Timothy C. Dunleavy
Marine Patrol Captain

Living in the area where the swimmer was struck and knowing people that where involved in responding to the situation, while emergency crews where in route.... I don't believe the 65 MPH for the boat speed is correct. I also believe that the swimmer and kayaker where in the middle of a channel, which isn't exactly the safest place to be swimming... I don't mean this as an excuse of any kind, but to attribute this accident to speed, is not correct.... there where many extenuating circumstances that lead to this issue.

[John Mercier]

So what did the boater have for other extenuating circumstances?
I only question that one because the implication is that Tim provided false information.

[sunset on the dock]

Whatever the circumstances, I suspect Capt. Dunleavey would not have recorded 65 MPH+ without reasonable probability of knowing that this number is correct. And wherever the swimmer was, it shows that at 65 MPH (or so) one's ability to spot and avoid danger is impaired. So what about a skier who has fallen in the Broads? Will he/she be seen? Or are we to give over the Broads just to the speed boaters?

But whatever the circumstances, this flies in the face of Woodsy's assertion that there have not been any daytime speeding related accidents.

Many lakes, Lake George for example, have speed limits. I suspect ours will stand as presently written.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Whatever the circumstances, I suspect Capt. Dunleavey would not have recorded 65 MPH+ without reasonable probability of knowing that this number is correct. And wherever the swimmer was, it shows that at 65 MPH (or so) one's ability to spot and avoid danger is impaired. So what about a skier who has fallen in the Broads? Will he/she be seen? Or are we to give over the Broads just to the speed boaters?

But whatever the circumstances, this flies in the face of Woodsy's assertion that there have not been any daytime speeding related accidents.

Many lakes, Lake George for example, have speed limits. I suspect ours will stand as presently written.

So I am going to here, what I see is you typing a response, indicating that Capt. Dunleavey, made a statement as such, however where is the official document from him stating that..... If I hear it from him, or I see something that indicates it came from other then word of mouth I have no choice but to agree with the statement.

The last time I looked into this accident, there was nothing published from a detailed perspective, only that speed was not the only contributing factor. There was and never has been an argument other than that the Boat operator was at fault, and failed "to keep a proper lookout".... they probably violated the 150' rule etc. etc......

At the end of the day, speed is not the problem... Everyone I have ever known, that has a boat capable of 45+ MPH, doesn't run into crowded areas, or by swimmers and kayakers..... I guess the unfortunate message here, is that responsible people have to pay the price for idiots.... At this point in my life I have no dog in this fight, I happily own a pontoon boat that tops out at about 22 MPH.... but at the end of the day, I hate to see regulations come into play, that give a false sense of security... and that is all the speed limit does......

[sunset on the dock]

Most people would not choose to picnic on the median strip of I-93. Nor do they want to be fishing, sailing, or family boating and have some Go Fast Be Loud boat zoom by them legally at 65+ MPH and only 150' away. We know people push the 45 MPH law. A lot. Give them 65 MPH and they'll push that limit as well. And however one spins it, a boat going 65 MPH did not see a swimmer (unless you're accusing Capt. Dunleavey of being untruthful...though you seem to be indicating such. Perhaps you need to contact the MP and further inform us).
As noted earlier by me, 80% of the NH House supported 45/30 with an even higher percentage of reps from towns bordering the lake. These reps listened to their constituents.

[lakewinnie]

I don't know how many times I have posted this view, but I still believe that wakeboats throwing monster wakes are much more of a safety issue than performance boats going faster than 45 mph. That's been what I have observed on the lake over the past 30+ years. I'm not saying we should ban certain boats or pass more ridiculous laws that make people feel good but do not solve any problems, but to say "go fast be loud" boats are a safety issue, in isolation, is not a fair statement (I believe).

i would rank most dangerous as follows:

1) Drunks
2) Drunks
3) Drunks
4) Operator not paying attention
5) Wake boats throwing huge wakes
6) Monster cabin cruisers throwing big wakes

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I don't know how many times I have posted this view, but I still believe that wakeboats throwing monster wakes are much more of a safety issue than performance boats going faster than 45 mph. That's been what I have observed on the lake over the past 30+ years. I'm not saying we should ban certain boats or pass more ridiculous laws that make people feel good but do not solve any problems, but to say "go fast be loud" boats are a safety issue, in isolation, is not a fair statement (I believe).

i would rank most dangerous as follows:

1) Drunks
2) Drunks
3) Drunks
4) Operator not paying attention
5) Wake boats throwing huge wakes
6) Monster cabin cruisers throwing big wakes

I agree that alcohol, wake boats and the other things on your list are problems. But they are not in question here, so they are beside the point...

There's no doubt that the Be Loud aspect is a big reason for the opposition to keeping the speed limit as-is. It's kind of funny that the folks who want to increase the limit keep ignoring/dismissing this and asserting that safety is the ONLY reason, then through up a whole bunch of smoke around safety.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I agree that alcohol, wake boats and the other things on your list are problems. But they are not in question here, so they are beside the point...

There's no doubt that the Be Loud aspect is a big reason for the opposition to keeping the speed limit as-is. It's kind of funny that the folks who want to increase the limit keep ignoring/dismissing this and asserting that safety is the ONLY reason, then through up a whole bunch of smoke around safety.

They could include a limit on noise within the proposal, and that may get them more votes.
I wouldn't use the previous argument as number 4 is not going to be improved with higher rates of travel.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They could include a limit on noise within the proposal, and that may get them more votes.

There is already a decibel limit law for all boats in the State of NH...

86 dB measured at 50 feet for any boat mfg. before 1978, 84 dB for boats mfg. between 1978 and 1981, 82 dB for any boat mfg. after 1981

Dan

[John Mercier]

Then the may need a kicker in the proposal for more enforcement.

If the major argument is speed, they would need to have a trial period to test if the 45mph is really necessary... that can easily be placed in the bill with a sunset clause.

But it may not be enough without enhancing enforcement on the other issues that keep them from getting the number of votes necessary to get it out of committee with an OTP.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If the major argument is speed, they would need to have a trial period to test if the 45mph is really necessary... that can easily be placed in the bill with a sunset clause.

This exact trial period was done years ago before the speed limit was enacted...If your bored...very bored...look through the speed limit debate archives for all the pertinent information regarding this.

Dan

[Garcia]

After much debate and deliberation, the speed limit was passed. Since then, the number of boats and jet skis has increased dramatically. It's a fools errand to change the speed limit. Time to let it go and move on.

[John Mercier]

Not very bored.
But I would presume that all the issues relating to the entire lake would not come into play for just the Broads.

Radio/stereo use is a newer issue. Not really related to speed. But maybe enough to get more committee members on-board with at least a trial change in the limit.

As I noted with my tenure for the OHRV... the issues, though seemingly the same, change dramatically over just a few years. Technology changes, usage patterns change, number of vehicles change...

But not sure that it changes that much from one legislative session to the next...

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Really? You are somewhat misinformed.

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. — Aug 2015 WMUR News
Authorities say a swimmer is recovering from injuries he suffered when he was struck by a motor boat in Lake Winnipesaukee.

The State Police Marine Patrol says an 18-foot outboard fishing boat carrying two men struck the swimmer Sunday morning in Moultonborough.

Both occupants of the boat said they saw a person in a kayak, but they did not see the man swimming alongside the kayaker.

The victim was taken onto the fishing boat and brought to shore. He was being treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.

And this is the report from Capt. Dunleavey:. Spoiler alert...the boat was going 65 MPH.

In response to your request we spoke about earlier this week, specifically related to accident on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last ten years. Marine Patrol has completed an extensive manual search of its accident data.

The following accidents have been identified as being related to speeds potentially in excess of limits set by RSA 270-D:2 X:

2013
July 7th 5:00 pm Operator of PWC (Personal Watercraft) fell into handle bars 45 mph
July 20th 8:00am Operator struck underwater object and boat sunk 45 mph

2015
August 23rd 8:17am Powerboat struck swimmer 65+mph

2018
September 2nd 2:56pm PWC fall over board 50 mph


Sincerely,

Timothy C. Dunleavy
Marine Patrol Captain

I stand corrected... Thank you!

4 total accidents where speed may have been a factor, but only 1 accident over the actual speed limit and it involved an 18' bass boat, not a go fast boat.

Hundreds of thousands of hours annually boated on just Winnipesaukee, probably well over 1 million hours collectively since after the law was passed... and we have exactly 1 accident! Hardly a cause for alarm or a law.

Now we don't know all the details of said accident, fishing boat saw kayak but not swimmer? How far away from the kayak was the swimmer? There is no doubt in my mind it was 100% negligent operation on the boat driver, (I would guess he was into the 150' bubble) and although speed might have been a factor, it was not the primary cause.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I stand corrected... Thank you!

4 total accidents where speed may have been a factor, but only 1 accident over the actual speed limit and it involved an 18' bass boat, not a go fast boat.

Hundreds of thousands of hours annually boated on just Winnipesaukee, probably well over 1 million hours collectively since after the law was passed... and we have exactly 1 accident! Hardly a cause for alarm or a law.

Now we don't know all the details of said accident, fishing boat saw kayak but not swimmer? How far away from the kayak was the swimmer? There is no doubt in my mind it was 100% negligent operation on the boat driver, (I would guess he was into the 150' bubble) and although speed might have been a factor, it was not the primary cause.

Woodsy

The law does not signify a specific type of vessel. And only one accident with over one million hours since the law was passed would signify that the law may be working.

It would need to be compared to a time prior to the laws enactment, or should it be changed the period after the enactment to determine its effectiveness.

If the results before the law, or after a change, are the same or improved... then the law would be deemed to not have been effective.

It is really insignificant, since the vote is unlikely to change.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The law does not signify a specific type of vessel. And only one accident with over one million hours since the law was passed would signify that the law may be working.

It would need to be compared to a time prior to the laws enactment, or should it be changed the period after the enactment to determine its effectiveness.

If the results before the law, or after a change, are the same or improved... then the law would be deemed to not have been effective.

It is really insignificant, since the vote is unlikely to change.

You were clearly not here for the last go around... prior to the speed limit, there were no accidents where speed was the primary cause of the accident, although, just as above there were accidents where speed was a factor. But there are not enough accidents to impose restrictions in an area where visibility is measured in miles.

Most of the boating accidents occur at night and involve alcohol & poor decisions.

The reality is, if someone is going to rip around the Broads at 65 its a big bunch of nothing. The odds of getting stopped for that are the same as getting stopped for going 75 on 93. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The NHMP has better things to do than worry about a fast boat in the Broads.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You were clearly not here for the last go around... prior to the speed limit, there were no accidents where speed was the primary cause of the accident, although, just as above there were accidents where speed was a factor. But there are not enough accidents to impose restrictions in an area where visibility is measured in miles.

Most of the boating accidents occur at night and involve alcohol & poor decisions.

The reality is, if someone is going to rip around the Broads at 65 its a big bunch of nothing. The odds of getting stopped for that are the same as getting stopped for going 75 on 93. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The NHMP has better things to do than worry about a fast boat in the Broads.

Woodsy

I can see that last vote. And know that since the imposition of the new limit that the number of vessels has increased. So my expectations is that it will ITL in committee and die on the House Floor.

I see no reason as to expect anything else.