Transportation votes to scuttle HB 162

Skip · 03-10-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So did the Senate Transporation and Interstate Cooperation Committee take a vote to either recommend or not recommend this bill?

If so anyone know if they voted yea or nay?

By a vote of 4 to 1 the Transportation Committee voted to scuttle HB 162. The story with vote tally appears in today's Manchester Union Leader:

Committee puts brakes on HB 162

The full vote should come up on the Senate floor within the next few weeks.

Skip

fatlazyless · 03-10-2006, 07:33 AM

Too bad about that and better luck next time. Now, if someone could come up with a way that enforcing a speed limit would put more money into the Republican senators' campaign funds than what they get from the GF-BL interests, it would pass in a Concord NH minute!

Senator Bob LeTourneau (R-Derry), the chairman of the Transportation Committee that has been looking at HB-162 dismissed the 45-25 speed limits bill. He said that HB 162 was too broad and that the NH Marine Patrol would not be able to enforce it. That using radar across the waters was not accurate and open to error. The problem is not with speeding on a crowded lake but with not keeping a distance of at least 150'. He said that the supporters of HB 162 were not able to satisfactorily make a case for being in fear of the 32'-8000lb-1150hp boats travelling at 60-70mph and that the existing 150' safe passage law addressed the fear issue. Sounds like he gets his arguing points straight from Woodsy.

Senator LeTourneau recently was the sponsor of a bill that was approved which requires that the phrase "Live Free or Die" to be part of all highway welcome signs right underneath "Welcome to New Hampshire' and to replace the "You're Gonna Love it Here' slogan.

He's a long time motorcycle rider and proponent for the motorcycle helmet optional and automobile seatbelt optional laws.

If HB 162 passed the Senate then it is highly likely that Gov Lynch would sign it, in my opinion. The House knew that it would have to get through the Senate and the Senate knows that their decision really counts here.

As long as the Senate has 16 Republicans and 8 Democrats, a boat speed limit law will never get passed. Republican Senators Joe Kenney and Carl Johnson, neither one a member of the Transportation Commttee, and whose districts include Winnipesaukee waterfront towns of Wolfeboro, Tuftonboro, Moultonboro, Centre Harbor & Meredith are in favor of HB 162. Senator Robert Boyce whose district includes Winnipesaukee waterfront towns of Alton, Gilford and Laconia is against HB 162. Senator Iris Estabrook (D-Durham), a member of the Transportation Committee, was a no-show at the large State House hearing two weeks ago and again at the Transportation Committee vote so she too must be against HB 162, possibly in responce to her commercial fishing constituents.

.....just wait till next year. We'll be back, but it will take a huge sea change in the Senate for an HB 162 speed limit law to get approved so it just ain't gonna happen for years & years, if ever, in my opinion. But, between Bush's unpopularity, Lynch's popularity and some recent Democratic state victories for local Democrats, who knows? Maybe the tide will turn and the NH Republicans will get defeated, big time.

Also, in my humble opinion, with that opinion from Senator Peter Burling (D-Cornish), a Harvard educated attorney, the whole speed limit 45-25 - pass HB-162 effort now looks pretty hopeless. So, it's time to go find some other windmill to tilt at.

Anyone know where I can pick up a 27' twin-hull SKATER with an old pair of carbureted, growling, two-stroke 200hp Mercs with a blown powerhead or something, on the cheap?

Spring is just around the corner here, so I'll be wanting to get out in my new Skater and go buzz some attentive fisherman who's out there a-slow trollin' for a lake trout!

IF THERE'S NO SOLUTION, IT'S BETTER TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM...............................YOOO!

Do I sound angry to you? So, have a great winter and ice-out will be here soon so be carefull out on the Big Lake and watch out for the 75mph GoFast- BeLouds, especially if you're in a kayak.

GWC... · 03-10-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.....just wait till next year. We'll be back!

The ducks are forming their own coalition and this is their leader's comment about HB162.

GWC... · 03-16-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Do I sound angry to you?

No, you just sound like the usual FLL.

Les, less negative enegy and more positive energy and have a great time on the Lake doing your thing, whatever that may be.

Dave R · 03-10-2006, 07:37 AM

Nice to see common sense prevail.

Lakegeezer · 03-10-2006, 08:20 AM

Its not over yet - but it looks like the senate committee understands that this proposal was not the answer. It is too bad that the speed limit fans over hyped the wrong problem and didn't address the true issue of overcrowding and lack of education. With all the publicity of the issue, those who do not know the truth about the lake now believe it is a place to be fearful of. It is, of course, not! The marinas took the wrong side on the issue - and instead, should have downplayed the problem of speed, yet encourage more boater education. I hope some good comes from the heated discussion that has gone on for over a year. Boaters must behave better. They should honor the 150 foot rule. If boaters are going extra fast, they should maintain even more distance than required. We should all be mindful that some boaters (and probably a greater percentage of passengers) have unfounded fears. A little respect to the fearful would be a nice gesture. The right to safely go fast may be preserved for now, but the right to be an @$$ remains against the law. Now - let the two sides come together and work on ways to reduce fear without infringing on the right to the persuit of happiness - which for some, is speed.

Weirs guy · 03-10-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Now - let the two sides come together and work on ways to reduce fear without infringing on the right to the persuit of happiness - which for some, is speed.

Ah, if only it were that easy......

ITD · 03-10-2006, 08:29 AM

Common sense prevails. The damage has been done however. Lake Winnipesaukee's image has been tarnished. It has been portrayed as an unfriendly place where large boats zoom around at 150 mph and women and children are frightened to set foot in the water. It's a shame because it is not true.

I also think the people out there with the illegally loud boats and illegal exhaust switches contributed greatly to this issue especially upsetting some of the island folks. You know who you are and you need to smarten up. Hopefully MP will be able to do more about that problem.

Finally Senators on the committee, thank you, for using common sense and wading through the hype around this matter to make a rational, correct decision. Let's hope that the rest of the senate follows your example.

Woodsy · 03-10-2006, 09:34 AM

Lets not count our chickens before they hatch! Its not over yet...

It seems as if the the Transportation Comittee agrees with us, but I am sure there will be some serious debate on the floor when it comes time for a final vote on this bill. We need still need to stay on top of things and write & call our senators! To be truthful I was/am expecting a "Reasonable & Prudent" amendment to replace 45/25...

Woodsy

SIKSUKR · 03-10-2006, 09:59 AM

Here's WMUR's article. **** http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/7875891/detail.html

JK47 · 03-10-2006, 11:57 AM

Great news! While I'm ardently against the speed limit, I am in favor of a measure to control the excessively loud boats. If you can afford to drop $ 3/4 million on a boat with super-fast engines, you should invest some money in sound dampening material.

My $.02...

jrc · 03-10-2006, 01:17 PM

I agree with JK47. So if this debate has directly or indirectly promoted an enforcable noise law, IMHO it was worth it.

I hope I'm not counting my chickens before they're hatched.

John A. Birdsall · 03-10-2006, 02:29 PM

I think a speed limit and noise limit at night time is very much warranted. 25 knots after dark is plenty fast enough. But I think that the biggest thing is that the 150' law must be adhered to. If we do not have enough MP's on the big lake, then lets increase the registration fees by a couple bucks, and have all types of boats on the lake pay a minimal fee of $2.00 for registration and somehow have that earmarked for MP fees.

Noise from big motored boats is excessive and should be quited down when the lights of the boats come on, and at the same time by limiting speed at night people can hear the nice sounds of all boats on the lake within ear shot.

Common sense is a big cause of fear, or should I have said lack of common sense, and I am not referring to the party that is in fear, but the party that causes it. So my fellow boaters, lets use some common sense, obey the laws that are in place, and treat others as you would like to be treated.

Dave R · 03-10-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

I think a speed limit and noise limit at night time is very much warranted. 25 knots after dark is plenty fast enough. But I think that the biggest thing is that the 150' law must be adhered to. If we do not have enough MP's on the big lake, then lets increase the registration fees by a couple bucks, and have all types of boats on the lake pay a minimal fee of $2.00 for registration and somehow have that earmarked for MP fees.

Noise from big motored boats is excessive and should be quited down when the lights of the boats come on, and at the same time by limiting speed at night people can hear the nice sounds of all boats on the lake within ear shot.

Common sense is a big cause of fear, or should I have said lack of common sense, and I am not referring to the party that is in fear, but the party that causes it. So my fellow boaters, lets use some common sense, obey the laws that are in place, and treat others as you would like to be treated.

Well put John!

Skip · 03-10-2006, 05:57 PM

The first reading to the full Senate of HB 162 will occur next Thursday, 3/16/2006 sometime after 10:00 am.

This is where to go to listen to live streaming audio of the Senate that day if you so desire:

NH State Senate Live audio stream

Transportation Committee Chair Senator Robert Letourneau will be giving the report on that day.

Skip

fatlazyless · 03-10-2006, 07:26 PM

From today's March 10, Laconia Daily Sun, it is the lead story at the top of the front page. Written by Michael Kitch

CONCORD - The Senate Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee yesterday torpedoed the bill to impose speed limits on New Hampshire lakes - House Bill 162 - by a margin of 4 to 1.
All four Republicans on the committee - Robert LeTourneau (Derry), who chairs the panel, Charles Morse (Salem), Robert Flanders (Antrim), and Andre Martel (Manchester) - voted against the bill, leaving Senator Peter Burling (D-Cornish) the lone dissenter. Senator Iris Estabrook (D-Durham) was not present.
The committee met at short notice following a long session of the Senate. Burling said that after Morse offered the motion to kill the bill, Flanders suggested the committee consider an amendment that would delete the specific speed limits of 45 mph, in daytime and 25 mph at night while retaining the requirementthat boats operate at a "reasonable and prudent" speed suited to the prevailing conditions at all times. This approach was favored by the minority of the House Resources, Recreation and Developement Committee and rejected by the House itself.
"There was no interest on either side of the issue for that approach in the Senate," Burling said. Burling said that after floating several suggestions for amendments in an effort to forge a majority, he became convinced that opponents of the bill were not open to compromise. "They were just interested in killing it," he said.
Burling counted no more than eight or nine votes for the bill in the 24-member Senate, four or five votes shy of a majority. He named six of the eight Democrats and two or three Republicans, including Carl Johnson of Meredith and Joe Kenney of Union, whose districts are filled with lakes, in support of the bill.
Despite the unfavorable committee recommendation, HB 162 will still be voted on by the entire Senate.

March 10, 2006, The Laconia Daily Sun, by Michael Kitch

Thankyou Laconia Daily Sun for this informative article. fll

Lakegeezer · 03-10-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Burling counted no more than eight or nine votes for the bill in the 24-member Senate, four or five votes shy of a majority. He named six of the eight Democrats and two or three Republicans, including Carl Johnson of Meredith and Joe Kenney of Union, whose districts are filled with lakes, in support of the bill.

Wow! This is a democratic conspiricy? Looks like I'll have to start voting republican again

JDeere · 03-11-2006, 07:13 AM

The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections.

Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

Seaplane Pilot · 03-11-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections.

Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

Actually, I think it's more a case of the clear, sensible minds prevailing versus the "fear mongers'" campaign to scare everyone into voting for this useless bill. In any case, I think the publicity put forth from both sides of the issue just might have an underlying benefit of making people more aware of what they are doing on the lake. Who knows?

Dave R · 03-11-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections.

Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

You have the role of Senators confused with the role of Representatives. Senators are not supposed to vote based on popular opinion. They are supposed to vote with their wisdom to, for instance, prevent popular but dumb ideas from becoming law. Representatives did exactly what they were supposed to do by voting with the wishes of thier most "vocal" constituents.

lakelovers · 03-11-2006, 11:33 AM

I'm amazed that NH is the only state where "silent choice" option, where one can quiet there boat, is illegal. Most of the loud boats on the lake have exhaust noise levels which are legal. If they were legally able to have the ability to switch the exhaust out through the lower unit, then the lake would be MUCH quieter at night.

I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems.

I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night!

Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

ITD · 03-11-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakelovers

I'm amazed that NH is the only state where "silent choice" option, where one can quiet there boat, is illegal. Most of the loud boats on the lake have exhaust noise levels which are legal. If they were legally able to have the ability to switch the exhaust out through the lower unit, then the lake would be MUCH quieter at night.

I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems.

I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night!

Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

Sorry, I don't agree, the boats that I have heard with these switches go from reasonably quiet to straight pipes, very loud. There is no good reason for this other than excessive noise. Boats should be quiet. As I said before, I think most of the speed limit squawking comes because people are upset about loud boats. If the mentioned boats can be much quieter at night, they should be just as quiet during the day also.

lakelovers · 03-11-2006, 12:34 PM

I respect your opinion, but to say all boats must be quiet is very subjective. What is the definition of quiet? What is the definition of quiet? I have friends on the marine patrol and many of the boats that someone like you would consider aggregiously loud are in fact legal. My friends boat has pipes out the back and his boat is considered legal. I have another friend who has "silent choice" and has had it for 5 years and has never been stopped and his neighbors love him for using it at night.

This question is so subjective, that I would argue that you will never see an enforceable noise law on the lake. So, why make a courtesy switch illegal. It doesn't make any sense.

Just my 2 cents.

Live Free or Die!!!

ITD · 03-11-2006, 01:32 PM

I suppose if the switch were used to switch between the legal sound limit and something quieter it would probably be ok. The law defines what is too loud and is being worked on to make testing easier. Unfortunately most of the boats I've heard with this feature would fail the sound test. What people forget or don't care about with these loud boats is that even the most remote portion of the lake is only a couple miles from shore, so these loud boats disturb hundreds of people when they are out on the broads. I think the law is a good law and the noise laws should be adjusted and improved to allow easier enforcement to quiet the illegal boats down. I'll say it one more time, if the loud fast boats were quiet also, most people would not even notice them and we wouldn't have this speed limit fiasco going on.

Lakegeezer · 03-11-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakelovers

I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems.

I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night!

Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

Agree lakelovers! Innovation and legalization of quieting devices should be encouraged. You can also encourage the fast and loud boats to speed as fast as they want - "so fast that they are quickly come and gone". Of course, there is a link between increased boat speed and increased volume. Engine volume and sound duration is the trade-off. Louder for less time or softer for longer? For example, slow can be a problem too. Have you ever waited for it to become quiet and still again while a 1.5 HP putt putt drones along?

One of the arguments against a speed limit is that the threat of points on the license will encourage the loud boats to go slower - yet they would be almost as loud.

sum-r breeze · 03-12-2006, 03:14 PM

Finally, resonable minds prevail. That's the reason poeple still want to come to the Lake! I think the more times this comes up for discussion, the more opposition it will face.

The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll be waving back!

Evenstar · 03-12-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

Finally, resonable minds prevail. That's the reason poeple still want to come to the Lake! I think the more times this comes up for discussion, the more opposition it will face.

The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll be waving back!

This has nothing to do with reasonable minds. It's politics, and senators who have a narrow view of boating.

What is reasonable about having no speed limit on a busy lake?

Why don't we just do away with highway speed limits as well? After all, auto accidents are not caused by excessive speed, but by inattentive, careless, or drunken drivers.

Powerboaters might still want to come to Winni, but the paddlers are leaving.

Personally, I feel like my freedom to use NH lakes is being tread on.

SAMIAM · 03-12-2006, 07:31 PM

I wish all you speed limit advocates could be with me here in Ft Myers.The Intercoastal Waterway (ICU) on the Caloosahatchee River is a direct line from the Atlantic in Palm Beach to Ft Myers on the gulf coast.The speed limit is 25 mph and the only danger is from the 40' to 100' boats that throw up an enormous wake at that speed.Two of them,meeting in a narrow channel will bring up a 4 to 6 foot chop that will swamp a smaller boat that doesn't have sense to get out of the way....kind of like the channel in back of Bear Island.
The go fast boats leave a two foot wake....and even less when they reach the Gulf of Mexico and get up to the horrifing speeds that you folks are talking about.
My 26' Hurricane deck boat will do a frightening 38mph at wide open throttle.....just so you know.

Airwaves · 03-14-2006, 06:35 PM

According to an article on the AP (copywritten so I can't copy and paste) it says HB 162 appears headed to defeat.

The article says some senators are toying with the idea of removing "tidal waters" from the bill while others are considering limiting it to Winni only, but the AP article (time stamped 1138EST 3/14/06) says the plan, as written, appears to have support of only 9 of 13 senate votes needed for passage.

03-10-2006, 07:33 AM	#2
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,534 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 297 Thanked 958 Times in 699 Posts	....what a shame, but politics is all about risk vs. reward! Too bad about that and better luck next time. Now, if someone could come up with a way that enforcing a speed limit would put more money into the Republican senators' campaign funds than what they get from the GF-BL interests, it would pass in a Concord NH minute! Senator Bob LeTourneau (R-Derry), the chairman of the Transportation Committee that has been looking at HB-162 dismissed the 45-25 speed limits bill. He said that HB 162 was too broad and that the NH Marine Patrol would not be able to enforce it. That using radar across the waters was not accurate and open to error. The problem is not with speeding on a crowded lake but with not keeping a distance of at least 150'. He said that the supporters of HB 162 were not able to satisfactorily make a case for being in fear of the 32'-8000lb-1150hp boats travelling at 60-70mph and that the existing 150' safe passage law addressed the fear issue. Sounds like he gets his arguing points straight from Woodsy. Senator LeTourneau recently was the sponsor of a bill that was approved which requires that the phrase "Live Free or Die" to be part of all highway welcome signs right underneath "Welcome to New Hampshire' and to replace the "You're Gonna Love it Here' slogan. He's a long time motorcycle rider and proponent for the motorcycle helmet optional and automobile seatbelt optional laws. If HB 162 passed the Senate then it is highly likely that Gov Lynch would sign it, in my opinion. The House knew that it would have to get through the Senate and the Senate knows that their decision really counts here. As long as the Senate has 16 Republicans and 8 Democrats, a boat speed limit law will never get passed. Republican Senators Joe Kenney and Carl Johnson, neither one a member of the Transportation Commttee, and whose districts include Winnipesaukee waterfront towns of Wolfeboro, Tuftonboro, Moultonboro, Centre Harbor & Meredith are in favor of HB 162. Senator Robert Boyce whose district includes Winnipesaukee waterfront towns of Alton, Gilford and Laconia is against HB 162. Senator Iris Estabrook (D-Durham), a member of the Transportation Committee, was a no-show at the large State House hearing two weeks ago and again at the Transportation Committee vote so she too must be against HB 162, possibly in responce to her commercial fishing constituents. .....just wait till next year. We'll be back, but it will take a huge sea change in the Senate for an HB 162 speed limit law to get approved so it just ain't gonna happen for years & years, if ever, in my opinion. But, between Bush's unpopularity, Lynch's popularity and some recent Democratic state victories for local Democrats, who knows? Maybe the tide will turn and the NH Republicans will get defeated, big time. Also, in my humble opinion, with that opinion from Senator Peter Burling (D-Cornish), a Harvard educated attorney, the whole speed limit 45-25 - pass HB-162 effort now looks pretty hopeless. So, it's time to go find some other windmill to tilt at. Anyone know where I can pick up a 27' twin-hull SKATER with an old pair of carbureted, growling, two-stroke 200hp Mercs with a blown powerhead or something, on the cheap? Spring is just around the corner here, so I'll be wanting to get out in my new Skater and go buzz some attentive fisherman who's out there a-slow trollin' for a lake trout! IF THERE'S NO SOLUTION, IT'S BETTER TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM...............................YOOO! Do I sound angry to you? So, have a great winter and ice-out will be here soon so be carefull out on the Big Lake and watch out for the 75mph GoFast- BeLouds, especially if you're in a kayak. Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-12-2006 at 10:00 PM. Reason: edit

03-10-2006, 08:20 AM	#6
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Good news Its not over yet - but it looks like the senate committee understands that this proposal was not the answer. It is too bad that the speed limit fans over hyped the wrong problem and didn't address the true issue of overcrowding and lack of education. With all the publicity of the issue, those who do not know the truth about the lake now believe it is a place to be fearful of. It is, of course, not! The marinas took the wrong side on the issue - and instead, should have downplayed the problem of speed, yet encourage more boater education. I hope some good comes from the heated discussion that has gone on for over a year. Boaters must behave better. They should honor the 150 foot rule. If boaters are going extra fast, they should maintain even more distance than required. We should all be mindful that some boaters (and probably a greater percentage of passengers) have unfounded fears. A little respect to the fearful would be a nice gesture. The right to safely go fast may be preserved for now, but the right to be an @$$ remains against the law. Now - let the two sides come together and work on ways to reduce fear without infringing on the right to the persuit of happiness - which for some, is speed. __________________ -lg

03-10-2006, 09:34 AM	#9
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,950 Thanks: 80 Thanked 971 Times in 433 Posts	Lets not count our chickens before they hatch! Its not over yet... It seems as if the the Transportation Comittee agrees with us, but I am sure there will be some serious debate on the floor when it comes time for a final vote on this bill. We need still need to stay on top of things and write & call our senators! To be truthful I was/am expecting a "Reasonable & Prudent" amendment to replace 45/25... Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-10-2006, 09:59 AM	#10
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Looking good! Here's WMUR's article. **** http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/7875891/detail.html __________________ SIKSUKR

03-10-2006, 02:29 PM	#13
John A. Birdsall Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 599 Thanks: 27 Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts	speed limit I think a speed limit and noise limit at night time is very much warranted. 25 knots after dark is plenty fast enough. But I think that the biggest thing is that the 150' law must be adhered to. If we do not have enough MP's on the big lake, then lets increase the registration fees by a couple bucks, and have all types of boats on the lake pay a minimal fee of $2.00 for registration and somehow have that earmarked for MP fees. Noise from big motored boats is excessive and should be quited down when the lights of the boats come on, and at the same time by limiting speed at night people can hear the nice sounds of all boats on the lake within ear shot. Common sense is a big cause of fear, or should I have said lack of common sense, and I am not referring to the party that is in fear, but the party that causes it. So my fellow boaters, lets use some common sense, obey the laws that are in place, and treat others as you would like to be treated.

03-10-2006, 07:37 AM	#5
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,974 Thanks: 246 Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts	Nice to see common sense prevail.

03-10-2006, 08:29 AM	#8
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	Common sense prevails. The damage has been done however. Lake Winnipesaukee's image has been tarnished. It has been portrayed as an unfriendly place where large boats zoom around at 150 mph and women and children are frightened to set foot in the water. It's a shame because it is not true. I also think the people out there with the illegally loud boats and illegal exhaust switches contributed greatly to this issue especially upsetting some of the island folks. You know who you are and you need to smarten up. Hopefully MP will be able to do more about that problem. Finally Senators on the committee, thank you, for using common sense and wading through the hype around this matter to make a rational, correct decision. Let's hope that the rest of the senate follows your example.

03-10-2006, 11:57 AM	#11
JK47 Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 20 Thanks: 0 Thanked 23 Times in 1 Post	Great news! While I'm ardently against the speed limit, I am in favor of a measure to control the excessively loud boats. If you can afford to drop $ 3/4 million on a boat with super-fast engines, you should invest some money in sound dampening material. My $.02...

03-10-2006, 01:17 PM	#12
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	I agree with JK47. So if this debate has directly or indirectly promoted an enforcable noise law, IMHO it was worth it. I hope I'm not counting my chickens before they're hatched.

03-10-2006, 05:57 PM	#15
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Full Senate hearing 3/16/2006 (Report of Committee) The first reading to the full Senate of HB 162 will occur next Thursday, 3/16/2006 sometime after 10:00 am. This is where to go to listen to live streaming audio of the Senate that day if you so desire: NH State Senate Live audio stream Transportation Committee Chair Senator Robert Letourneau will be giving the report on that day. Skip

03-10-2006, 07:26 PM	#16
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,534 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 297 Thanked 958 Times in 699 Posts	'Senate committee torpedoes boat speed bill' From today's March 10, Laconia Daily Sun, it is the lead story at the top of the front page. Written by Michael Kitch CONCORD - The Senate Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee yesterday torpedoed the bill to impose speed limits on New Hampshire lakes - House Bill 162 - by a margin of 4 to 1. All four Republicans on the committee - Robert LeTourneau (Derry), who chairs the panel, Charles Morse (Salem), Robert Flanders (Antrim), and Andre Martel (Manchester) - voted against the bill, leaving Senator Peter Burling (D-Cornish) the lone dissenter. Senator Iris Estabrook (D-Durham) was not present. The committee met at short notice following a long session of the Senate. Burling said that after Morse offered the motion to kill the bill, Flanders suggested the committee consider an amendment that would delete the specific speed limits of 45 mph, in daytime and 25 mph at night while retaining the requirementthat boats operate at a "reasonable and prudent" speed suited to the prevailing conditions at all times. This approach was favored by the minority of the House Resources, Recreation and Developement Committee and rejected by the House itself. "There was no interest on either side of the issue for that approach in the Senate," Burling said. Burling said that after floating several suggestions for amendments in an effort to forge a majority, he became convinced that opponents of the bill were not open to compromise. "They were just interested in killing it," he said. Burling counted no more than eight or nine votes for the bill in the 24-member Senate, four or five votes shy of a majority. He named six of the eight Democrats and two or three Republicans, including Carl Johnson of Meredith and Joe Kenney of Union, whose districts are filled with lakes, in support of the bill. Despite the unfavorable committee recommendation, HB 162 will still be voted on by the entire Senate. March 10, 2006, The Laconia Daily Sun, by Michael Kitch Thankyou Laconia Daily Sun for this informative article. fll

03-11-2006, 07:13 AM	#18
JDeere Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 295 Thanks: 74 Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts	Rome was not built in a day! The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections. Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

03-11-2006, 11:33 AM	#21
lakelovers Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Boat noise - legalize noise exhaust switch I'm amazed that NH is the only state where "silent choice" option, where one can quiet there boat, is illegal. Most of the loud boats on the lake have exhaust noise levels which are legal. If they were legally able to have the ability to switch the exhaust out through the lower unit, then the lake would be MUCH quieter at night. I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems. I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night! Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

03-11-2006, 12:34 PM	#23
lakelovers Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I respect your opinion, but...... I respect your opinion, but to say all boats must be quiet is very subjective. What is the definition of quiet? What is the definition of quiet? I have friends on the marine patrol and many of the boats that someone like you would consider aggregiously loud are in fact legal. My friends boat has pipes out the back and his boat is considered legal. I have another friend who has "silent choice" and has had it for 5 years and has never been stopped and his neighbors love him for using it at night. This question is so subjective, that I would argue that you will never see an enforceable noise law on the lake. So, why make a courtesy switch illegal. It doesn't make any sense. Just my 2 cents. Live Free or Die!!!

03-11-2006, 01:32 PM	#24
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	I suppose if the switch were used to switch between the legal sound limit and something quieter it would probably be ok. The law defines what is too loud and is being worked on to make testing easier. Unfortunately most of the boats I've heard with this feature would fail the sound test. What people forget or don't care about with these loud boats is that even the most remote portion of the lake is only a couple miles from shore, so these loud boats disturb hundreds of people when they are out on the broads. I think the law is a good law and the noise laws should be adjusted and improved to allow easier enforcement to quiet the illegal boats down. I'll say it one more time, if the loud fast boats were quiet also, most people would not even notice them and we wouldn't have this speed limit fiasco going on.

03-12-2006, 03:14 PM	#26
sum-r breeze Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH Posts: 396 Thanks: 155 Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts	That's Feedom 1 Liberals 0 Finally, resonable minds prevail. That's the reason poeple still want to come to the Lake! I think the more times this comes up for discussion, the more opposition it will face. The Breeze Wave 'cause I'll be waving back!

03-12-2006, 07:31 PM	#28
SAMIAM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 2,840 Thanks: 326 Thanked 1,627 Times in 563 Posts	I wish all you speed limit advocates could be with me here in Ft Myers.The Intercoastal Waterway (ICU) on the Caloosahatchee River is a direct line from the Atlantic in Palm Beach to Ft Myers on the gulf coast.The speed limit is 25 mph and the only danger is from the 40' to 100' boats that throw up an enormous wake at that speed.Two of them,meeting in a narrow channel will bring up a 4 to 6 foot chop that will swamp a smaller boat that doesn't have sense to get out of the way....kind of like the channel in back of Bear Island. The go fast boats leave a two foot wake....and even less when they reach the Gulf of Mexico and get up to the horrifing speeds that you folks are talking about. My 26' Hurricane deck boat will do a frightening 38mph at wide open throttle.....just so you know.

03-14-2006, 06:35 PM	#29
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	AP - Votes in the Senate not there According to an article on the AP (copywritten so I can't copy and paste) it says HB 162 appears headed to defeat. The article says some senators are toying with the idea of removing "tidal waters" from the bill while others are considering limiting it to Winni only, but the AP article (time stamped 1138EST 3/14/06) says the plan, as written, appears to have support of only 9 of 13 senate votes needed for passage.