Don't Let SBONH Do Away with the 150'-Rule...

 
Does SBONH not see the reasoning?
 


Another shot:

A skier has dropped off at the right "x", and his tow has returned from the left "x", which he investigated. (The flotsam appeared like a lost mooring buoy). So, during the minute the skipper had abandoned his skier, the skier was a swimmer in a PFD.

(Exposed to the ravages of Ocean-Racer scofflaws—actually worse off than any Winnipesaukee swimmer!)

 

Then let's start enforcing it. We have been going slow and the MP has been right beside us watching a boat come up fast very close. MP never did a thing. If we are not going to enforce it, then why have it?

Why bring SBONH even into this? In no way have we ever advocated the removal of it.

The only time it was ever discussed in the speed limit hearings was to make that point that the 150 foot safe passage law is a speed limit in itself. No where else do they have such a large distance where by you must slow down to headway speed.

You of all people should know this living in Florida as well.

If the 150 ft law were enforced and practiced then there is no need for a redundant law like the SL.

If the MP do not have the resources to enforce a simple law like the 150 foot safe passage law that does not profile a particular type of boat or hurt the general economy, why add another law to add to the enforcement issue?

Makes no sense.

Reminds me of Joe Biden: "we need to pass these gun laws because we cannot enforce the ones we have"

So News Hawk: if you want to have a serious discussion about this than fine. But stop making up falsehoods about SBONH to try to further your agenda. Amy B has already lost all credibility with this forum, you don't want to do the same.

WHL wrote:Then let's start enforcing it.  We have been going slow and the MP has been right beside us watching a boat come up fast very close.  MP never did a thing.  If we are not going to enforce it, then why have it?

Of course, if the Legislature wants to steal funds to buy votes from public employees, what can one do about any lack of NHMP's enforcements?

If the purported violator was the Schmoozer-in-Chief, OCDactive, wouldn't the NHMP give him a "pass"?

I'm confused by two things:

1) The photo hasn't been mentioned. Is it—once again—too "cryptic"?



2) Wouldn't the NHMP know better who would "come up fast very close" and the distance of 150'?

sumrluvr wrote: But stop making up falsehoods about SBONH to try to further your agenda. Amy B has already lost all credibility with this forum, you don't want to do the same.

Here's another way to lose all credibility. When signatures from NH residents are collected in favor of a speed limit, start whining that people from Portsmouth know nothing about Lake Winnipesaukee. Then later when a landslide majority of lake's region state legislators indicate they are pro speed limit, start whining that the lake belongs to everyone in the state (and have Daddy write an op ed).

Had a nice talk with my neighbors yesterday who were fairly active advocates of the speed limit and they brought me up to speed. He/she passed along some interesting info. Here's one more example of lost credibility. Start a group opposed to speed limits then crash your performance boat on the rocks after drinking and then make national headlines. Then someone starts another group opposed to speed limits but brags online about boozing exploits and other law breaking activities.

Amy B wrote:

sumrluvr wrote: But stop making up falsehoods about SBONH to try to further your agenda. Amy B has already lost all credibility with this forum, you don't want to do the same.

Here's another way to lose all credibility. When signatures from NH residents are collected in favor of a speed limit, start whining that people from Portsmouth know nothing about Lake Winnipesaukee. Then later when a landslide majority of lake's region state legislators indicate they are pro speed limit, start whining that the lake belongs to everyone in the state (and have Daddy write an op ed).

Had a nice talk with my neighbors yesterday were fairly active advocates of the speed limit and they brought me up to speed. He/she passed along some interesting info. Here's one more example of lost credibility. Start a group opposed to speed limits then crash your performance boat on the rocks after drinking and then make national headlines. Then someone starts another group opposed to speed limits but brags online about boozing exploits and other law breaking activities.

Nice work again Amy... I see you continue to skip over the Winnfabs and their mission of safety but suddenly after they get their law passed that the experts deem have nothing to do with safety, they disappear.  

Speaking of signatures.. What was cute was the binder Sandy Helve carried around saying it was a petition of over 5000 names collected against SB27. When asked the copy was compared to the copy she provided back when HB 464 was being battled they seemed to be the same petition.  But how could this be? She said these signatures were people against the compromised bill SB 27 that the Marine Patrol director helped write...

Your neighbors must be the experts. As long as they are happy right? Are these the same ones saving their retirement on the cost of ear plugs?

Oh wait.... did you just say: "on the rocks after drinking"..................... Light dawns on Marblehead..... So it wasn't speed as dozens of op-ed letters and testimonies at the speed limit hearings claimed? Wasn't this the basis of why a speed limit was needed? Wait it was Alcohol related and not speed....? Where were the winnfabs press release discussing what really was attributed to the crash.... Oh wait there was nothing because it wouldn't further their agenda? What they did do instead was start a personal attack war on myself and anyone who supported SBONH. By the way I appreciate whether it be you or a member of you group calling my house and beraiding my 3 year old son on the phone... Talking about lack of credibility.

But that is the way you and your cronies play right? Intimidate people. Call Lakes Region State Reps. and threaten their re-elections and even their family businesses (recorded as record on the floor of the House)? Go personal when you have no facts. (thank you for bringing my father into the conversation) Are you saying because I believe in something he can't also have the same beliefs? Wow, how low will you and your group go....?

Thanks for playing though..

PS: Where are the Winnfabs now? You still haven't answered the question. You cry foul about SBONH and accuse them of being a one trick pony but they are still around working on other issues and trying to improve NH's lakes and waterways. The Winnfabs specifically wrote to Improve the Safety of Winnipesaukee in their state charter but what are they now doing to accomplish that? There is a huge enforcement issue due to lack of funding and the new legislature raiding the navigation and safety fund to close their budget deficit. What are the Winnfabs doing about that? What are YOU doing about that? But again why let the facts get in the way. The truth is you are doing NOTHING other than making a fool of yourself on a small public forum trying to push an agenda that the group who pushed it through is defunct. You obviously have not intention of having a rational discussion about anything other than your precious speed limit. So what are you trying to accomplish? Try getting off your ass and actually doing something that may help the lake other than complaining about those who are still involved.

Seriously,

Why do we need a “safe passage” rule to begin with? Think about it. If one boats almost anywhere else in the country, there is no such thing as a 150 foot rule. Is everyone else in the country…heck the world…misguided?

Could it be that here in New Hampshire we a bunch of dishonest boobs in Concord that are more interested in passing feel good legislation in the name of safety instead of actually addressing the problem.

It’s not speed…its impaired operators.

If they adopted an open container law and dumped the “safe passage” it would make the lakes of this state a lot safer. Of course that would hurt tourism…and we wouldn’t want NH to appear to be unfriendly to tourists.

How would dumping the 150 foot rule make things safer?

NH, I know people like to blame lack of money for everything but the MP was right beside us and did not stop this person. So you can't use that excuse.

WHL wrote:NH, I know people like to blame lack of money for everything but the MP was right beside us and did not stop this person.  So you can't use that excuse.

I had a similar situation last year. I was heading from Moultonboro to long island bridge. I slowed down to headway speed at least 100 yards before the bridge because I saw there were people anchored and rafting to my left in the small sandy cove by the bridge. I figure the last thing I want to do is slow down 150 feet in front of the bridge where-by my wake may cause the boats to rock together.

I also look behind me as I start to slow and notice a checkmate coming up fast and a MP boat behind him.

I begin to slow and apparently the checkmate did not like the idea of slowing this far out and jumps off my first wake directly off my stern.

With the MP there I just waited for the lights. I mean how much of a rush are you in? And, can't you see that there are rafted boats with swimmers off to the left?

Well I and my passengers just stop and wait to see justice done...............................NOPE! The MP thought it was more important to go talk to 3 boats rafted together when they should have only had two.! I couldn't believe it. There was no way he did not see this guy 15-20 feet off my stern jumping over my wake as I slowed.

Anyway, it just shows you that it isn't always the infraction that we deem most serious the same as those the MP deal with.

I have to hand it to them though. 99% of the time they are reasonable and just out there doing the best they can.

fshnski wrote:How would dumping the 150 foot rule make things safer?

My point is the “Safe Passage Law” does little to promote safety. It just gives one a false sense of it…much like the speed limit law. 

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Cornelius Tacitus

Most of the country operates just fine without the 150 rule. Like the speed limit, the 150 rule is a peripheral mandate that does not address the problem, just a symptom.

Would it be safer it all boaters had to wear a life vest? YES, well make it law.
Would it be safer if all boaters had to wear a helmet? YES, well make it law.
Would it be safer if the NH speed limit was 5 MPH? YES, well make it law.
Would it be safer if combustion engines were banned? YES, well make it law.
Would it be safer if nobody went in the water above their knees? YES!!! well make it law.


See where I am going here?

The number first rule should always be: Do not operate while under the influence.

Instead we are pushing safe passage and boating certificates. All the knowledge in the world means absolutely nothing when the person behind the helm is three sheets to the wind. Most of the accidents on the lake have been related to alcohol one way or another.

fshnski wrote:How would dumping the 150 foot rule make things safer?

Stories of "close calls" will be a thing of the past.

 

We didn't seem to have too many collisions before the 150' rule, NH. It's just that since it is a law, and I have to obey it, I expect others too. That time, the MP had no one else to give a ticket to sumr. He just probably didn't know the rule. Must have be a new cop? I must also say that I don't think the boating safety classes have done a thing to make the lake safer. I have seen things get worse instead of better since that law passed.

Outerlimits wrote:See where I am going here?

The number first rule should always be:  Do not operate while under the influence.

So the problem is solved?

 

Maybe you missed my YouTube links to Braun Bay.

Outerlimits wrote:[
The number first rule should always be:  Do not operate while under the influence.

A big percentage of all recreational boaters can't have fun without having some alcohol in their system. In fact they can't do anything without being numb by alcohol.

It's a crutch, and the laws of our land seem to overlook what the real problem is...why...because they profit from the sale of it.

You can create all the RSA's you want, but until alcohol is out of the equation then accidents and deaths will happen.

Drugs are also becoming a big factor in a lot of accidents.

Well said Donzel.

OCDactive wrote:You of all people should know this living in Florida as well.

Florida has the country's worst record of boating tragedies: hardly the state to follow with New Hampshire's many skiers, kayaks, canoes, rowboats, inflatables, sculls, and towing-tubes.

OCDactive wrote:"]If the 150 ft law were enforced and practiced then there is no need for a redundant law like the SL.

When "speedboats" were mostly outboards, there wasn't the crush of weekend boaters that we see today—and too many scofflaws from out of the region.

OCDactive wrote:Why bring SBONH even into this? In no way have we ever advocated the removal of it. The only time it was ever discussed in the speed limit hearings was to make that point that the 150 foot safe passage law is a speed limit in itself.

Back when it was legislated, the 150-ft rule applied to all boaters—who, at the time—didn't put Ocean-Racers on an Inland Lake.

I always liked the 150 foot rule because I thought it was ... polite.

News Hawk wrote:

OCDactive wrote:You of all people should know this living in Florida as well.

Florida has the country's worst record of boating tragedies: hardly the state to follow with New Hampshire's many skiers, kayaks, canoes, rowboats, inflatables, sculls, and towing-tubes.

OCDactive wrote:"]If the 150 ft law were enforced and practiced then there is no need for a redundant law like the SL.

When "speedboats" were mostly outboards, there wasn't the crush of weekend boaters that we see today—and too many scofflaws from out of the region.

OCDactive wrote:Why bring SBONH even into this? In no way have we ever advocated the removal of it. The only time it was ever discussed in the speed limit hearings was to make that point that the 150 foot safe passage law is a speed limit in itself.

Back when it was legislated, the 150-ft rule applied to all boaters—who, at the time—didn't put Ocean-Racers on an Inland Lake.  

Where did you get Mmeber OCDactive from? I don't see that name anywhere. Who is he/she anyway?

fshnski wrote:I always liked the 150 foot rule because I thought it was  ... polite.

Very good point—I think it's that local attitude of courtesy that draws people from states like New York and Massachusetts.


Remember New Hampshire's welcoming billboard that once faced traffic driving-in from Massachusetts?

"Drive with Courtesy—It's the New Hampshire Way"

From this blog entry, 'you suppose it's pointed at Massachusetts drivers?

 

"...Shitty in their skills, shitty to each other, shitty on reaction time, and they make shitty decisions. This actually applies to most Massachusetts drivers. A friend and I were driving to Maine, and when you cross the border from Mass into New Hampshire, there's a sign that says "Drive Courteously. It's the NH Way" on the side of the highway. We decided it was just for the Massholes crossing over as a warning to stop driving the way they usually do and remember they are now visitors in someone else's home.

Based on what I see every day, this applies to many boaters—and to most who arrive with Ocean-Racers at Lake Winnipesaukee.

Does SBONH not see the reasoning?



Another shot:
 


A skier has dropped off at the right "x", and his tow has returned from the left "x", which he investigated. (The flotsam appeared like a lost mooring buoy). So, during the minute the skipper had abandoned his skier, the skier was a swimmer in a PFD.

(Exposed to the ravages of Ocean-Racer scofflaws—actually worse off than any Winnipesaukee swimmer!)

OCDactive wrote:Why bring SBONH even into this? In no way have we ever advocated the removal of it.

Never?

 
 

Why is it you cannot understand that every topic "I" discuss does not mean the organization SBONH has the same beliefs?

Also this post clearly is looking for a discussion about how repetitive having both the 150 foot law (a speed limit within itself) and a blanket speed limit overall. (you can see this because it is posed as a question. Hence the "?" at the end)

Posting a thought for a discussion doesn't entail a movement to remove a regulation.

But feel free to discuss that topic if you like.

I still find having both on the books is repetitive and only the 150 ft safe passage is needed. Even then Coast Guard regulations, I feel (not that of SBONH), should be enacted across the country so that there is continuity on all waterways oceans and otherwise.

NH, I asked sumr and I will ask you. Would you please not associate other forum names with someone on this forum. You don't KNOW that these two people are one and the same. It is a form of outing in my mind. And you might be wrong. Just because they sound the same doesn't make it so.

I hope others will follow the same rule. It just isn't fair and causes trouble.