Windermere 10mph speed limit (UK)
Ian Wright
>> Not everyone enjoys boating at a speed that's just above a fast walking
pace. Can you say B-O-R-I-N-G? <<
Speed on its own is not the issue, NOISE is. Invent a quiet ski-boat
or a silent jetski, (Oh! Happy thought!) and most of the fuss will die down.
Are you familiar with the concept of "quiet enjoyment"?
--
Ian Wright
Planet Nik
In article <uBpTUTt...@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>, Ian Wright
<11333...@CompuServe.COM> writes
I can appreciate the noise, but it is only ONE lake out of an entire
region. Everywhere else has banned power boats or imposed a 10mph limit.
If Windermere imposes a 10mph limit there will be *no where* else to go.
:(
Nick
--
Nick Smeltzer CNE
ni...@greenhse.demon.co.uk (home)
nsme...@groundwork.org.uk (work)
ICQ: 2030895
Dave Hall
> In article <uBpTUTt...@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>, Ian Wright
> <11333...@CompuServe.COM> writes
> >
> >>> Not everyone enjoys boating at a speed that's just above a fast walking
> >pace. Can you say B-O-R-I-N-G? <<
> >
> > Speed on its own is not the issue, NOISE is. Invent a quiet ski-boat
> >or a silent jetski, (Oh! Happy thought!) and most of the fuss will die down.
> > Are you familiar with the concept of "quiet enjoyment"?
>
If speed is not the issue, then why the 10 MPH limit? My boat runs at
about 1500 RPM at 10 MPH, throws up a huge wake, and sends out almost as
much noise as it does at 3000 RPM and 38 MPH. If noise were truly the
REAL issue, then tighten the noise restrictions, not impose a speed
limit.
Dave
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Dave Hall wrote:
> If speed is not the issue, then why the 10 MPH limit? My boat runs at
> about 1500 RPM at 10 MPH, throws up a huge wake, and sends out almost as
> much noise as it does at 3000 RPM and 38 MPH. If noise were truly the
> REAL issue, then tighten the noise restrictions, not impose a speed
> limit.
Now you're actually talking sense. I know of a few lakes which simply
have a horsepower limit, which takes care of both noise and speed. There
are others where no motors at all are allowed (unfortunately for me,
most of these are reservoirs too small for decent sailing).
Unfortunately noise restrictions are hard to enforce, and once an
enforcement officer is given a hard time in court the becomes much less
willing to enforce that particular law. Lake Jordan has both speed and
noise limits, and yet there are several jetboats with header and
straight pipe exhausts that sound like a bomber taking off (and the lack
of a muffler is highly illegal). The park rangers just shake their heads
(and hold their hands over their ears).
Some lakes have tried to establish a traffic pattern for crowded summer
weekends. This is only a half-measure. There are still too many
collisions and a huge number of scary near misses. Several people I know
simply don't go out anymore at those times; a few sailors, and few
fishermen, and at least one serious waterskier.
So do you have any good answers?
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Larry KN4IM
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>Some lakes have tried to establish a traffic pattern for crowded summer
>weekends. This is only a half-measure. There are still too many
>collisions and a huge number of scary near misses. Several people I know
>simply don't go out anymore at those times; a few sailors, and few
>fishermen, and at least one serious waterskier.
>
>So do you have any good answers?
>
>Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Geez, how lucky I am to live in Coastal South Carolina. I take the
ICW north of Charleston 15 miles and I can have my own MILE of beach
without a single condo, mansion, millionaire screaming from a property
value enhancement dock (he never owned a boat or fished), and either
make all the noise my SeaRayder wants or sit quietly on MY beach
listening to the birds and watching the sea turtles excavating nests.
Is MONEY, as I suspect, the reason you people live where some
bureaucrat decides whether you ride counterclockwise or clockwise in
bumper to bumper traffic like the freeways?? What is the POINT of
owning a boat there??
When you get fed up with it, I have 3200 miles of navigable waterways
within 50 miles of my keyboard. There's plenty of room for everybody
and most times you only wait for one guy launching his BubbaBoat with
the 300hp outboard. Don't worry about 2-stroke restrictions,
BubbaBoat is a state senator who learned to drive a 2hp Elto his
grandfather gave him. If you recognize him, kinda help him launch or
hold his boat for him and thank him for the BRAND NEW launch ramps all
over the county that are FREE....(c;
Larry, in Charleston, SC. Don't get too far out in The Lowcountry.
There's NO gas pumps in paradise.
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Hi Larry-
Sorry I didn't see the other posts about the ACS URL you posted. I'd
like to check this out when it comes back on-line.
I'm sure a lot of my posts regarding wake, pollution, collision hazard
etc. of motorboats has irritated many, but it's not mindless "sailboater
elitism." Evidently you also prefer to not enjoy the water in company
with 5,000 noisemakers zipping around mindlessly. I don't mind them
doing it, but I'd rather not get run over, and I'd like at least some
kind of consideration for noise, wake, pollution, etc. The stupid
bureaucratic trsaffic rules only apply on crowded weekends, when I'm
likely to be elsewhere. Besides, one good thing about sailing is that
you must go by the wind, not stupid traffic rules.
Your advice is sort of like my advice to the starving people in Ethiopa-
"Move. We have deserts here in the States, too, but we don't try to live
there!"
Charleston is a great place to sail, I've been down there many times
racing in the harbor, and daysailing from James Island, and also cruised
that stretch of the ICW many times. The Cape Romain area is beautiful
and unspoiled. I wish more of the N.C. coast was like that!
As for moving to S.C., I was stationed down there years ago (Navy). I'm
looking to move somewhere new and (hopefully) even better. Right now I'm
trying to talk my wife into emigrating to New Zealand...
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Vern...@compuserve.com
> If speed is not the issue, then why the 10 MPH limit? My boat runs at
> about 1500 RPM at 10 MPH, throws up a huge wake, and sends out almost as
> much noise as it does at 3000 RPM and 38 MPH. If noise were truly the
> REAL issue, then tighten the noise restrictions, not impose a speed
> limit.
>
> Dave
The issue with Windermere has been going on since at least 1991 and will
not go away. The IWSF has started an Environmental Commission to deal
with these issues and the AWSA has been gathering quite a bit of
information as well. Our problem is that we are a weak lobby group.
The British Water Ski Federation published a document in 1993 regarding
Waterskiing and the Environment (in conjunction with the UK Sports
Council). It is a comprehensive review that includes studies on Noise,
Emissions and Discharges, Wildlife Disturbance, Hydrological and
Geomorphological Impact as well as new developments and future trends.
This pamphlet was not only written to battle the Windermere problem but
also problems that materialize elsewhere in the world and, it needs
updating.
However, if anyone is interested in the material, I would recommend that
you contact the British Water Ski Federation. It is good reading but, as
well, can assist you in battles that you WILL have for your pond in the
next few years.
Oh yes, and BTW, the Windermere issue arose shortly after the advent of
PWC's becoming abundant on those waters.
Vern
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ian Wright
Dave Hall Wrote
>>If speed is not the issue, then why the 10 MPH limit?<<
Because it would have the desired effect,i.e. send the noise makers
elsewhere. If jet-skiers can run but only at slow speed they will find
somewhere else to play.
When Coniston cleaned up it's act they did it with a speed limit, 8kts I
think. After one or two skiers did a protest run within the limit on VERY
large skis they found it was no fun and went away.
There are lots of worked out gravel and clay pits away from normal
people where noisy craft can run without being a nuisance.
--
Ian Wright
Planet Nik
In article <883426206....@dejanews.com>, Vern...@compuserve.com
writes
>The issue with Windermere has been going on since at least 1991 and will
>not go away. The IWSF has started an Environmental Commission to deal
>with these issues and the AWSA has been gathering quite a bit of
>information as well. Our problem is that we are a weak lobby group.
You are not kidding! You wouldn't begin to imagine the difficulty I've
had in getting 'proffesionals' interested! The 2 leading power boat
magazines (Motor Boat Monthly & Motor Boat & Yachting) won't publish an
article against the 10mph ban as they say they aren't allowed to side
with any particular group! I mean a power boat magazine can't be seen to
be against a 10mph speed limit!? I wrote to the Lake District National
Park but they didn't even bother to respond. The British Marine
Industries Federation haven't responded either. In fact the only group
who have bothered to offer me any advice on this matter has been the
British Water Ski Federation.
If all those who have a vested interest in power boating can't get off
thier backsides to do something about this 10mph ban then we may as well
give in now!
We only have till Feb 6th to voice an opinion... :(
Dave Hall
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>
> Dave Hall wrote:
> > If speed is not the issue, then why the 10 MPH limit? My boat runs at
> > about 1500 RPM at 10 MPH, throws up a huge wake, and sends out almost as
> > much noise as it does at 3000 RPM and 38 MPH. If noise were truly the
> > REAL issue, then tighten the noise restrictions, not impose a speed
> > limit.
>
> have a horsepower limit, which takes care of both noise and speed. There
> are others where no motors at all are allowed (unfortunately for me,
> most of these are reservoirs too small for decent sailing).
>
> Unfortunately noise restrictions are hard to enforce, and once an
> enforcement officer is given a hard time in court the becomes much less
> willing to enforce that particular law. Lake Jordan has both speed and
> noise limits, and yet there are several jetboats with header and
> straight pipe exhausts that sound like a bomber taking off (and the lack
> of a muffler is highly illegal). The park rangers just shake their heads
> (and hold their hands over their ears).
>
> weekends. This is only a half-measure. There are still too many
> collisions and a huge number of scary near misses. Several people I know
> simply don't go out anymore at those times; a few sailors, and few
> fishermen, and at least one serious waterskier.
>
> So do you have any good answers?
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Well this is the way I see it. It is simply NOT fair to restrict or ban
any one group or type of watercraft. everyone has the right to the
pursuit of their enjoyment. Giving preference (or prohibition) is simply
discrimination. That being said, what has worked well on a fairly small
lake in my area has been a simple boat number restriction. There is ONE
access ramp, with a certain number of parking spaces. When the parking
lot is full, the attendant lowers the gate, and no more people can get
in to launch. As people pull out, they let another in for every one that
pulls out. That way there are never more than a certain amount of boats
on any given day. I consider this a fair arrangement, since sailboats,
skiboats, fishing boats and jetskis all have the same chance to get on
the lake. Needless to say, if you want to get a spot on the lake on the
weekend, you have to be there early.
Dave
Dave Hall
Larry KN4IM wrote:
> Geez, how lucky I am to live in Coastal South Carolina. I take the
> ICW north of Charleston 15 miles and I can have my own MILE of beach
> without a single condo, mansion, millionaire screaming from a property
> value enhancement dock (he never owned a boat or fished), and either
> make all the noise my SeaRayder wants or sit quietly on MY beach
> listening to the birds and watching the sea turtles excavating nests.
>
> Is MONEY, as I suspect, the reason you people live where some
> bureaucrat decides whether you ride counterclockwise or clockwise in
> bumper to bumper traffic like the freeways?? What is the POINT of
> owning a boat there??
A simple problem, too many people per sq/in of waterway.
>
> When you get fed up with it, I have 3200 miles of navigable waterways
> within 50 miles of my keyboard. There's plenty of room for everybody
> and most times you only wait for one guy launching his BubbaBoat with
> the 300hp outboard. Don't worry about 2-stroke restrictions,
> BubbaBoat is a state senator who learned to drive a 2hp Elto his
> grandfather gave him. If you recognize him, kinda help him launch or
> hold his boat for him and thank him for the BRAND NEW launch ramps all
> over the county that are FREE....(c;
>
> Larry, in Charleston, SC. Don't get too far out in The Lowcountry.
> There's NO gas pumps in paradise.
I have yet to find the Chesapeake Bay to be really crowded, and due to
the regular amount of commercial (Read: Freighters and Oil tankers)
traffic, I doubt if there will be any restictions there. I just wish I
lived a little closer, as it is about an hour and a half trip for me,
but worth it! Other closer bodies of water consist of smaller rivers an
lakes. One lake has a 10 HP limit (bummer!), another has enacted a 45
MPH speed limit on weekends (livable), the rest are fairly open. Since
these rivers are fairly narrow, there is not alot of interest by the
sailboat crowd, which is probably why the rest of us get to enjoy the
river without complaints......
Dave
Planet Nik
In article <e18M41L...@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com>, Ian Wright
<11333...@CompuServe.COM> writes
> Dave Hall Wrote
>
> >>If speed is not the issue, then why the 10 MPH limit?<<
>
>elsewhere. If jet-skiers can run but only at slow speed they will find
>somewhere else to play.
> When Coniston cleaned up it's act they did it with a speed limit, 8kts I
>think. After one or two skiers did a protest run within the limit on VERY
>large skis they found it was no fun and went away.
> There are lots of worked out gravel and clay pits away from normal
>people where noisy craft can run without being a nuisance.
Thats just a typical selfish anti-power attitude!
"There are lots of worked out gravel and clay pits away from normal
people..." are you including your self here? As a power boat owner who
wants to ski am I abnormal?
Since you obviously know of some, could you possibly email the group (or
me so I can forward it) a list of gravel/clay pits in the UK where a
person is allowed to waterski or jet ski. I have looked and so far I
have not found a single water in the entire NW of England except
Windermere. I would be grateful...
Cheers,
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
It's easy to see discrimination when somebody wants to stop you from
doing something for reasons you don't agree with. The matter can't be
considered logically (from both sides, that is) until we have an
agreed-on set of principles. To me, it's unfair to let people go fast
when that constitutes 1-a restriction on what other people can enjoy
(due to noise and wakes) and 2-a hazard to the other people (due to the
much greater risk of collision at higher speed). It also limits the
number of other people that can enjoy the given body of water, because
if all else is equal faster boats need more room (this is true of
sailboats, too. Watch a catamaran race then compare it to the kids in
Optis)
> kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
(after a brief episode of name-calling initiated by the motorboaters)
> > So do you have any good answers?
Dave Hall wrote:
> Well this is the way I see it. It is simply NOT fair to restrict or ban
> any one group or type of watercraft. everyone has the right to the
> pursuit of their enjoyment. Giving preference (or prohibition) is simply
> discrimination. That being said, what has worked well on a fairly small
> lake in my area has been a simple boat number restriction. There is ONE
> access ramp, with a certain number of parking spaces. When the parking
> lot is full, the attendant lowers the gate, and no more people can get
> in to launch. As people pull out, they let another in for every one that
> pulls out.
I could live with this system easily, especially if the park attendants
are willing to enforce safety rules on the water.
The fast boat situation is roughly comparable to the situation facing
high-power firearm target shooters; with the exception that all the
target shooters I know or have ever heard of are extremely aware of and
take pro-active measures to protect the safety of any possible
bystanders. My hat is off to the motorboaters who have the same
approach...
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
kent culpepper
you just move to another! Plenty of sites to go around, year round!
Paul Kamen
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu writes:
>It's easy to see discrimination when somebody wants to stop you from
>doing something for reasons you don't agree with. The matter can't be
>considered logically (from both sides, that is) until we have an
>agreed-on set of principles...
Right. So let's see if we can formulate a set of "watercraft use goals"
for a hypothetical body of water that's small, picturesque, and popular.
Here's a first draft:
1) allow use by largest possible number of people.
2) allow use by people of all income levels.
3) allow maximum diversity of use.
4) minimize danger to users at maximum use density.
5) preserve attractive natural setting.
Anybody have additions to this list? Or think some of these goals are not
justified?
Anyway it should be obvious where this is leading us. High speed
operation seems to address only goal #3, while working to the detriment
of all of the others.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Dave Hall
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> kpk...@acpub.duke.edu writes:
>
> >It's easy to see discrimination when somebody wants to stop you from
> >doing something for reasons you don't agree with. The matter can't be
> >considered logically (from both sides, that is) until we have an
> >agreed-on set of principles...
>
> Right. So let's see if we can formulate a set of "watercraft use goals"
> for a hypothetical body of water that's small, picturesque, and popular.
>
> Here's a first draft:
>
> 1) allow use by largest possible number of people.
If the majority of boaters are powerboaters, then a speed limit
restricts them. How many small runabouts that you know, run them below
planing speed (except in no wake zones)?
> 2) allow use by people of all income levels.
> 3) allow maximum diversity of use.
Skiing, tubing, wakeboarding, Jetskiing all require a speed above 10
MPH. So a speed limit is counter to this requirement.
> 4) minimize danger to users at maximum use density.
Is there a record of any accidents involving ski boats? I'd venture to
say that there probably isn't. The danger is only in the imagination of
those who just don't like powerboats.
> 5) preserve attractive natural setting.
Powerboats do not disrupt the natural setting. In fact, if I was forced
to run my boat at 10 MPH my wake would be 3 times as high as it is at 40
MPH, so a 10 MPH limit is counterproductive there.
>
> Anybody have additions to this list? Or think some of these goals are not
> justified?
How about :
6:) contribute to the total enjoyment of a particular activity.
and.....
7:) it's the ONLY body of water left in that area that allows powerboat
activity.
There are other lakes in that area that have already restricted
powerboat usage. Don't these people deserve ONE place that they can call
home?
>
> Anyway it should be obvious where this is leading us. High speed
> operation seems to address only goal #3, while working to the detriment
> of all of the others.
In YOUR opinion, I think otherwise, and unless someone can come up with
some HARD facts to prove it, I will continue to think otherwise.
> --
> fish...@netcom.com
> http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
So what do you consider high speed? Skiing does not require speeds over
35 MPH, and to my way of thinking, that is not high speed. Jetskis
running in circles, jumping wakes etc, also do not require what I would
consider "high speed". Speed is not the issue here. The people bitching
just don't like jetskis and boats that run around and around in a fairly
small area. This is purely a subjective issue. One of annoyance, not
safety. Let's make sure we see the REAL root cause here. All these
issues about danger, environment, speed yada-yada-yada, are all a bunch
of B.S. The bottom line is who has the biggest influence on the power of
the lawmakers. If the powerboaters would all ban together to make sure
that any lawmaker signing this restriction, would be voted out of
office, Guess what? No speed limit..........
Dave
Paul Kamen
Dave Hall <nojunkmai...@worldlynx.net> writes:
>> 1) allow use by largest possible number of people.
>If the majority of boaters are powerboaters, then a speed limit
>restricts them.
Only if the damand for use by other than powerboaters is so small that
there would be fewer total users if the powerboaters were restricted.
Seems unlikely for the hypothetical lake I've described, and even less
likely for Lake Winderemere.
Remember, the goal is to maximize use. Compared to fast powerboats, you
can fit an order of magnitude more sailboats and paddlecraft onto a small
lake without seriously interefering with each other.
>> 2) allow use by people of all income levels.
>> 3) allow maximum diversity of use.
>Skiing, tubing, wakeboarding, Jetskiing all require a speed above 10
>MPH. So a speed limit is counter to this requirement.
Kayaks, canoes, rowboats and small sailboats represent the bottom end of
the cost of on-the-water activity. It's the powerboaters who are being the
elitists here, if they make the argument that power and speed somehow
translate to diversity and access for all.
>> 4) minimize danger to users at maximum use density.
>Is there a record of any accidents involving ski boats?...
You've got to be kidding. I've made a lot of money as an expert witness
for a number of boating accidents involving ski boats, some of them
fatal. Don't know about Lake Winderemer specifically, but there's no
reason to assume that it's any safer there than on any comparable body of
water.
>> 5) preserve attractive natural setting.
>Powerboats do not disrupt the natural setting...
Well mileage certainly varies here, but to some people, preserving the
attractiveness of natural setting means no engine noise. To some it means
no 2-stroke oil. To some it means fewer ramps and parking lots on the
shoreline.
>6:) contribute to the total enjoyment of a particular activity.
Okay, how do we decide *which* particular activity we should contribute
to the enjoyment of? I've proposed goals 1-5 for guidance. What are yours?
>7:) it's the ONLY body of water left in that area that allows
>powerboat activity.
This may or may not be true of our hypothetical lake. But if this lake is
the largest or "best" in a particular region, then maybe all the lakes
need to be considered together, and maybe fast powerboaters get their own
lake where they won't impact on as many other users to such a great
extent.
Planet Nik
In article <fishmealE...@netcom.com>, Paul Kamen
<fish...@netcom.com> writes
> >7:) it's the ONLY body of water left in that area that allows
> >powerboat activity.
>
>This may or may not be true of our hypothetical lake. But if this lake is
>the largest or "best" in a particular region, then maybe all the lakes
>need to be considered together, and maybe fast powerboaters get their own
>lake where they won't impact on as many other users to such a great
>extent.
Well in the case of Windermere it is true. It is the only (not the best,
the *only*) body of water in the entire N. of England that allows speeds
above 10mph - thats half a country! Imagine if in the US you only had 2
lakes in the entire country, one in the east and one in the west!
There are over 15 lakes of sailable size and LOTS of other lakes and
tarns for sightseeing and walking etc all in one fairly small area - ie
the Lake District. Out of those, only 4 allow powered boats and only one
(Windermere) allows speeds above 10mph.
I'm not unreasonable, if there was another lake to move to then I
wouldn't be making all this fuss but there isn't :( Surely this must
count for something?
Cheers, Nick
P.S. I'm going to post the origional request for support again in the
next week. I do apologise to those who are not interested, but it will
all be over soon, one way or the other, on feb 6th.
** It is an issue to watch because sooner or later it will start
happening on your lakes! **
--
Nick Smeltzer CNE
ni...@greenhse.demon.co.uk
ICQ: 2030895
Paul Kamen
Planet Nik <Ni...@greenhse.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Well in the case of Windermere it is true. It is the only (not the
>best, the *only*) body of water in the entire N. of England that
>allows speeds above 10mph - thats half a country! Imagine if in the
>US you only had 2 lakes in the entire country, one in the east and
>one in the west!
>
>There are over 15 lakes of sailable size and LOTS of other lakes and
>tarns for sightseeing and walking etc all in one fairly small area
> - ie the Lake District. Out of those, only 4 allow powered boats
>and only one (Windermere) allows speeds above 10mph.
>
>I'm not unreasonable, if there was another lake to move to then I
>wouldn't be making all this fuss but there isn't :( Surely this
>must count for something?
As noted, it might make some sense to allow high-speed operation in one of
the less popular lakes, in order to address the goal of use diversity. But
one has to suspect that the absense of high-speed operation in the other
lakes is something that's viewed with envy by the Windermere folk - and
that they want the same improvement in the quality of their lake too. So
it gets to be a little like finding a site for a new international airport
- the locals will *always* be up in arms over it.
On the other hand, I seem to recall that Windermere isn't all that far
from the sea, and [pulling out the old UK Road Atlas] I see that Morecambe
Bay is just 10 kilometers down the road. So this isn't the "only body of
water in the entir N. of England" where you can ski. Not by any stretch of
the imagination. (And yes, I know skiers prefer lakes but I grew up skiing
on tidal salt water and it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think.
Although I suspect that Windermere has the seacoast beat for the best
pub-crawling.)