On Wed, 05 May 2004 08:20:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion.

Oh? It's my "differing opinio" that you denied making a statement which
was then proven that you did indeed make?

I never made the statement in the extreme context that you presented
it.


.. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating.

Ah, good. So in other words, you refrain from making wakes close to
other boats & property that might be damaged?

That is correct.


... You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat

Please quote my statement to that effect. All I said was that you area
responsible for your wake, and if your wake causes damage or injury then
*you* are liable for it.

That's it right there. As long as you make the blanket statement that
"you are responsible for your wake" without any limits, then it allows
for absurd and unreasonable conditions such as what I have
illustrated. That is why I have a problem with absolutes. Life is
conditional. So the rules which govern us also need to be as well.


If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser

If it's because that 65' cruiser, with the whole Bay to run in, passes
very close to another boat while making a large wake, then they are
responsible, and they should be held liable. Open water is not a license
to run down others, nor is it a proxy to run them under with your wake.

I guess I really need to pin down each and every detail in order to
make my point, otherwise you will take whatever detail that isn't
nailed down specifically, and interpret it to the most extreme sense
that fits your viewpoint.

My whole reason for stating "The middle of the bay" was to illustrate
the large distances that can be involved. Had I meant to paint the
picture of two boats crossing 100' apart, I wouldn't have placed them
"in the middle of the bay". You know as well as I do that wakes can
travel a great distance. If there is a half mile or more distance
between the two boats, I can hardly hold the operator of the large
boat liable for his wake. He can't be expected to know the situation
of every other boat within the distance his wake can travel to, and in
the time that it takes for it to traverse a body of water.

I frequently boat is waters that see large ship traffic. They are
under speed restriction in certain parts of the bay, but not in
others. The Coast Guard approved nav charts actually warn of the
presence of these ships and advise recreational boats to watch for
wakes "in excess of five feet". One such warning is stated in the
approach to Baltimore Harbor.

It's clear that these warnings are intended to give a "heads up" to
the responsibility that recreational boaters assume when they operate
in these areas to avoid mishaps.

Dave