I always slow for bridges...even tall ones with no signs. There are too
many stupid jet skiers that like to run slalom blind through the pilings.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm familiar with the Sanibel Causeway. If you read the article, the
Coast
Guard talks about the safety of the boaters. They're concerned "chunks
could fall off and hit the boaters". The chunks they are talking about
are
mostly from the overhead span, not the support polls. Waves aren't
responsible for that...a combination of environmental conditions, and
the
multitude of dump trucks, construction vehicle traffic, delivery trucks,
and
passenger cars are responsible.



Here's a crazy analogy:

On the road, when you approach places where there are suddenly a higher
number of variables to watch for (like intersections), the painted line is
usually solid, which suggests that you shouldn't pass or change lanes.
This
is a good idea.

While it may not always be true that the passage under a bridge is
narrower
than the channel which leads up to it, it still seems like a good idea for
boats to slow down because there are more variables to be concerned with,
specifically bridge supports and boats which are suddenly closer to you.
Maybe even fishing lines which could result in YOU getting a large hook in
your face.

The amount of the fine is logically irrelevant. Would someone go SLOWER if
they agreed with a $100 fine, but faster if they disagreed with a $27,500
fine? :-) The law is the law, regardless of the fine.

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?


They are limiting truck traffic, they lowered the speed limit on the bridge to
a crawl and it was closed for a while.
The high bridge/low bridge debate still rages on.

I've been reading this thread and can't understand how boat wakes can
destroy a bridge. I think I read that parts of the bridge are falling
off. How do boats manage to do that?

A $27,000 wake fine in this case is insane.

The best example is Venice, Italy. Boat wakes are literally eating away at
the city's infrastructure. Therefore, they have very severe no wake
policies in place. In order to film the high speed boat chase scenes in the
recent remake of the movie "The Italian Job", the producers of the movie had
to get very brief, very explicit, and I would imagine very expensive waivers
from the city. Not hard to imagine how the same forces could cause damage
to a concrete bridge with it's foundation in the water and constantly being
subjected to nearby high speed boat traffic.

RG

Not hard to imagine how the same forces could cause damage
to a concrete bridge with it's foundation in the water and constantly being
subjected to nearby high speed boat traffic.


High speed is a relative thing. The speed limit in all the channels around here
is 25.

The reality is his bridge is mostly damaged by the 200-400 heavy trucks a day
that cross it daily. (mostly dump trucks and concrete mixers)
The insanity, a speeding ticket for a 40 ton truck going over the bridge is
$80-100 but a 12' jon boat going under the bridge can get a $27,500 fine.
Ain't government great?

Doug,
I believe that American law has always held that the punishment should
fit the crime. Are you saying that if you were to be going under the bridge
too fast and creating a SMALL wake, (and I think it's up to the officer's
judgment as to what constitutes a wake), if he were to find you to be
creating a wake where you shouldn't, you wouldn't object to paying $27,500
for the mistake? The law may very well be the law, but that don't make it
right. Now on the other hand, if you owned a mega million dollar shipping
company and your skippers were blasting through there creating a gigantic
wake to make you more money by saving time, than a $27,500 fine might not be
enough.
Paul

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm familiar with the Sanibel Causeway. If you read the article, the
Coast
Guard talks about the safety of the boaters. They're concerned "chunks
could fall off and hit the boaters". The chunks they are talking about
are
mostly from the overhead span, not the support polls. Waves aren't
responsible for that...a combination of environmental conditions, and
the
multitude of dump trucks, construction vehicle traffic, delivery trucks,
and
passenger cars are responsible.



Here's a crazy analogy:

On the road, when you approach places where there are suddenly a higher
number of variables to watch for (like intersections), the painted line is
usually solid, which suggests that you shouldn't pass or change lanes.
This
is a good idea.

While it may not always be true that the passage under a bridge is
narrower
than the channel which leads up to it, it still seems like a good idea for
boats to slow down because there are more variables to be concerned with,
specifically bridge supports and boats which are suddenly closer to you.
Maybe even fishing lines which could result in YOU getting a large hook in
your face.

The amount of the fine is logically irrelevant. Would someone go SLOWER if
they agreed with a $100 fine, but faster if they disagreed with a $27,500
fine? :-) The law is the law, regardless of the fine.

"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
Seems to me

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?

Yes...till it falls. Then it will be unsafe. Just ask the Gov't.

2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there?

They will ban the wind. And if the wind blows, they will assess a $27,500
fine against God for each occurrance. The fine will be collected from all
churches in the area regardless of denomination. Those who don't believe in
God will get a refund (even though they didn't pay anything to begin
with...just like the income tax rebate for those who didn't pay any taxes).

Subject: Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
From: (JK)

See link below. (FL. msnbc news)
http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp
JK


My guess is that the fine is up to $27,500. Not automaticaly $27,500.

Capt. Bill

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:wEOyb.23809
Damn! It is a concrete bridge. Shame on the locals and the state for
letting it get in such deplorable condition that the wake from a 21'
boat
would cause it to come down.

Who said that a wake from a 21' boat was going to "make it come down"?
From that statement, I take it you don't understand a thing about
concrete (HOW much does it weigh?) or you'd certainly know that it is
a HUGE problem. Not on just this bridge, but all over. They just
completed a few billion dollar rehab on the bridge over Lake
Ponchetrain in La. because the piers were eroding, and not just in the
ship channel, just the wave action will do it over time.

From 99% of your posts, you prove you do not know ****! Sure, wear and tear
from the water eroding the concrete causes problems. Even bigger problem
you do not seem to understand is the rebar rusts and expands and breaks the
concrete. Normal wear and tear. But the USCG and the locals going for a
$27,000 fine for causing a wake? IT IS THE BRIDGE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE! They have used the revenues from the bridge for non
bridge items. No reserve to fix the bridge. Bridge is unsafe for boats.
Boaters should sue the local bridge district. If a boater gets a $27,000
fine, would be cheaper to sue the bridge owners than paying the fine. Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise the
toll some more for mass transit, etc. Screw the minority who has to travel
over the bridge. They get outvoted.

"RG" wrote in message
news:RMrzb.23304$o9.11675@fed1read07...

I've been reading this thread and can't understand how boat wakes can
destroy a bridge. I think I read that parts of the bridge are falling
off. How do boats manage to do that?

A $27,000 wake fine in this case is insane.

The best example is Venice, Italy. Boat wakes are literally eating away
at
the city's infrastructure. Therefore, they have very severe no wake
policies in place. In order to film the high speed boat chase scenes in
the
recent remake of the movie "The Italian Job", the producers of the movie
had
to get very brief, very explicit, and I would imagine very expensive
waivers
from the city. Not hard to imagine how the same forces could cause damage
to a concrete bridge with it's foundation in the water and constantly
being
subjected to nearby high speed boat traffic.

RG



The major problem in Venice, is subsidence. They pumped so much fresh water
from under the city over the 1000 years, that the islands that the city are
built on subsided under sea level. You can see beautiful marble steps that
are at least 4' underwater. So the boat wakes go in the first floor of
buildings that originally were high and dry. And the first floor was not
build as a seawall.

Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise the
toll some more for mass transit, etc.

The sanibel bridge(s) have a toll of $3 and they want to make it $6. It is a
causeway with 3 small bridges. Certainly nothing like the bay bridge. Lee
County has put the money in the general fund for decades.