|
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
|
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Typical government bully tactics!
|
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Florida Keyz wrote:
Typical government bully tactics! I take it you are not serious. Boaters are responsible for their wake. In the same way and to the same degree that hunters are responsible for their bullets. DSK |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
|
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"basskisser" wrote in message
om... (Florida Keyz) wrote in message ... Typical government bully tactics! Bully tactics?? Let's see, you don't want higher taxes, right? But you DO want nice roads to drive your car on, right? And I assume you want safe bridges, so you don't have to worry when you come to one, whether or not it will withstand your vehicle going over it, right? So, how would you suggest that the infrastructure, aging, and being destroyed by wakes should be fixed? Probably with someone else's money. And, he'd probably like a free limo ride to the town hall each week so he can bitch when the bridge is finally closed for replacement. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Tolls. It's already a toll bridge. Just up the toll charge.
"basskisser" wrote in message om... (Florida Keyz) wrote in message ... Typical government bully tactics! Bully tactics?? Let's see, you don't want higher taxes, right? But you DO want nice roads to drive your car on, right? And I assume you want safe bridges, so you don't have to worry when you come to one, whether or not it will withstand your vehicle going over it, right? So, how would you suggest that the infrastructure, aging, and being destroyed by wakes should be fixed? |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Really? If you failed to slow down , because you did not know, would you think
that $27,000 was NOT out of line? If so, come on down, I have a nice piece of Florida Keys property for you to buy. Sterling |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Florida Keyz wrote:
Really? If you failed to slow down , because you did not know, would you think that $27,000 was NOT out of line? Since I know, and am take responsibility for my actions, I don't think a $27K fine for excessive wake is out of line. Would you advocate that any person simply get a gun and shoot it in a random direction, completely ignorant where the bullet will end up? This seems to be a close parallel to many peoples attitude about their wakes. Fair Skies Doug King |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is
responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Boots,
Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul "Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK 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. Boaters should sue the state for letting the bridge become a hazard that might fall down. There are highway funds raised in every state via the gas tax. Some like here in California steal it for the general fund via an IOU. Reminds me of the jury on the SE that awarded the state $69 million for lost oil drilling revenues from Exxon and then added $111 billion in punitive damages. One of the jurors said a major reason they added the huge punitive damage award was because the state was in bad financial straights. More tossing of personal responsibility out the window. State overspends and so a jury figures they can screw a corporation. Maybe it was Harry on the Jury. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul A storm doesn't come through two thousand eleventy dozen times on a busy weekend. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Amen Bill.
Boat wakes aren't destroying that bridge. Nevertheless, ever since that causeway was placed, it has screwed up the marine life around that area. It restricts the flow from Pine Island Sound and the Caloosahatchee. I'd like to see the damn thing ripped out completely and replaced with a suspension bridge or ferry service. A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze! "Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK 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. Boaters should sue the state for letting the bridge become a hazard that might fall down. There are highway funds raised in every state via the gas tax. Some like here in California steal it for the general fund via an IOU. Reminds me of the jury on the SE that awarded the state $69 million for lost oil drilling revenues from Exxon and then added $111 billion in punitive damages. One of the jurors said a major reason they added the huge punitive damage award was because the state was in bad financial straights. More tossing of personal responsibility out the window. State overspends and so a jury figures they can screw a corporation. Maybe it was Harry on the Jury. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
So, I do have that property waiting for you!
HA! |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul A storm doesn't come through two thousand eleventy dozen times on a busy weekend. The concrete isn't failing from cyclic fatigue from boat wakes...more likely from car, truck, bus traffic on top. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:46:04 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: Some like here in California steal it for the general fund via an IOU. ================================== The Sanibel bridge situation is an even bigger steal. The toll is $3 for a relatively modest bridge and the excess revenue has been going into the Sanibel town budget for years. Now it's going to cost $50 million plus to replace the bridge and there will be no excess revenue for awhile. Guess who is ticked off? They've been deferring serious maintenance for years on the old bridge in order to maximize the excess cash flow and now everyones screaming when it's time to pay up. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
================================== The Sanibel bridge situation is an even bigger steal. The toll is $3 for a relatively modest bridge and the excess revenue has been going into the Sanibel town budget for years. Now it's going to cost $50 million plus to replace the bridge and there will be no excess revenue for awhile. Guess who is ticked off? They've been deferring serious maintenance for years on the old bridge in order to maximize the excess cash flow and now everyones screaming when it's time to pay up. The bridge spun off $19,000,000 in surplus between 1997-2003, with Lee County getting most of it. See http://lee-county.com/publicworks/pd...%20Revenue.pdf I'm completely sure the county will find a way to get the tourists to pay for it, perhaps another tax on rental cars would work. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK 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. Boaters should sue the state for letting the bridge become a hazard that might fall down. There are highway funds raised in every state via the gas tax. Some like here in California steal it for the general fund via an IOU. Reminds me of the jury on the SE that awarded the state $69 million for lost oil drilling revenues from Exxon and then added $111 billion in punitive damages. One of the jurors said a major reason they added the huge punitive damage award was because the state was in bad financial straights. More tossing of personal responsibility out the window. State overspends and so a jury figures they can screw a corporation. Maybe it was Harry on the Jury. Considering the fraud and thievery perpetrated upon the public by the energy companies and many other corporations, a bit of payback from time to time only begins to equalize the outrages. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK 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. Boaters should sue the state for letting the bridge become a hazard that might fall down. There are highway funds raised in every state via the gas tax. Some like here in California steal it for the general fund via an IOU. Reminds me of the jury on the SE that awarded the state $69 million for lost oil drilling revenues from Exxon and then added $111 billion in punitive damages. One of the jurors said a major reason they added the huge punitive damage award was because the state was in bad financial straights. More tossing of personal responsibility out the window. State overspends and so a jury figures they can screw a corporation. Maybe it was Harry on the Jury. Considering the fraud and thievery perpetrated upon the public by the energy companies and many other corporations, a bit of payback from time to time only begins to equalize the outrages. -- Email sent to is never read. Well, lets fine the Union pension funds a $87 billion to pay for the Iraq effort. The Union pension funds were major players in after hour mutual fund trading. They screwed the rest of the people in the pension fund, lets screw them! |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
|
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net...
Tolls. It's already a toll bridge. Just up the toll charge. "basskisser" wrote in message om... (Florida Keyz) wrote in message ... Typical government bully tactics! Bully tactics?? Let's see, you don't want higher taxes, right? But you DO want nice roads to drive your car on, right? And I assume you want safe bridges, so you don't have to worry when you come to one, whether or not it will withstand your vehicle going over it, right? So, how would you suggest that the infrastructure, aging, and being destroyed by wakes should be fixed? Wow, I thought you were a die hard conservative. You want to do something as liberal as have everyone who uses the bridge pay for the idiots that don't read the no wake signs, or are ignorant of the law??? You may be more liberal than I am!!!! |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"NOYB" wrote in message
.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul A storm doesn't come through two thousand eleventy dozen times on a busy weekend. The concrete isn't failing from cyclic fatigue from boat wakes...more likely from car, truck, bus traffic on top. It sounds to me like the CG is being overly cautious because if they do nothing at all and someone's hurt, they'd be blamed for not posting warnings and issuing citations. Not much different than the way my office park puts 300 lbs of salt on the sidewalk anytime they see a snowflake. They have to pretend to try. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
""Uh, that's why they have signs, and laws. Ignorance of the law is not
a viable excuse."" Spoken like a true ossifer of the law! |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul A storm doesn't come through two thousand eleventy dozen times on a busy weekend. The concrete isn't failing from cyclic fatigue from boat wakes...more likely from car, truck, bus traffic on top. It sounds to me like the CG is being overly cautious because if they do nothing at all and someone's hurt, they'd be blamed for not posting warnings and issuing citations. Not much different than the way my office park puts 300 lbs of salt on the sidewalk anytime they see a snowflake. They have to pretend to try. I agree. The CG is telling people to slow down, or their wake will cause concrete to fall off and hit them and their boat. But wouldn't it make sense to speed up and hurry under the brdige so as to spend as little time as possible sitting under it? |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
This whole Sanibel bridge debacle is a political football. I suspect the CG
just wants to get in the news story about it. There is a lot more going on here than simply an old bridge. For one thing, this is the place where manatee suddenly decide to move to the other side exactly at midnight on Nov 15 every year. The slow speed zone flips sides of the bridge then. 25 on one side, slow on the other. It flips back in April. There is also an ongoing war about what kind of bridge they are going to build. That is the biggest part of the reason why it has taken so long to get rid of this one. They don't want to spend a lot of money to fix the bridge since it is scheduled to be torn down and replaced. The problem is the USCG wants a high bridge, Sanibel wants another low draw bridge. I suppose the USCG is pressing their case to boaters to VOTE. A high bridge will be "safe normal speed", a draw bridge will be "no wake" up to $27,000 fine. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
It does not take too much smarts to understand that a storm
is an act God and Man can not control that but a wake is man made and can be controlled. "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul "Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Doug,
But the winds that do very frequently occur cause more of a wave than the average wake. There's many a time I stayed in back of Estero Island (which is just south of the bridge) rather than venture into the Gulf because of the waves, those same waves if created by a boat would be considered a wake. Now I understand reducing waves around docked boats so they don't get damaged, but a bridge should be built to be sturdy enough to not be phased by normal everyday waves, either by boats or winds. Paul "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul A storm doesn't come through two thousand eleventy dozen times on a busy weekend. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Greg,
Aren't politics a bitch? It's the most convoluted thing I've ever seen. Paul "Greg" wrote in message ... This whole Sanibel bridge debacle is a political football. I suspect the CG just wants to get in the news story about it. There is a lot more going on here than simply an old bridge. For one thing, this is the place where manatee suddenly decide to move to the other side exactly at midnight on Nov 15 every year. The slow speed zone flips sides of the bridge then. 25 on one side, slow on the other. It flips back in April. There is also an ongoing war about what kind of bridge they are going to build. That is the biggest part of the reason why it has taken so long to get rid of this one. They don't want to spend a lot of money to fix the bridge since it is scheduled to be torn down and replaced. The problem is the USCG wants a high bridge, Sanibel wants another low draw bridge. I suppose the USCG is pressing their case to boaters to VOTE. A high bridge will be "safe normal speed", a draw bridge will be "no wake" up to $27,000 fine. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
bass,
BTW - What does the sign "Slow Speed Minimal wake" mean? Just what is minimal wake, how do you quantify that? It's sounds faster than "No Wake", but to what degree? Paul "basskisser" wrote in message om... (Florida Keyz) wrote in message ... Really? If you failed to slow down , because you did not know, would you think that $27,000 was NOT out of line? If so, come on down, I have a nice piece of Florida Keys property for you to buy. Sterling Uh, that's why they have signs, and laws. Ignorance of the law is not a viable excuse. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
bass,
That's the problem with trying to attach labels to anyone. Were all a little bit more conservative or a little bit more liberal depending on the specific issue. Anyone who's totally conservative or liberal probably has a problem. IMHO Paul "basskisser" wrote in message om... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... Tolls. It's already a toll bridge. Just up the toll charge. "basskisser" wrote in message om... (Florida Keyz) wrote in message ... Typical government bully tactics! Bully tactics?? Let's see, you don't want higher taxes, right? But you DO want nice roads to drive your car on, right? And I assume you want safe bridges, so you don't have to worry when you come to one, whether or not it will withstand your vehicle going over it, right? So, how would you suggest that the infrastructure, aging, and being destroyed by wakes should be fixed? Wow, I thought you were a die hard conservative. You want to do something as liberal as have everyone who uses the bridge pay for the idiots that don't read the no wake signs, or are ignorant of the law??? You may be more liberal than I am!!!! |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Boots,
Doesn't it sound reasonable to you that a bridge should be built strong enough to withstand normal wave action, such as boats and normal winds generate. Most windy days produce waves that are larger than most boat wakes. My major point was that $27,500 was ludicrous unless you rammed the bridge and caused that much in damage. Paul "Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It does not take too much smarts to understand that a storm is an act God and Man can not control that but a wake is man made and can be controlled. "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ... Boots, Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't do a lot better. If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to fix the bridge. Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth of damage? A bad Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my property one day, but that's the breaks when you live on a big lake. Paul "Boots Crofoot" wrote in message . .. It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your actions "JK" wrote in message ... See link below. (FL. msnbc news) http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp JK |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"NOYB" wrote in message news:uVPyb.538
The concrete isn't failing from cyclic fatigue from boat wakes...more likely from car, truck, bus traffic on top. Who told you this? Did the DOT engineers tell you this? If so, they don't know a whole hell of a lot about the properties of concrete, and or water. Whoever made the above statement is sadly mistaken. First, it isn't "fatigue" from boat wakes that harms the concrete. The problem lies in the water's ability to, over time, erode the concrete, just like water erodes earth, only slower. It will eat away at the fine aggregate/concrete until enough of it is gone to slough off chunks of the course aggregate. That is only the beginning of the problem, though. The wake also causes erosion around and under the bridge piers and abutments, and this causes the most harm. The "car, truck, bus traffic on top" is of little consequence. That portion of the bridge is designed for the that particular cyclic loading. The attachments have *give* to them, to allow for movement, the deck itself is well designed to take the loads, the whole thing is designed for the vibration and movement from those loads, and the whole bridge is designed to expand/contract with temperature cycles. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"NOYB" wrote in message news:%IOyb.455
A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze! Yes. Again, certainly shows what you know about the properties of concrete, and or water. Nothing. Water will erode concrete just like it erodes earth, only at a slower pace. The problem here isn't just the concrete bridge, but erosion around the piers and abutements. But, because of your above statement, I'm sure you don't understand that. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"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. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
Seems to me
1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars? 2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there? |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Florida Keyz" wrote in message ... Seems to me 1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars? 2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there? Simple. After a duly noticed hearing, a "Public Comment Period" and the posting of signs they will simply ban the wind. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.4466ae3a77ff2d7c375b827d913aa2ed@107 0455688.cotse.net... NOYB wrote: Amen Bill. Boat wakes aren't destroying that bridge. Nevertheless, ever since that causeway was placed, it has screwed up the marine life around that area. It restricts the flow from Pine Island Sound and the Caloosahatchee. I'd like to see the damn thing ripped out completely and replaced with a suspension bridge or ferry service. A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze! Well, I don't know the particulars of that bridge but yes, boat wakes can indeed "erode" the concrete right off of bridge supports. As a dentist, you certainly understand enough of the principles of civil engineering to visualize what happens over time to a fixed structure when a liquid, especially one containing some grit, is constantly washing over it. Boat wakes can be troublesome to bridges. Don't you fish around and under bridges in your area? Bridge supports attract lots of fish. I usually fish weekends, and the bridges are always too crowded to make it enjoyable. You have to constantly worry about some dunce dropping a 3 ounce triangle sinker on your head...not to mention another dunce slamming you against a piling with his wake. Instead, I prefer to fish offshore...especially in season. In the summer, when the boat traffic is down, I fish the bridges on occassion. With all of the great mangrove-laden shoreline, bridges are way down the list of fishing holes. In SW Florida, you need 2 boats. One to fish offshore when the boat traffic is up...and a second to fish inshore when the seas are up or you're targeting the backwater fish. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.4466ae3a77ff2d7c375b827d913aa2ed@107 0455688.cotse.net... NOYB wrote: Amen Bill. Boat wakes aren't destroying that bridge. Nevertheless, ever since that causeway was placed, it has screwed up the marine life around that area. It restricts the flow from Pine Island Sound and the Caloosahatchee. I'd like to see the damn thing ripped out completely and replaced with a suspension bridge or ferry service. A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze! Well, I don't know the particulars of that bridge but yes, boat wakes can indeed "erode" the concrete right off of bridge supports. 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. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
... Doug, But the winds that do very frequently occur cause more of a wave than the average wake. There's many a time I stayed in back of Estero Island (which is just south of the bridge) rather than venture into the Gulf because of the waves, those same waves if created by a boat would be considered a wake. Now I understand reducing waves around docked boats so they don't get damaged, but a bridge should be built to be sturdy enough to not be phased by normal everyday waves, either by boats or winds. Paul A bridge "should" be, but the ocean claims everything at some point, no matter how it's built. There are no exceptions. If we could built bridge supports out of diamonds, they'd still become shaky at SOME point in the future. Hell...some people can't even keep water out of their basements no matter how many tricks they try. |
Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com