Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 25 May 2007 07:41:43 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The REAL point is whether you are creating a wake or not.

In an automobile, this is the same argument that could be had over
when one should be going the speed limit. Do you wait until you get to
the lower speed limit sign to slow down or do you slow down such that
when you pass the sign you are running the posted speed limit. If I
run up to the 35 MPH sign at the prior posted limit of 55, I could
pass through a lot of distance before I slowed down to the new legal
limit.

Now, the boat. If I wait until I get abreast the no wake sign to pull
off the power, I don't *need* the wake to "overtake and/or precede
the boat," since the boat will continue at a "wake" speed until it
coasts to a "no-wake" speed.

I think that would be construed as a violation of the rule by anyone
watching from a distance.

Gene,
He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the zone.
I doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still travelling
at a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Perhaps the cops are dealing with reality. The rest of us see very few boats
slow down in advance of the zone.

Over 90% of automobile owners are not fit to drive. There's no reason to
think boat owners are a special breed, ya know?

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........
--



That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.


Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain to
do what's right.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the
zone. I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........
--



That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.


Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain
to do what's right.


So those boaters need to determine what *you* think what is right?

Post it......enforce it. Otherwise stop whining.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the
zone. I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still
travelling at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........
--



That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.


Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain
to do what's right.


So those boaters need to determine what *you* think what is right?

Post it......enforce it. Otherwise stop whining.


So, you think it's right to cause trouble with your wake because there's no
sign telling you not to?

This is a yes or no question.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:40:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........

That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain to
do what's right.

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:40:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the
zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still
travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........

That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain
to
do what's right.

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.

Nah...no ticket.

Tom, if you see that a no-wake zone makes sense in a certain place, but the
signs are placed too close to the area to stop many boaters from doing the
right thing, do YOU (and I mean you personally) continue to do the wrong
thing and create a large wake until you reach the signs?

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.

Nah...no ticket.

Tom, if you see that a no-wake zone makes sense in a certain place, but
the signs are placed too close to the area to stop many boaters from doing
the right thing, do YOU (and I mean you personally) continue to do the
wrong thing and create a large wake until you reach the signs?


Uh oh. Not enough coffee! "stop many boaters from doing the WRONG thing"

:-)

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 26, 7:00 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:40:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.

Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........

That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain to
do what's right.

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, is there a difference if it is marked "no wake" or "steerage speed
only"? As to doing what is wrong or right, I don't think anything I do
with my little boats damages any boat or shoreline like the trough the
barges leave as they come up the river. Had one pitch a 22 foot
fiberglass (colombian) right up, out of the water, and place half the
bow on the shore which was a foot above the water to start.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:41:30 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:



Tom, if you see that a no-wake zone makes sense in a certain place, but
the
signs are placed too close to the area to stop many boaters from doing the
right thing, do YOU (and I mean you personally) continue to do the wrong
thing and create a large wake until you reach the signs?


If we can't agree on what speed we are running when we pass the sign,
*where* it is, is a moot point.

Speed doesn't matter. My yacht throws a pretty significant wake at lower
speeds. All that matters is the wake.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 26, 7:00 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:40:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the
zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still
travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.

Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........

That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain
to
do what's right.

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, is there a difference if it is marked "no wake" or "steerage speed
only"? As to doing what is wrong or right, I don't think anything I do
with my little boats damages any boat or shoreline like the trough the
barges leave as they come up the river. Had one pitch a 22 foot
fiberglass (colombian) right up, out of the water, and place half the
bow on the shore which was a foot above the water to start.


Translation: But mommy....everyone else was throwing rocks at the windows.
How come I'm gettin' punished?

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:41:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:40:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the
zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still
travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........

That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain
to
do what's right.

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.

Nah...no ticket.

Tom, if you see that a no-wake zone makes sense in a certain place, but the
signs are placed too close to the area to stop many boaters from doing the
right thing, do YOU (and I mean you personally) continue to do the wrong
thing and create a large wake until you reach the signs?

I understand your point, but you seem hell bent on not understanding
mine.

The No Wake bouy is a marker bouy - it designates a speed zone. As far
as I know, there are no laws that say you have to slow down prior to
the No-Wake marker bouy. It merely indicates that there is a No Wake
Zone ahead and you need to slow to a no wake condition until the No
Wake zone is transited. Which would indicate that if the bouy is not
placed properly, that's the fault of the people in charge of placing
the bouy.

For example, let's say there is a marina along a curve in a river and
the owner receives permission to place No Wake bouys. He places them
15 feet off the end of the docks upstream and downstream. No speed
restrictions upstream or downstream of the bouys.

Whose fault is that?

Now if you place the bouys 50/75 feet away from the
upstream/downstream docks, tha allows time to slow and proceed at a no
wake speed.

That's my point. If the markers are misplaced, that's not the
boater's fault.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 26, 10:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

OK, is there a difference if it is marked "no wake" or "steerage speed
only"? As to doing what is wrong or right, I don't think anything I do
with my little boats damages any boat or shoreline like the trough the
barges leave as they come up the river. Had one pitch a 22 foot
fiberglass (colombian) right up, out of the water, and place half the
bow on the shore which was a foot above the water to start.

Translation: But mommy....everyone else was throwing rocks at the windows.
How come I'm gettin' punished?

- Show quoted text -

WTF, sounds like you got some real issues, all I did was ask a frekin'
question.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:40 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:15:47 -0400, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign

And that is simply my point.... if you are proceeding at a no wake
speed immediately prior to the sign... that meets the word and intent
of the law.

SWS's position, if you are proceeding at a no wake speed
immediately prior to the sign and still hit the [whatever] with a
wake.... it is a poorly placed sign and should be repositioned to
achieve the desired result.... the operator is (lawfully) not at
fault... but if he knows this is likely the result, why not be a good
citizen/neighbor and slow down to achieve the intent of the no wake
sign.

I'm not saying I don't because I do when possible.

But if somebody unfamiliar with the waters comes up on a No Wake Zone
and had to slow from 40 to 5 in the space of ten feet, it's not
properly placed.

That's my sole point. If you are going to stop people 100 yards away
from the No Wake Zone and tell them to slow down, then the buoys are
improperly placed - there is no reason to stop somebody 300 feet away
from the No Wake Zone.

The No Wake Zone should start well in advance of any area that could
be impacted - simple as that.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:41:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:40:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:35 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the
zone.
I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still
travelling
at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.


Do you suppose they were trying to make a point?

If 3 feet is ineffective and 300 feet is inappropriate... *where*
exactly does the law say they should be?

So..... somebody makes a decision........

That decision is made when they place the sign. If the sign is too
close to the marina, blame the guy who placed it, not the boat
operator. They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

Translation: Unless there's a sign, you're excused from using your brain
to
do what's right.

You got a ticket for a wake didn't you? :)

Otherwise, your just arguing to argue because nothing you've said
makes sense.

Nah...no ticket.

Tom, if you see that a no-wake zone makes sense in a certain place, but
the
signs are placed too close to the area to stop many boaters from doing the
right thing, do YOU (and I mean you personally) continue to do the wrong
thing and create a large wake until you reach the signs?

I understand your point, but you seem hell bent on not understanding
mine.

The No Wake bouy is a marker bouy - it designates a speed zone. As far
as I know, there are no laws that say you have to slow down prior to
the No-Wake marker bouy. It merely indicates that there is a No Wake
Zone ahead and you need to slow to a no wake condition until the No
Wake zone is transited. Which would indicate that if the bouy is not
placed properly, that's the fault of the people in charge of placing
the bouy.

For example, let's say there is a marina along a curve in a river and
the owner receives permission to place No Wake bouys. He places them
15 feet off the end of the docks upstream and downstream. No speed
restrictions upstream or downstream of the bouys.

Whose fault is that?

Now if you place the bouys 50/75 feet away from the
upstream/downstream docks, tha allows time to slow and proceed at a no
wake speed.

That's my point. If the markers are misplaced, that's not the
boater's fault.

Maybe they ARE misplaced, but they are plainly worded: No wake. There is no
mention of speed. If, theoretically, you had a boat which could do 25 knots
without a wake, you could legally transit the no wake zone at 25 knots.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign


Bad analogy. You could jump hard on the brakes and be at the new speed limit
very quickly. But, a car throws no wake, other than gravitational force,
which no town justice is able to measure.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:40 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:15:47 -0400, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign

And that is simply my point.... if you are proceeding at a no wake
speed immediately prior to the sign... that meets the word and intent
of the law.

SWS's position, if you are proceeding at a no wake speed
immediately prior to the sign and still hit the [whatever] with a
wake.... it is a poorly placed sign and should be repositioned to
achieve the desired result.... the operator is (lawfully) not at
fault... but if he knows this is likely the result, why not be a good
citizen/neighbor and slow down to achieve the intent of the no wake
sign.

I'm not saying I don't because I do when possible.

But if somebody unfamiliar with the waters comes up on a No Wake Zone
and had to slow from 40 to 5 in the space of ten feet, it's not
properly placed.

That's my sole point. If you are going to stop people 100 yards away
from the No Wake Zone and tell them to slow down, then the buoys are
improperly placed - there is no reason to stop somebody 300 feet away
from the No Wake Zone.

The No Wake Zone should start well in advance of any area that could
be impacted - simple as that.

OK. Never mind the sign. How about seeing the marina, the channel and the
boat launch from 1000 feet away, and still not adjusting your wake?
Stoooopid....

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:40 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:15:47 -0400, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign

And that is simply my point.... if you are proceeding at a no wake
speed immediately prior to the sign... that meets the word and intent
of the law.

SWS's position, if you are proceeding at a no wake speed
immediately prior to the sign and still hit the [whatever] with a
wake.... it is a poorly placed sign and should be repositioned to
achieve the desired result.... the operator is (lawfully) not at
fault... but if he knows this is likely the result, why not be a good
citizen/neighbor and slow down to achieve the intent of the no wake
sign.

I'm not saying I don't because I do when possible.

But if somebody unfamiliar with the waters comes up on a No Wake Zone
and had to slow from 40 to 5 in the space of ten feet, it's not
properly placed.

That's my sole point. If you are going to stop people 100 yards away
from the No Wake Zone and tell them to slow down, then the buoys are
improperly placed - there is no reason to stop somebody 300 feet away
from the No Wake Zone.

The No Wake Zone should start well in advance of any area that could
be impacted - simple as that.

OK. Never mind the sign. How about seeing the marina, the channel and the
boat launch from 1000 feet away, and still not adjusting your wake?
Stoooopid....


Are you and Basskisser brothers?

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:09:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe they ARE misplaced, but they are plainly worded: No wake.

Duh...

There is no mention of speed. If, theoretically, you had a boat
which could do 25 knots without a wake, you could legally transit
the no wake zone at 25 knots.

CT Slow/No Wake regulations.

Slow/No-Wake. A vessel shall not produce more than a minimum
wake and shall not attain speeds greater than 6 miles per hour over
the ground unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway when traveling with a strong current. In no case shall the
wake produced by the vessel be such that it creates a danger or injury
to persons, or will damage vessels or structures of any kind.

NY Slow regulation:

Improper Distance is operating a vessel at greater than 5 miles per
hour when operating within 100 feet of: The shore, A dock or pier, A
raft or float, An anchored or moored vessel.

I can't find a specific No Wake regulation, but it would appear that
the Slow regulation is the enforcement tool.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:11:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:40 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:15:47 -0400, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign

And that is simply my point.... if you are proceeding at a no wake
speed immediately prior to the sign... that meets the word and intent
of the law.

SWS's position, if you are proceeding at a no wake speed
immediately prior to the sign and still hit the [whatever] with a
wake.... it is a poorly placed sign and should be repositioned to
achieve the desired result.... the operator is (lawfully) not at
fault... but if he knows this is likely the result, why not be a good
citizen/neighbor and slow down to achieve the intent of the no wake
sign.

I'm not saying I don't because I do when possible.

But if somebody unfamiliar with the waters comes up on a No Wake Zone
and had to slow from 40 to 5 in the space of ten feet, it's not
properly placed.

That's my sole point. If you are going to stop people 100 yards away
from the No Wake Zone and tell them to slow down, then the buoys are
improperly placed - there is no reason to stop somebody 300 feet away
from the No Wake Zone.

The No Wake Zone should start well in advance of any area that could
be impacted - simple as that.

OK. Never mind the sign. How about seeing the marina, the channel and the
boat launch from 1000 feet away, and still not adjusting your wake?
Stoooopid....

Apparently you aren't aware of your own state regulation concerning
this.

~~snerk~~

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:38:39 -0400, "JimH"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:40 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:15:47 -0400, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign

And that is simply my point.... if you are proceeding at a no wake
speed immediately prior to the sign... that meets the word and intent
of the law.

SWS's position, if you are proceeding at a no wake speed
immediately prior to the sign and still hit the [whatever] with a
wake.... it is a poorly placed sign and should be repositioned to
achieve the desired result.... the operator is (lawfully) not at
fault... but if he knows this is likely the result, why not be a good
citizen/neighbor and slow down to achieve the intent of the no wake
sign.

I'm not saying I don't because I do when possible.

But if somebody unfamiliar with the waters comes up on a No Wake Zone
and had to slow from 40 to 5 in the space of ten feet, it's not
properly placed.

That's my sole point. If you are going to stop people 100 yards away
from the No Wake Zone and tell them to slow down, then the buoys are
improperly placed - there is no reason to stop somebody 300 feet away
from the No Wake Zone.

The No Wake Zone should start well in advance of any area that could
be impacted - simple as that.

OK. Never mind the sign. How about seeing the marina, the channel and the
boat launch from 1000 feet away, and still not adjusting your wake?
Stoooopid....

Are you and Basskisser brothers?

Doug is just feeling his oats today.

Happens every once in a while.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:11:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:40 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:15:47 -0400, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign

And that is simply my point.... if you are proceeding at a no wake
speed immediately prior to the sign... that meets the word and intent
of the law.

SWS's position, if you are proceeding at a no wake speed
immediately prior to the sign and still hit the [whatever] with a
wake.... it is a poorly placed sign and should be repositioned to
achieve the desired result.... the operator is (lawfully) not at
fault... but if he knows this is likely the result, why not be a good
citizen/neighbor and slow down to achieve the intent of the no wake
sign.

I'm not saying I don't because I do when possible.

But if somebody unfamiliar with the waters comes up on a No Wake Zone
and had to slow from 40 to 5 in the space of ten feet, it's not
properly placed.

That's my sole point. If you are going to stop people 100 yards away
from the No Wake Zone and tell them to slow down, then the buoys are
improperly placed - there is no reason to stop somebody 300 feet away
from the No Wake Zone.

The No Wake Zone should start well in advance of any area that could
be impacted - simple as that.

OK. Never mind the sign. How about seeing the marina, the channel and the
boat launch from 1000 feet away, and still not adjusting your wake?
Stoooopid....

Apparently you aren't aware of your own state regulation concerning
this.

~~snerk~~

Snerk my ass. If you see "reasons" 1000 feet away, and signs that maybe you
can't read yet, you have information to suggest an upcoming change. You
don't know what kind yet. Stoopids won't know what kind even when they're
right in the middle of it all.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:10:29 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:49:28 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

They don't put the "school zone" sign on school property, it
is a reasonable distance up the road so it is enforcable.

If a school sign says "25 MPH," in relation to that sign, where have
you slowed to 25 MPH?

By the time I pass the sign


Bad analogy. You could jump hard on the brakes and be at the new speed
limit
very quickly. But, a car throws no wake, other than gravitational force,
which no town justice is able to measure.


Don't bet on it. Some of the old speed-trap cops could make a speeding
citation stick based solely on their expert interpretation of the
sound of the [victims's] tires.......


Yeah...I wonder if cops and justices are still creative that way, in order
to fill the town coffers. I got a ticket about 20 years ago for doing
something like 55 in a 35 zone. There was just one problem: I had started
from a red light, and the cop was parked X distance down the street, with
radar in an unmarked car. His mistake: He said "I was right there by that
street sign". I pointed out that there was absolutely no way a 1982 Tercel
could reach that speed in such a short distance unless it was shot from a
cannon. I stopped back the next day with a tape measure, and then tried to
duplicate his fantasy in a big empty parking lot. It was impossible.

This made no difference to the "judge". I had no reason to be speeding
anyway, and I knew I was doing about 40. I told him all this, and asked
about the jail time involved. Whatever it was, he said I should also add X
amount for contempt of court! Clearly, the guy was insane. I paid the
ticket.

Here's something interesting. My ISP places a limit on how many characters
each NG upload can contain, so I can't post the whole article. Let me know
if you'd like to see the rest of this:

The New York Times

September 27, 2006

Broken Bench

How a Reviled Court System Has Outlasted Critics

By WILLIAM GLABERSON



"A farce in these days," Gov. Alfred E. Smith pronounced New York State's
town and village courts in 1926.



"An outworn system," said his successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, not long
after a state commission called it "a feeble office respected by no one." A
few years after that, another commission said the local court system had
"lost all contact with reality."



In all, at least nine commissions, conferences or other state bodies -
including representatives of both major political parties and all three
branches of government - have denounced the local courts over the last
century, joined by at least two governors and several senior judges.



Their language has often been blistering, and their point has been the same:
These courts, with their often primitive trappings and amateur judges, are
an anachronism that desperately needs to be overhauled or discarded.



Although they are key institutions of justice in more than 1,000 small towns
and suburbs across New York, trying misdemeanor cases and lawsuits, a vast
majority of the justices who run them are not lawyers, and receive only a
few days' legal training. The justices are often elected in low-turnout
races, keep few records and operate largely without supervision - leaving a
long trail of injustices and mangled rulings.



Yet these justice courts, as they are known, remain essentially as they were
when New Yorkers started complaining nearly a century ago. In recent weeks,
state officials have decided to take some steps to increase training,
supervision and record-keeping. But the cries for any sweeping change have
all but died out over the last few decades, even as the abuses have
continued.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 26, 5:44 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:09:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
Maybe they ARE misplaced, but they are plainly worded: No wake.

Duh...

There is no mention of speed. If, theoretically, you had a boat
which could do 25 knots without a wake, you could legally transit
the no wake zone at 25 knots.

CT Slow/No Wake regulations.

Slow/No-Wake. A vessel shall not produce more than a minimum
wake and shall not attain speeds greater than 6 miles per hour over
the ground unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway when traveling with a strong current. In no case shall the
wake produced by the vessel be such that it creates a danger or injury
to persons, or will damage vessels or structures of any kind.

NY Slow regulation:

Improper Distance is operating a vessel at greater than 5 miles per
hour when operating within 100 feet of: The shore, A dock or pier, A
raft or float, An anchored or moored vessel.

I can't find a specific No Wake regulation, but it would appear that
the Slow regulation is the enforcement tool.

Yes, exactly what I was asking about earlier, but your comprehension
seems a little better than some. The bouy may say no wake, or it may
just be marked in red or white reflector, but the intent could really
be more based on speed. At least that is what gets you noticed down by
the sound on the CT river, the speed. Or as WB would say, "a New York
registration" but that's another post.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:27:58 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Here's something interesting. My ISP places a limit on how many
characters each NG upload can contain, so I can't post the whole
article. Let me know if you'd like to see the rest of this:

The New York Times

September 27, 2006

Broken Bench

How a Reviled Court System Has Outlasted Critics

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

You could have just posted a link.

http://www.umass.edu/legal/Hilbink/250/ny3.pdf

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:27:58 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Here's something interesting. My ISP places a limit on how many
characters each NG upload can contain, so I can't post the whole
article. Let me know if you'd like to see the rest of this:

The New York Times

September 27, 2006

Broken Bench

How a Reviled Court System Has Outlasted Critics

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

You could have just posted a link.

http://www.umass.edu/legal/Hilbink/250/ny3.pdf



I got it from the NY Times, and didn't look any further. Access to their
older articles is limited to two or three weeks back, unless you buy their
"Select" service.

So, thanks.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On 27 May 2007 06:28:59 -0700, wrote:

On May 26, 5:44 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:09:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
Maybe they ARE misplaced, but they are plainly worded: No wake.

Duh...

There is no mention of speed. If, theoretically, you had a boat
which could do 25 knots without a wake, you could legally transit
the no wake zone at 25 knots.

CT Slow/No Wake regulations.

Slow/No-Wake. A vessel shall not produce more than a minimum
wake and shall not attain speeds greater than 6 miles per hour over
the ground unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway when traveling with a strong current. In no case shall the
wake produced by the vessel be such that it creates a danger or injury
to persons, or will damage vessels or structures of any kind.

NY Slow regulation:

Improper Distance is operating a vessel at greater than 5 miles per
hour when operating within 100 feet of: The shore, A dock or pier, A
raft or float, An anchored or moored vessel.

I can't find a specific No Wake regulation, but it would appear that
the Slow regulation is the enforcement tool.

Yes, exactly what I was asking about earlier, but your comprehension
seems a little better than some. The bouy may say no wake, or it may
just be marked in red or white reflector, but the intent could really
be more based on speed. At least that is what gets you noticed down by
the sound on the CT river, the speed. Or as WB would say, "a New York
registration" but that's another post.

There are times when discussing anything with you is like beating your
head against a cement wall, then using a ten pound sledge on your foot
to make the headache go away.

I'm outa this one.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 27, 12:09 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On 27 May 2007 06:28:59 -0700, wrote:





On May 26, 5:44 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:09:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
Maybe they ARE misplaced, but they are plainly worded: No wake.

Duh...

There is no mention of speed. If, theoretically, you had a boat
which could do 25 knots without a wake, you could legally transit
the no wake zone at 25 knots.

CT Slow/No Wake regulations.

Slow/No-Wake. A vessel shall not produce more than a minimum
wake and shall not attain speeds greater than 6 miles per hour over
the ground unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway when traveling with a strong current. In no case shall the
wake produced by the vessel be such that it creates a danger or injury
to persons, or will damage vessels or structures of any kind.

NY Slow regulation:

Improper Distance is operating a vessel at greater than 5 miles per
hour when operating within 100 feet of: The shore, A dock or pier, A
raft or float, An anchored or moored vessel.

I can't find a specific No Wake regulation, but it would appear that
the Slow regulation is the enforcement tool.

Yes, exactly what I was asking about earlier, but your comprehension
seems a little better than some. The bouy may say no wake, or it may
just be marked in red or white reflector, but the intent could really
be more based on speed. At least that is what gets you noticed down by
the sound on the CT river, the speed. Or as WB would say, "a New York
registration" but that's another post.

There are times when discussing anything with you is like beating your
head against a cement wall, then using a ten pound sledge on your foot
to make the headache go away.

I'm outa this one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, no... I know you get it. It was some other guy that gave me crap
about my barge post. It was the other guy who gave me crap about my
barge post I was fussin with.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 27, 1:56 pm, wrote:
On May 27, 12:09 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:





On 27 May 2007 06:28:59 -0700, wrote:

On May 26, 5:44 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:09:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
Maybe they ARE misplaced, but they are plainly worded: No wake.

Duh...

There is no mention of speed. If, theoretically, you had a boat
which could do 25 knots without a wake, you could legally transit
the no wake zone at 25 knots.

CT Slow/No Wake regulations.

Slow/No-Wake. A vessel shall not produce more than a minimum
wake and shall not attain speeds greater than 6 miles per hour over
the ground unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway when traveling with a strong current. In no case shall the
wake produced by the vessel be such that it creates a danger or injury
to persons, or will damage vessels or structures of any kind.

NY Slow regulation:

Improper Distance is operating a vessel at greater than 5 miles per
hour when operating within 100 feet of: The shore, A dock or pier, A
raft or float, An anchored or moored vessel.

I can't find a specific No Wake regulation, but it would appear that
the Slow regulation is the enforcement tool.

Yes, exactly what I was asking about earlier, but your comprehension
seems a little better than some. The bouy may say no wake, or it may
just be marked in red or white reflector, but the intent could really
be more based on speed. At least that is what gets you noticed down by
the sound on the CT river, the speed. Or as WB would say, "a New York
registration" but that's another post.

There are times when discussing anything with you is like beating your
head against a cement wall, then using a ten pound sledge on your foot
to make the headache go away.

I'm outa this one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, no... I know you get it. It was some other guy that gave me crap
about my barge post. It was the other guy who gave me crap about my
barge post I was fussin with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gotta go, stopped home for lunch, now off to the western leg of the
trip....