Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Sound like over zealous cops and shoreline owners to me.

No shoreline owners of anything for a half mile in either direction.

Then either the original post was incomplete or we are missing
information.

Sorry - bad explanation. When I saw "shoreline owners", I immediately
thought "residential". This *is* the marina to one side, and its floating
docks are no more than 25 feet out of the channel. Floating docks also at
the launch, 50 feet from the channel on the opposite side. Narrow inlet,
boulders on either side.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
At the outlet (to Lake Ontario) of the bay where I launch my yacht,
there's a marina to one side of the outlet, and the public launch on the
other side. About 200' further into the bay, a no-wake zone begins. Quite
a few stoopids leaving the bay will approach the no-wake signs at full
speed, which means their wakes cause as much trouble as if they'd just
kept going at full speed. I guess the cops finally figured this out.
Yesterday, they had 3 boats (one CG, actually), and they were flagging
down stoopids about 200-300 feet before the no-wake zone. The guy at the
boat launch said they're issuing tickets as if the stoopids were already
in the zone, their logic being that your wake doesn't change much in 100
feet, especially if it's huge to begin with. They don't care if your
boat's in the no-wake zone. Doesn't matter because your wake will be
there shortly.

Hopefully, this policy will spread. Watch out, stoopids.




What about the boat passing by the the inlet with no intention of entering
it? Can his wake get him a ticket too?


Not exactly possible in this place. I'll have to snap a picture next time
I'm there. On a busy day, it's a circus even when everyone's obeying the
law.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:23:08 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:46:01 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


What the cops are doing makes perfect sense. The signs say "No Wake
Zone". That means your wake can't enter that zone. It doesn't say your
boat has to be in the zone while making a wake in order for you to get
in trouble.

That would depend on the law as written. I'm thinking the cops are
stretching the law here. Most "no wake zones" are written concerning the
boat. Some examples:

Any vessel operating in a speed zone posted as "Idle Speed - No Wake"
must operate at the minimum speed that will maintain steerageway.
(Florida)

No person shall operate a powercraft within or through a shore zone,
danger zone, or any area marked as a no wake zone at a speed that
produces a wake. (Ohio)

Operate within designated "no wake" area except at headway speed without
creating a swell or wake. (Texas)

When operating your boat in a no-wake zone you must proceed at a speed at
which the vessel does not produce a wake, not to exceed 5 miles per hour.
(Alaska)

You'll notice all of the above state the boat be *in* a no wake zone.

I haven't been able to locate the applicable New York law, but I'd want
to see it before paying the ticket.




I agree with your analysis. This will probably fail in court if it
gets that far. They should just move the signs farther out.

Imagine if the cops adopted that same enforcement technique down here in SW
Florida with all of the manatee zones and shallow water areas. We'd be
required to spend virtually all of our time off plane.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:46:01 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


What the cops are doing makes perfect sense. The signs say "No Wake
Zone". That means your wake can't enter that zone. It doesn't say your
boat has to be in the zone while making a wake in order for you to get
in trouble.

That would depend on the law as written. I'm thinking the cops are
stretching the law here. Most "no wake zones" are written concerning
the
boat. Some examples:

Any vessel operating in a speed zone posted as "Idle Speed - No Wake"
must operate at the minimum speed that will maintain steerageway.
(Florida)

No person shall operate a powercraft within or through a shore zone,
danger zone, or any area marked as a no wake zone at a speed that
produces a wake. (Ohio)

Operate within designated "no wake" area except at headway speed without
creating a swell or wake. (Texas)

When operating your boat in a no-wake zone you must proceed at a speed
at
which the vessel does not produce a wake, not to exceed 5 miles per
hour.
(Alaska)

You'll notice all of the above state the boat be *in* a no wake zone.

I haven't been able to locate the applicable New York law, but I'd want
to see it before paying the ticket.


You may be right about their interpretation, although I hope not. Every
time I'm there, I see stoopids approach the no-wake signs at high speed,
throwing wakes that are clearly inappropriate for the surroundings. 20-30
feet before the signs, they cut the throttle.

So what. The CG should move the sign if they want them to slow down
sooner.

Those boaters are obeying the law.


I'm not so sure if they're obeying the ESSENCE of the law. Your wake doesn't
belong in a no-wake zone. It doesn't matter how it got there. The sign does
NOT say "No boats which are making wakes". It says "no wake zone".

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:44:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

Sound like over zealous cops and shoreline owners to me.

No shoreline owners of anything for a half mile in either direction.

Then either the original post was incomplete or we are missing
information.

Sorry - bad explanation. When I saw "shoreline owners", I immediately
thought "residential". This *is* the marina to one side, and its floating
docks are no more than 25 feet out of the channel. Floating docks also at
the launch, 50 feet from the channel on the opposite side. Narrow inlet,
boulders on either side.

Again, it's probably interpretation, but the law requires you to slow
down to a speed in which there is no wake.

One way to interpret it is that you slow down prior to approaching the
No-Wake bouy so that you are producing no wake when you enter the
zone.

Another way is that this starts the No-Wake zone and that any legal
speed up to the point of where the bouy is is fine.

This reminds me of a case in CT 20/25 years ago. The town involved
had a two lane state highway running through it - the normal speed
limit at the time was 50 mph. Right at the town line, the speed limit
dropped to 25.

The locals wrote tickets all the time right at the 25 mph speed limit
sign up until they, and the state, were sued by a UCONN law professor.
Turns out that while you certainly can change the speed limit, there
is a reasonable expectation of warning that there is a slower speed
limit ahead of which there wasn't any.

So if automobile case law is any guide, reasonable expectation would
indicate that if you are in a No-Wake zone and there is no warning
that there is a No-Wake zone ahead, then no ticket it warranted if the
bouy isn't placed appropriately to allow for slowing down.

And before the argue anything contingent chimes in, yes, yes, I know
about charts, zone markers, yada, yada, yada. To those I would say
this - do you read a map everytime you drive down the road?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:44:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

Sound like over zealous cops and shoreline owners to me.

No shoreline owners of anything for a half mile in either direction.

Then either the original post was incomplete or we are missing
information.

Sorry - bad explanation. When I saw "shoreline owners", I immediately
thought "residential". This *is* the marina to one side, and its floating
docks are no more than 25 feet out of the channel. Floating docks also at
the launch, 50 feet from the channel on the opposite side. Narrow inlet,
boulders on either side.

Again, it's probably interpretation, but the law requires you to slow
down to a speed in which there is no wake.

One way to interpret it is that you slow down prior to approaching the
No-Wake bouy so that you are producing no wake when you enter the
zone.

Another way is that this starts the No-Wake zone and that any legal
speed up to the point of where the bouy is is fine.

This reminds me of a case in CT 20/25 years ago. The town involved
had a two lane state highway running through it - the normal speed
limit at the time was 50 mph. Right at the town line, the speed limit
dropped to 25.

The locals wrote tickets all the time right at the 25 mph speed limit
sign up until they, and the state, were sued by a UCONN law professor.
Turns out that while you certainly can change the speed limit, there
is a reasonable expectation of warning that there is a slower speed
limit ahead of which there wasn't any.

So if automobile case law is any guide, reasonable expectation would
indicate that if you are in a No-Wake zone and there is no warning
that there is a No-Wake zone ahead, then no ticket it warranted if the
bouy isn't placed appropriately to allow for slowing down.

And before the argue anything contingent chimes in, yes, yes, I know
about charts, zone markers, yada, yada, yada. To those I would say
this - do you read a map everytime you drive down the road?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)


I have a solution: Violators should be required to park their boats at the
adjacent marina for 4 hours on a busy Saturday, in the slips that are
completely exposed to wakes.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:53:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:44:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...

Sound like over zealous cops and shoreline owners to me.

No shoreline owners of anything for a half mile in either direction.

Then either the original post was incomplete or we are missing
information.

Sorry - bad explanation. When I saw "shoreline owners", I immediately
thought "residential". This *is* the marina to one side, and its
floating
docks are no more than 25 feet out of the channel. Floating docks also
at
the launch, 50 feet from the channel on the opposite side. Narrow inlet,
boulders on either side.

Again, it's probably interpretation, but the law requires you to slow
down to a speed in which there is no wake.

One way to interpret it is that you slow down prior to approaching the
No-Wake bouy so that you are producing no wake when you enter the
zone.

Another way is that this starts the No-Wake zone and that any legal
speed up to the point of where the bouy is is fine.

This reminds me of a case in CT 20/25 years ago. The town involved
had a two lane state highway running through it - the normal speed
limit at the time was 50 mph. Right at the town line, the speed limit
dropped to 25.

The locals wrote tickets all the time right at the 25 mph speed limit
sign up until they, and the state, were sued by a UCONN law professor.
Turns out that while you certainly can change the speed limit, there
is a reasonable expectation of warning that there is a slower speed
limit ahead of which there wasn't any.

So if automobile case law is any guide, reasonable expectation would
indicate that if you are in a No-Wake zone and there is no warning
that there is a No-Wake zone ahead, then no ticket it warranted if the
bouy isn't placed appropriately to allow for slowing down.

And before the argue anything contingent chimes in, yes, yes, I know
about charts, zone markers, yada, yada, yada. To those I would say
this - do you read a map everytime you drive down the road?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)


I have a solution: Violators should be required to park their boats at the
adjacent marina for 4 hours on a busy Saturday, in the slips that are
completely exposed to wakes.


I would enhance that by hauling them up a mast to the first spreaders
in a bosun's chair.

CWM

That idea makes me seasick. :)

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 24, 4:52�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:52:56 -0400, Jack Goff wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:43:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

You may be right about their interpretation, although I hope not. Every time
I'm there, I see stoopids approach the no-wake signs at high speed, throwing
wakes that are clearly inappropriate for the surroundings. 20-30 feet before
the signs, they cut the throttle. Their way of thinking (or lack of it) is
pretty obvious, which is what the cops are responding to.

Agreed in general, but with one exception. *Some boats have a much
larger wake at half speed than they do at "high speed". *So they'd
have to either idle up to the markers, or approach fully on plane,
then cut the throttle.

If the no wake zone is truly being damaged by boats on plane outside
the markers, then the markers are poorly placed. *Move them out
further.

I agree with Jack on this one.

In fact, I think the whole issue is misunderstood.

If you are running up to a No Wake zone and slow down, the wake
doesn't continue straight - it forms a V at the stern of the boat. So
the fact that you slow down right before the No Wake zone shouldn't
have any effect on the No-Wake zone itself if the markers are properly
placed. *Even running up to the marker WOT, the wake will still
dissipate with minimal intrusion into the No Wake zone.

And before we get the arguers in this, I do it all the time and my
wake doesn't affect anything.

Sound like over zealous cops and shoreline owners to me.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with you, Tom. I can't see how approaching a no-wake zone at a
high speed and then slowing down is going to introduce a wake to the
zone, *if* you are aproaching the zone head on. The only scenario
where this makes any sense, (if it does at all) would be if he boats
in question were running parallel to the boundary of the no-wake zone,
and in a case like that the markers would need to be put *way* out
from shore. Few small lakes will be wide enough to allow wake-
producing speeds anywhere and then expect to have no effects of that
wake apparent along a shoreline.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

I agree with you, Tom. I can't see how approaching a no-wake zone at a
high speed and then slowing down is going to introduce a wake to the
zone,
==========================


You can't see that? I wish I had a video camera and could post an example
for you. Wakes don't just go out sideways from the boat. There's an element
of "diagonalness". Depending on the location of the next object they meet,
the results can be significant.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

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


Imagine if the cops adopted that same enforcement technique down here in
SW Florida with all of the manatee zones and shallow water areas. We'd be
required to spend virtually all of our time off plane.


Not a problem with Mrs. E's. boat. We'd just continue along, all ahead
full.

Eisboch