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?