|
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
|
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.... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com