"thunder" wrote in message
news
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. Their way of thinking (or lack of it) is
pretty obvious, which is what the cops are responding to.

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.

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.

On May 24, 7:52 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 -

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner folks!

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

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

On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:06:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

So why the no wake zone?

Basically, it seems we are left with over zealous cops drumming up
operating capital.

Bottom line is... the markers are there to tell you that inside them,
you can't make a wake. If they are ticketing boaters that are making
wakes approaching no-wake markers, that is wrong. It doesn't matter
if you or I don't like it, it's wrong.

The markers are a line drawn in the "sand". Inside, no wake.
Outside, wake OK.

How are the cops determining what wakes are OK, and how far out they
have to cease? Size of boat? Speed? Wake type? Direction of
travel? I call BS.

Understand that my slip is on the outer finger in the marina, and the
no wake zone is barely 20-30 yards out from my slip. I get ****ed
when some yahoo barrels through the zone and rocks the boats in their
slips. But I don't get ****ed when someone runs up to the markers,
then comes off plane and idles through the markers and marina. He did
what the law requires. The markers should be moved out.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:06:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

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

"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.

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. :)

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.