| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
So since you own a car you're probably going to speed so the cops should
come and write you a ticket each morning? "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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
Midlant wrote:
So since you own a car you're probably going to speed so the cops should come and write you a ticket each morning? "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. Maybe it will make the "stoopids" a bit more courteous. On the ICW, I think "yachtsters" with stern heavy pleasure barges throwing up huge wakes ought to be subject to a fullisade eight pounders from shoreside cannon batteries. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:44:53 -0400, "Midlant" wrote: So since you own a car you're probably going to speed so the cops should come and write you a ticket each morning? snip Hopefully, this policy will spread. Watch out, stoopids. Silly and specious argument. I betting that I could (in my car) speed past you and other moving and parked vehicles with no injuries or physical damage to you or your vehicle. You might not even notice. That is not the case with a boat's wake. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._4/ai_61555430 EVERY captain is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for his/her wake...... Dear Gene: Nothing you posted refutes the information I provided in my original message. In fact, you provided information which supports what I said. Here. I'll edit your message so it's less cluttered. Everything within the plus signs is your new message: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EVERY captain is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for his/her wake...... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._4/ai_61555430 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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. Some boats make a wake that's still pretty hefty 200 feet later. If you say you haven't noticed this, you're a silly person, and due for an eye exam. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:46:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Dear Gene: Nothing you posted refutes the information I provided in my original message. In fact, you provided information which supports what I said. Here. I'll edit your message so it's less cluttered. Everything within the plus signs is your new message: snips Check your threading..... My post was in response to Midlant. I wholeheartedly concur with your position. Dear Gene: Pardon my conflatulence. :-) |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"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. As I understand it, you are still responsible for any damage or injury resulting from your wake, regardless of where you are in relationship to a no-wake zone. Problem is, the damage or injury probably has to occur before you are liable for anything. Eisboch |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"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. Their way of thinking (or lack of it) is pretty obvious, which is what the cops are responding to. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
The point of their action is (nitwit early replies to this thread
notwithstanding) that by the time the offending bleach bottle crosses the zone boundary, the damage is already done. A prudent Captain does NOT throttle down AT the zone boundary, but well before. An asinine reply to this thread suggests a correlation to a car and speeding limit. Cars don't produce damaging wake. The WAKE is the *POINT* of the 'NO WAKE ZONE', not perse the boats speed. The tickets, in my opinion, are valid, for the infraction is one of judgment, which is crucial to captaining a boat legally and safely. JR JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"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. We had 2 of them run their boats at full speed within 75 feet of us while we were anchored (along with a dozen or so other boats) fishing. There are idiots on the water everywhere. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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. |
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. Fortunately (or not), NY does not require that local judges have a law degree. This is one of those times when local opinion (and common sense) could come in handy. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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! |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
What about the boat passing by the the inlet with no intention of entering
it? Can his wake get him a ticket too? The Coasties are overreaching on this one. If they want people to slow down 200-300 feet before the no-wake zone, then move the markers out 200-300 feet. "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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"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. |
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 |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
On May 25, 6:23?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"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. My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat, with one exception we will address in a moment. The wake is formed when the hull displaces water in order to advance. The water is primarily pushed to either side as that is the longest dimension of the hull and also where there is the most resistance. the bow is normally designed to offer very little resistance, of course. The water isn't really being pushed away from the boat diagonally, especially aft of the bow curve. What happens is that once the boat displaces water that water contiunes to travel away from the point of contact while the boat advances, so the farther behind the boat you look the greater the "gap" between the port and starboard waves. The widening gap and the advancing point of origin describe a "V", but that isn't how the water was originally displaced. In any case, the port and starboard wakes trail the boat. If a boat is making a wake, anything immediately abeam of the point where the wake is generated will be affected. Once the boat slows down to a no-wake speed things that come up abeam beyond that point won't be washed by the wake- with the fore mentioned exception noted in the following paragraph. There are three major "wakes" associated with most powerboats. The bow wake, the sten wake, and a transom wake. The transom wake will disappear more completely when a boat is truly on plane than will either the port or starboard bow and stern wakes. The transom wake *will* overtake the boat if it slows down suddenly as the transom wake as literally following the boat and at about the same speed. The volume of water in a transom wake is substantially less than the volume of water in bow and stern wakes, and the transom wake will also be very slightly mitigated when it uses up some energy to go "under" a boat that has slowed down abruptly ahead of it. This transom wake could easily enter a no-wake zone if a boater were approaching on a heading perpendicular to the boundary of the zone. Some "No Wake Zones" run parallel to the shoreline, with a 200 yard or so area marked by advisory buoys. A boat running 250 yards from shore, parallel to the no wake zone boundary, will certainly create a wake within the exclusion zone whether the boat is actually being operated in the zone or not. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com... On May 25, 6:23?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "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. My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat, with one exception we will address in a moment. The wake is formed when the hull displaces water in order to advance. The water is primarily pushed to either side as that is the longest dimension of the hull and also where there is the most resistance. the bow is normally designed to offer very little resistance, of course. The water isn't really being pushed away from the boat diagonally, especially aft of the bow curve. What happens is that once the boat displaces water that water contiunes to travel away from the point of contact while the boat advances, so the farther behind the boat you look the greater the "gap" between the port and starboard waves. The widening gap and the advancing point of origin describe a "V", but that isn't how the water was originally displaced. In any case, the port and starboard wakes trail the boat. If a boat is making a wake, anything immediately abeam of the point where the wake is generated will be affected. Once the boat slows down to a no-wake speed things that come up abeam beyond that point won't be washed by the wake- with the fore mentioned exception noted in the following paragraph. There are three major "wakes" associated with most powerboats. The bow wake, the sten wake, and a transom wake. The transom wake will disappear more completely when a boat is truly on plane than will either the port or starboard bow and stern wakes. The transom wake *will* overtake the boat if it slows down suddenly as the transom wake as literally following the boat and at about the same speed. The volume of water in a transom wake is substantially less than the volume of water in bow and stern wakes, and the transom wake will also be very slightly mitigated when it uses up some energy to go "under" a boat that has slowed down abruptly ahead of it. This transom wake could easily enter a no-wake zone if a boater were approaching on a heading perpendicular to the boundary of the zone. Some "No Wake Zones" run parallel to the shoreline, with a 200 yard or so area marked by advisory buoys. A boat running 250 yards from shore, parallel to the no wake zone boundary, will certainly create a wake within the exclusion zone whether the boat is actually being operated in the zone or not. Sometimes explanations don't match observations. If just one boat goes through this particular no wake zone, throwing a wake, and nearby objects begin to move, it's obviously the wake. It's not the objects thinking "I guess we should move". |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
On May 25, 7:48?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On May 25, 6:23?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.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. My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat, with one exception we will address in a moment. The wake is formed when the hull displaces water in order to advance. The water is primarily pushed to either side as that is the longest dimension of the hull and also where there is the most resistance. the bow is normally designed to offer very little resistance, of course. The water isn't really being pushed away from the boat diagonally, especially aft of the bow curve. What happens is that once the boat displaces water that water contiunes to travel away from the point of contact while the boat advances, so the farther behind the boat you look the greater the "gap" between the port and starboard waves. The widening gap and the advancing point of origin describe a "V", but that isn't how the water was originally displaced. In any case, the port and starboard wakes trail the boat. If a boat is making a wake, anything immediately abeam of the point where the wake is generated will be affected. Once the boat slows down to a no-wake speed things that come up abeam beyond that point won't be washed by the wake- with the fore mentioned exception noted in the following paragraph. There are three major "wakes" associated with most powerboats. The bow wake, the sten wake, and a transom wake. The transom wake will disappear more completely when a boat is truly on plane than will either the port or starboard bow and stern wakes. The transom wake *will* overtake the boat if it slows down suddenly as the transom wake as literally following the boat and at about the same speed. The volume of water in a transom wake is substantially less than the volume of water in bow and stern wakes, and the transom wake will also be very slightly mitigated when it uses up some energy to go "under" a boat that has slowed down abruptly ahead of it. This transom wake could easily enter a no-wake zone if a boater were approaching on a heading perpendicular to the boundary of the zone. Some "No Wake Zones" run parallel to the shoreline, with a 200 yard or so area marked by advisory buoys. A boat running 250 yards from shore, parallel to the no wake zone boundary, will certainly create a wake within the exclusion zone whether the boat is actually being operated in the zone or not. Sometimes explanations don't match observations. If just one boat goes through this particular no wake zone, throwing a wake, and nearby objects begin to move, it's obviously the wake. It's not the objects thinking "I guess we should move".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Apples and oranges. Obviously any boat "going through a no-wake zone and throwing a wake" will be in volation of no-wake rules. Your original post stated that the local cops are ticketing boaters for not slowing down far enough in advance of the no-wake zone. My observations are based on the relative bearing of the no-wake boundary to the vessel itself, and I maintain that if the boat is entering the no-wake zone at a 90-degree angle to the perimeter of the area and isn't making a wake when it enters the zone there will be very little, if any, wash immediately ahead of the vessel or within the zone. If you are describing a situation where the boats are running parallel to a no-wake zone, you probably can't move the markers out far enough to eliminate any and all effects from wakes generated outside the zone. I've been bawled out by a landlubbing greenie for making a "wake" in a narrow entrance channel to a local harbor. What the greenie stood on shore and referred to as my "goddam wake!" wake was hardly even an aggressive ripple. When somebody figures out how to move a boat through the water without displacing any of it, we'll have the wake problem solved for all time. Most intelligent legal definition of "wake" that I'm aware of: a bow or stern wave that is high enough to break. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com... How about this: Boat making huge wake, cuts throttle 10 feet before the no-wake zone. Read this again, and go get a tape measure if it helps: 10 (TEN) feet. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns
wrote: 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. -- Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however, nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat. I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no- wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no consequence within the no wake zone. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com... On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns wrote: 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. -- Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however, nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat. I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no- wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no consequence within the no wake zone. Not a couple of hundred yards. 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet. High speed until the bow of the boat is about 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet from the signs. The signs are large enough to be seen from a few hundred feet away. The marina is pretty easy to differentiate from the sky, as is the boat launch. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
On May 25, 8:26?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ups.com... On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns wrote: 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. -- Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however, nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat. I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no- wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no consequence within the no wake zone. Not a couple of hundred yards. 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet. High speed until the bow of the boat is about 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet from the signs. The signs are large enough to be seen from a few hundred feet away. The marina is pretty easy to differentiate from the sky, as is the boat launch.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So the basis of the problem is that the offending boats have *not* slowed to a no-wake speed prior to entering the zone. Very understandable source of a wake. If the boats do slow to a no-wake speed prior to entering the zone, it won't matter much how far in advance they reach no-wake speed. Same thing is true when coming abeam of a no-wake zone or a fisherman in a small open boat. You do throttle back in advance of coming abeam of the zone or fisherman so that you are at a no or reduced wake speed when passing opposite. Once past, it's OK to throttle back- the wake isn't going to extend backwards from the point where it was generated |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... How about this: Boat making huge wake, cuts throttle 10 feet before the no-wake zone. Read this again, and go get a tape measure if it helps: 10 (TEN) feet. If that's the case, the boat still has enough momentum that it would be travelling too fast once it entered the no-wake zone. I was under the impression that these boats were coming fully off plane and settled in the water once they entered the zone. Afterall, you said "200-300 feet before the no-wake zone" they were getting flagged down by the CG. That's a full football field's length, and just about any boat that cuts back power to idle one football field's length before the zone is not throwing a wake once it enters the zone. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"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. |
Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ups.com... On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns wrote: 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. -- Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however, nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat. I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no- wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no consequence within the no wake zone. Not a couple of hundred yards. 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet. High speed until the bow of the boat is about 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet from the signs. The signs are large enough to be seen from a few hundred feet away. The marina is pretty easy to differentiate from the sky, as is the boat launch. You said that the CG was flagging them down 200-300 feet before the zone. (?) If it's 10 feet, then I agree with ticketing those boats. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com