No Wake Zone & Rain

[Sailor Jerry]

When it rains and storms why is it that boaters have to get up on plane through the Weirs Channel and knock everyone's boat around so they don't have to get wet. I think it is extremely rude of people not to think that other people's investments are being damaged so they and their family and friends don't get wet. Maybe you should check the forecast before leaving the dock. Inconsiderate and rude has no place on winnipesaukee! Whoever it was that went through the Channel last nite during the storm on plane caused some damage to a couple of boats at the marina. Don't worry we got your bow numbers.

[HellRaZoR004]

Contact Marine patrol. The operator is responsible for their wake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Sarge]

Check out the vid of this guy blowing through Governor's Island channel in broad daylight!

https://www.facebook.com/mike.brien....1787088107076/

Linked from "I boat on Lake Winnipesaukee" Facebook page.

[MikeF-NH]

I stayed at one of the establishments in the Channel this Spring. The place we stayed was fantastic but there was a steady stream of boats crusing through on plane. A fireboat even came in on plane though they came back only 15 minutes later (so no emergency I guess). My boat took considerable damage (and is only one year old). I won't be back...not because of the establishment we stayed at but because of the constant potential for damage.

[upthesaukee]

MikeF-NH.. Sorry your boat took a licking.
Re: the fireboat. A little difficult to assume that just because they went out on plane only to return 15 minutes later doesn't mean there was no emergency initially. A case in point happened tonight: while listening to the scanner tonight, there was a call for a water rescue, unknown problem, off Rattlesnake. Gilford FD and Alton FD boats were dispatched. About 10-15 minutes later, per the Marine Patrol, both units could go inservice. (All this occurred as a hellacious thunderstorm was passing over Alton bay. Glad they were safe. )

The channel is bad enough at the Weirs Beach end, but the Paugus Bay end into the channel is crazy.

Dave


Sent from my SM-T580 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Dave R]

I am not condoning people making a wake in a NWZ, but, if you think you don't need to protect your boat from wakes just because you dock it in a NWZ, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I am not condoning people making a wake in a NWZ, but, if you think you don't need to protect your boat from wakes just because you dock it in a NWZ, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I tend to agree with this, also following that any port in a storm is a good idea as well.

if I remember that day correctly the storm was so bad people needed to get off the lake quick, Boat damage or not, better than a life lost due to lighting or being swamped and overwhelmed

also heard reports of someone firing a flare gun at a boat in the channel trying to get out of the storm as well

(I was not the boat nor was anywhere near the channel)

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by AC2717

also heard reports of someone firing a flare gun at a boat in the channel trying to get out of the storm as well

Plain & simple;
If anyone EVER deliberately shot a flare gun at my boat, they best be prepared to pay the CONSEQUENCES !!


.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Phantom

If anyone EVER deliberately shot a flare gun at my boat, they best be prepared to pay the CONSEQUENCES !!


.

oh, it happened, I know the person it happened to, and they were with a bunch of kids otherwise it would have been ugly

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AC2717

oh, it happened, I know the person it happened to, and they were with a bunch of kids otherwise it would have been ugly

I would think that the police AND the marine patrol should have been called about this. Perhaps it's under investigation, but if you're telling us this happened, how about an update?

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Plain & simple;
If anyone EVER deliberately shot a flare gun at my boat, they best be prepared to pay the CONSEQUENCES !!


.

I'm interested in what your "consequences" would have been?
You're flying through a no wake zone and someone fires a flare toward you...what do you do?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Rich

I would think that the police AND the marine patrol should have been called about this. Perhaps it's under investigation, but if you're telling us this happened, how about an update?

you are correct, but other than a short description of the person and area it came from, there was nothing else, again he was full with kids on the boat. He did not call the police as by the time he got back to the dock 10 minutes or so lapsed

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AC2717

you are correct, but other than a short description of the person and area it came from, there was nothing else, again he was full with kids on the boat. He did not call the police as by the time he got back to the dock 10 minutes or so lapsed

IMHO, no matter if 10 or 30 minutes have passed, the authorities should have been called. Shooting at someone would be a serious offense. If they did it once, they may do it again. Even if it was kids playing around, it's a serious issue.

Imagine if it hit boat, a person on the boat, or someone or someone's property on the other side of the channel?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Rich

IMHO, no matter if 10 or 30 minutes have passed, the authorities should have been called. Shooting at someone would be a serious offense. If they did it once, they may do it again. Even if it was kids playing around, it's a serious issue.

Imagine if it hit boat, a person on the boat, or someone or someone's property on the other side of the channel?

I agree, I was not the person involved, I would have acted differently opting to find a free dock right there asap to make sure passengers were safe and called police and marine patrol

[ITD]

Shooting anything at someone is stupid in this circumstance, especially in NH where constitutional carry is the law, you never know who is armed and that someone could be justified in shooting back. People need to think.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Sailor Jerry

When it rains and storms why is it that boaters have to get up on plane through the Weirs Channel and knock everyone's boat around so they don't have to get wet. I think it is extremely rude of people not to think that other people's investments are being damaged so they and their family and friends don't get wet.
Maybe you should check the forecast before leaving the dock. Inconsiderate and rude has no place on winnipesaukee! Whoever it was that went through the Channel last nite during the storm on plane caused some damage to a couple of boats at the marina. Don't worry we got your bow numbers.

Not just inconsiderate and rude, but mindless.

Hearing thunder earlier this week, I checked "My Radar" to see if I should be going out on the lake. Sure enough, there was a big red and yellow "gloop" heading this way.

No part of the bad weather had made it to New Hampshire. All of it was in Vermont!

.

[SAMIAM]

I am in a no wake zone and there is not a day that I can remember when several boats have not thrown up a wake. Some just ignore the sign and others are just trying to stretch the limits by going a little faster than headway speed.
Anyway....assuming the worst, I'm using mooring whips and spring lines so that damage to the boats are no longer a concern.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I am in a no wake zone and there is not a day that I can remember when several boats have not thrown up a wake. Some just ignore the sign and others are just trying to stretch the limits by going a little faster than headway speed.
Anyway....assuming the worst, I'm using mooring whips and spring lines so that damage to the boats are no longer a concern.

About half of them don't know how to drive their boats and think they need to drive faster than idle speed to keep control.

[Bear Islander]

If I shot a flare at boats that violate the Bear Island NWZ, I would have to buy them by the gross.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If I shot a flare at boats that violate the Bear Island NWZ, I would have to buy them by the gross.

I would have to agree with that 100%. I bet that no wake zone is the most violated in the lake! Even early in the morning before sunrise when I occasionally fish in that area, boats purposely go flying through there because they think no one is around and for the most part they are right as I NEVER see marine patrol out early in the AM....

[Woodsy]

Perhaps its time to revisit the NWZ definition?

We have 2 definitions and confusing language. We call them No Wake Zones... but in reality they are slow speed zones as headway speed is defined as speed is 6 mph or the slowest speed to travel and still maintain steerage. So legally, you are allowed 6 MPH anyway... some boats more.

So perhaps we should redefine the NWZ to slow zones, slap a 5MPH speed limit on them and call it done?

Woodsy

[tis]

I disagree Woodsy. They are meant to be no wake zones not slow speed zones for a reason. As I have posted before, I spoke to Capt. Dunleavy about the language of the law and he said the headway speed law was meant for the ocean not here on the lake. He said the officers use their judgment, if they see a boat making a wake they will stop them and the officers win in court.

Why are we in such a hurry when we are out on our wonderful lake, enjoying our boats, that we can't slow down enough to be courteous??? Especially the difference between 2 MPH and 6 Mph!!

[Phantom]

Ever try being the seemingly ONLY one to go no wake/headway through FL#2 in a boat under 25' on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon?

It's called a death wish !


.

[Woodsy]

Tis...

2 things...

First its the "double definition"...

You are required to go "headway speed" in a NWZ... and then "Headway Speed" is defined as 6MPH or whatever speed is necessary to maintain steerage.

Technically... You are allowed 6 MPH before you break any rules/before the NHMP can do a thing.

Try getting thru the Weirs Channel on a busy Saturday morning... 1 boat going dead slow causes a major backup. The guys behind him are forced to shift in and out of gear all while fighting a current....


Woodsy

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Try getting thru the Weirs Channel on a busy Saturday morning... 1 boat going dead slow causes a major backup. The guys behind him are forced to shift in and out of gear all while fighting a current....

Woodsy

I agree. Many times I have been in a line of boats in the Weirs Channel with boats going sideways and struggling to maintain control because some boat at the front of the line is just crawling along.

Just because your boat does well at 1 MPH doesn't mean that another boat or a larger boat that catches the wind more will handle the same way. It would be nice if people would look behind them occasionally to see if their operation is causing problems for others.

A lot of times the people operating the slow boat are too busy chatting with their passengers or talking on their cell phone to notice the problems they are causing.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

A lot of times the people operating the slow boat are too busy chatting with their passengers or talking on their cell phone to notice the problems they are causing.

You forgot- or simply enjoy being a spectacle because their boat has a throaty "rumble" noise and they enjoy the stares from shore.

Sorta -- "Hey, look at me"




.

[Garcia]

Awareness is key - and not just in NWZs! Going between Eagle Island and Governors, I am frequently amazed at the size of the wakes some of the bigger boats put up; too often just a token effort is made in the NWZ and huge rollers come from multiple directions.

[Woodsy]

I don't think the issue with the NWZ @ Governor's Island is because people just blow thru it... although I am sure it happens.

I think the real issue there is the length of the NWZ is so short... all the waves from the boats coming on/off plane churn the waters up like crazy. Especially the big cruisers that displace A LOT of water.

Woodsy

[Garcia]

True - but I was talking about people who slow down very quickly just as they hit the NWZ and plow through throwing up a considerable wake.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Tis...

2 things...

First its the "double definition"...

You are required to go "headway speed" in a NWZ... and then "Headway Speed" is defined as 6MPH or whatever speed is necessary to maintain steerage.

Technically... You are allowed 6 MPH before you break any rules/before the NHMP can do a thing.

Try getting thru the Weirs Channel on a busy Saturday morning... 1 boat going dead slow causes a major backup. The guys behind him are forced to shift in and out of gear all while fighting a current....


Woodsy

I agree the law is not written very well. However, I wish you would talk to the Capt. of MP because he told me making a wake IS breaking the law and NHMP DOES take people to court and they win.

Obviously in a channel like the Weirs everybody is breaking the law and your point is taken.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Tis...

2 things...

First its the "double definition"...

You are required to go "headway speed" in a NWZ... and then "Headway Speed" is defined as 6MPH or whatever speed is necessary to maintain steerage.

Technically... You are allowed 6 MPH before you break any rules/before the NHMP can do a thing.

Try getting thru the Weirs Channel on a busy Saturday morning... 1 boat going dead slow causes a major backup. The guys behind him are forced to shift in and out of gear all while fighting a current....


Woodsy

Woodsy, I agree on the confusion and the Weirs Channel problem. But I'm not sure your explanation on the law is correct or makes sense. I have always taken the 6 mph as a guide. If I was creating an unnecessary wake in a wake zone, I would expect a ticket regardless of speed.

[Woodsy]

Tis...

We can agree to disagree... or perhaps Tim can chime in here. When an object moves such as a boat moves through the water it displaces the water and the wave it creates is called a wake. There is no such thing as NO WAKE. It is not possible, The lawmakers wrote the law to allow you 6MPH or greater because that is a measurable metric... (as opposed to 6" wake wave height or some other hard to measure metric). That's also why there is a law that makes a boat operator responsible for the damage their wake may cause.

The reason they chose 6MPH or maintain steerage is because currents need to be overcome and dead slow can be dangerous in some conditions. (weirs Channel comes to mind) They also understood that not all boats create the same size wake at the same speed.

A NHMP officer may pull you over.. BUT You are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ... With todays GPS apps etc. its a pretty easy defense to an MP officer or a judge.

Woodsy

PS: I used to own a boat that dead ahead slow was 7-8MPH.... I learned A LOT about this particular rule.

[tis]

Since you refer to Capt. Dunleavy as Tim, you must know him, so why don't you just call him and ask him if you will be stopped for making a wake doing 6MPH? Also ask if they do take people to court and MP does win. I know what he told ME. I wish he would chime in here. The 6MPH rule was because of currents mostly for the ocean when you need to maintain steerage. Weirs Channel may require that at times in parts of it.

We really do have to agree to disagree because I see plenty of boats obeying the law and not making any appreciable wake. The water is almost dead flat behind a lot of boats obeying the law. I just don't think there are that many boats that need to make a wake. People just don't want to slow down.

I would hate to have posts such as yours make people think that they can make a wake going 6 MPH and get in trouble for it. According to what I was told it isn't a good defense. I wonder if the MP officers really know all the laws now? It seems it is a very different force than before.

[Woodsy]

Tis... I know that they pull people over, write tickets and have successful prosecutions...

That being said, the rule of law is 6MPH... and it doesn't change be it the lake or the ocean as there are no provisions written into the RSA for exceptions...

So you can ask the MP yourself, or ask a lawyer... you get 6MPH before you get in trouble.

Woodsy

[tis]

Woodsy, I did ask MP. Did you not read either of my posts. Now I want YOU to ask MP.

I know how the law is written and I agree it is not written very well. And the Capt. thinks that too. But he told me no wake zones still mean no wake. You do NOT get 6 MPH before you get into trouble. I really wish you would ask him.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

Since you refer to Capt. Dunleavy as Tim, you must know him, so why don't you just call him and ask him if you will be stopped for making a wake doing 6MPH? Also ask if they do take people to court and MP does win. I know what he told ME. I wish he would chime in here. The 6MPH rule was because of currents mostly for the ocean when you need to maintain steerage. Weirs Channel may require that at times in parts of it.

We really do have to agree to disagree because I see plenty of boats obeying the law and not making any appreciable wake. The water is almost dead flat behind a lot of boats obeying the law. I just don't think there are that many boats that need to make a wake. People just don't want to slow down.

I would hate to have posts such as yours make people think that they can make a wake going 6 MPH and get in trouble for it. According to what I was told it isn't a good defense. I wonder if the MP officers really know all the laws now? It seems it is a very different force than before.

I hate to be negative, but based on what you say, Capt. Dunleavy is dead wrong and really should just concentrate on law enforcement, not making up laws and reasons for them. There's no difference in steering a boat in salt water versus fresh water and the law clearly makes no distinction.

NH really should just change the law to 5 MPH like the rest of the north east (perhaps the rest of the US?). 6 MPH IS too fast in a NWZ for most pleasure boats, IMO. I tend to do 5 MPH and make a tiny wake. I do it right in front of MP all the time with no issues.

That said, people on Winnipesaukee get WAY too worked up over wakes in no wake zones. The rest of the world is pretty ambivalent toward the whole issue unless the wakes are monsterous. You should see busy (non-Winnipesaukee) NWZ harbors full of moored boats with powered dinghies some time. Everyone knows the dinghies make tiny wakes, even at speed, so they can race around at WOT without getting a second look from anyone. If people here saw that they'd flip out...

[BroadHopper]

Been on this lake for decades. What I find out is each LEO interpret headway speed differently. One LEO will say I'm going to fast and another will tell me to speed it up! That happened once at the same time in the Weirs Channel but at different spots. There is never a right or wrong.

The way I see things, A no wake zone is perfect on an area that is not a thru way such as coves and bays. But channels and inlets/outlets requires headway speed to maintain safe steerage.

A deep vee boat tends to wander left and right at no wake speed but will travel straight if I maintain headway speed at 7+ mph. A pontoon boat and PWC can travel faster without creating a wake than a deep vee. So the interpretation is mixed in the eye of an LEO with little experience in boating.

I was pulled over a number of times in the channel when an LEO tells me to slow down. Seeing me jumping in and out of gear and wandering left and right he sees a potential impaired driver and will stop to give me a breathalyzer test. I even had some LEO telling me to have my mechanic fix the boat! That tells me how much they know boat handling!

[SAMIAM]

Just to play devil's advocate........going south through the Weirs channel, in the spring the current is at least 5mph and a deep V boat would need to travel at 10mph to maintain steerage......otherwise you'd get sideways, as Tilton said.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Just to play devil's advocate........going south through the Weirs channel, in the spring the current is at least 5mph and a deep V boat would need to travel at 10mph to maintain steerage......otherwise you'd get sideways, as Tilton said.

That concept goes over many a boaters head!

In the spring you have no choice but to cause a wake when going against the current in the channel. It is completely impossible not to....

Dan

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

That concept goes over many a boaters head!

In the spring you have no choice but to cause a wake when going against the current in the channel. It is completely impossible not to....

Dan

Tell that to the judge!

[tis]

I hate to be negative, but based on what you say, Capt. Dunleavy is dead wrong and really should just concentrate on law enforcement, not making up laws and reasons for them. There's no difference in steering a boat in salt water versus fresh water and the law clearly makes no distinction.


Really DaveR? Making up laws? I don't believe you posted that. I guess you know more than Capt. Dunleavy?

His point was the currents are worse in the ocean than the lake.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

Really DaveR? Making up laws? I don't believe you posted that. I guess you know more than Capt. Dunleavy?

His point was the currents are worse in the ocean than the lake.

Read the law, it is very simply put and really makes no distinction between salt water and fresh water. In fact it never once mentions "salt", "fresh", "lake", "ocean" or "current". Please explain how it can be interpreted to mean anything more than: "up to 6MPH, unless you really need to go faster to maintain control".

[Bear Islander]

You people are talking about the differences between 5, 6 or 7 MPH.

The boats I am talking about violating the Bear Island NWZ or ON PLANE!

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

I have witnessed that while going thru that NWZ.... it is nuts!

Woodsy

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You people are talking about the differences between 5, 6 or 7 MPH.

The boats I am talking about violating the Bear Island NWZ or ON PLANE!

I saw you violating the no wake zone by a lot a season or so back

IIRC you were operating a purplish bowrider, maybe a Maxum.

[tis]

Dave R. I have read the law. Many times in fact. Because of the way it is written and the discussions on here and other forums is why I asked Capt. Dunleavy about it. I agree and I think he does too, it is not very well written. Nevertheless, he said no wake on the lake means no wake, not headway speed. He also said that they can and do stop people and take them to court if they challenge it and win. And I don't know how many more times I need to say it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You people are talking about the differences between 5, 6 or 7 MPH.

The boats I am talking about violating the Bear Island NWZ or ON PLANE!

Sometimes that is better, they make less wake doing that than the half way plow. Dangerous though.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

Dave R. I have read the law. Many times in fact. Because of the way it is written and the discussions on here and other forums is why I asked Capt. Dunleavy about it. I agree and I think he does too, it is not very well written. Nevertheless, he said no wake on the lake means no wake, not headway speed. He also said that they can and do stop people and take them to court if they challenge it and win. And I don't know how many more times I need to say it.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am disagreeing with Capt. Dunleavy. He is doing the right thing from a common sense point of view, but the law does not back him up. NH should just change the law to from 6 MPH to 5 MPH, like the other states, and be done with it.

FWIW: My boat makes a wake that seems a little excessive at 6 MPH, so I typically go 5 MPH, make a minimal wake, and have never been stopped by any law enforcement for my wake. However, if the natural chop is bigger than my 6 MPH wake, I go 6 MPH. There's no point going slower than 6 MPH in 1' chop.

[Woodsy]

The LAW is pretty definitive...

RSA 270-D:1 Definitions..

VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

The RSA CLEARLY defines what Headway speed is... and it CLEARLY defines what a 'No Wake Area" means.

There is NO ambiguity. You are allowed up to 6MPH in a NWZ.

Sorry people don't get it!

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-D/270-D-1.htm

Woodsy

[KDL]

No matter how the law is worded, I'm going to take a stab at the intent;

In a NWZ,,,, do your best to not make a wake.

I don't think anyone, including MP care if your going 3, 5 or 8 MPH. On the other hand, if your making a wake, that will get you noticed.

[upthesaukee]

It's really funny to me, because I have always looked at headway speed as a maximum speed of 6 MPH or the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained. Maybe the slowest speed is 3, maybe 4, maybe 5. It depends on conditions such as wind or current. (I know, the word maximum is not in the definition.

At 6 MPH, my 25 ft Mariah bowrider throws a noticeable wake.

As a result, I do all that is possible to not throw a wake in a NWZ. And if I am holding any of you up by going too slow and not making a wake, I apologize in advance.
Dave



Sent from my SM-T580 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woodsy]

Headway speed is defined like a speed limit.... you are allowed to go as fast as 6 MPH. It is up to you if you want to go slower. It is allowable to go faster than 6 MPH if it is necessary to maintain steerage.

The issue here is the definition of a No Wake Area.. the title is misleading. It should be called "Headway Speed Zone".

Woodsy

[Descant]

Weirs Channel, where there is more current than other NWZ: Small boats with small props need to respect the larger boats with larger props and a lot more windage. 750 rpm for you is a lot different for the same RPM for a large boat.

Pilots say "Establish a good scan and get your head out of the cockpit and pay attention." If you're fixated on your GPS to make 5 mph or 6 mph, you're not paying attention outside the cockpit. When I had a larger boat (37' fly bridge) I passed boats in the channel when there was room. As we approached the bridge, I just kept my steerage speed and when my anchor was about to touch their stern pole, I gave a little toot, smiled and waved. They always added throttle, usually smiled and waved too. Never got a Boston Salute, but they always added throttle. Mostly, they were just oblivious to what was happening around them.

For the long time sexists you've seen me post, "Let the lady drive. Smile, shrug your shoulders and wave"
I mostly don't drive anymore, but I'm great at smiling and waving, and she's great at driving. Easy.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I saw you violating the no wake zone by a lot a season or so back

IIRC you were operating a purplish bowrider, maybe a Maxum.

I have never operated a Maxum.

I have never operated a purple boat.

I have never violated a NWZ.

If you want to accuse me of a violation please be more specific.

It seems you don't remember correctly.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

It's really funny to me, because I have always looked at headway speed as a maximum speed of 6 MPH or the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained. Maybe the slowest speed is 3, maybe 4, maybe 5. It depends on conditions such as wind or current. (I know, the word maximum is not in the definition.



Sent from my SM-T580 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Based on that logic: If you are in a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH, and you are heading into a 4 MPH current, the slowest you can go and still maintain steerage, is -1 MPH. Can you now see why the law could not possibly imply that you must go "the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained"? If true, in certain cases you'd be moving backwards.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Dave R

. Can you now see why the law could not possibly imply that you must go "the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained"?.

It doesn't imply that,it clearly states that.

Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

"No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Based on that logic: If you are in a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH, and you are heading into a 4 MPH current, the slowest you can go and still maintain steerage, is -1 MPH. Can you now see why the law could not possibly imply that you must go "the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained"? If true, in certain cases you'd be moving backwards.

I have tried SO hard to stay out of this debate -- I think it is like the third or forth time in the past few years that this same old banter, same old arguments, same old points/counterpoints has been thrown forth & back!

Dave - think your statement through -- if your boat maintains steerage at 3MPH, your heading into a 4MPH current then it would stand to reason that you bring the boat speed up to 7MPH (due to the way speed is measured in boats). The net result is your STILL only moving (land speed) at 3 MPH.

Put a radar gun on the old Donna Jean's pier someday and try it this Fall when the Dam opens!


.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Woodsy, I agree on the confusion and the Weirs Channel problem. But I'm not sure your explanation on the law is correct or makes sense. I have always taken the 6 mph as a guide. If I was creating an unnecessary wake in a wake zone, I would expect a ticket regardless of speed.

Some of "the confusion" may be grounded in the manner in which speed is measured. Some boats can't register such speeds, when others use SOG—when SOG doesn't meet the RSA's criteria.

The default position goes to "common sense".

The RSA was changed in 1995, when proliferation of over-sized boats (most-suitable to the ocean) began on Lake Winnipesaukee. Here's a quote re NHMP enforcement:

"...I’ll offer you some history behind the law change that took effect in 1995...In the early 1990’s Marine Patrol began patrolling our seacoast. It was recognized by our officers that the tidal currents in the state’s coastal rivers often exceeded 6 mph and therefore safe steerage for a vessel fighting the current would need to exceed the limits of the law.

As a result the law was changed to its current language. Local Judges have accepted and recognize the intent of the law and therefore the application of the “slowest speed necessary…” is the portion of the definition that our officers most often use in their application of the law.

To try and answer your question specifically as it applies to a 12’ jon boat (your example). The officer would look at several things when considering a boat stop for a violation. They would include the existing water conditions, the boat’s wake, how much faster than necessary they are travelling, is the attitude of the bow “lifting” vs. flat, speed and size of other vessels in the immediate area, etc. I believe that a common sense application of these concepts by any boat operator will keep them safe and legal...

[Lt.] Timothy C. Dunleavy"

From the first paragraph, notice how the issue was skirted when every other coastal state has kept the old statute! (Except Oregon, which added "making white water behind").

Originally Posted by tis

I disagree Woodsy. They are meant to be no wake zones not slow speed zones for a reason. As I have posted before, I spoke to Capt. Dunleavy about the language of the law and he said the headway speed law was meant for the ocean not here on the lake. He said the officers use their judgment, if they see a boat making a wake they will stop them and the officers win in court.
Why are we in such a hurry when we are out on our wonderful lake, enjoying our boats, that we can't slow down enough to be courteous??? Especially the difference between 2 MPH and 6 Mph!!

Yes, indeed!

There is no provision for "being forced" to shift in-and-out of gear.

BTW: I see two more boat lifts have been added this season within a stone's throw from my place—in a protected harbor—and it's not because there are too many pontoon boats!
.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Dave - think your statement through -- if your boat maintains steerage at 3MPH, your heading into a 4MPH current then it would stand to reason that you bring the boat speed up to 7MPH (due to the way speed is measured in boats).
.

Speed is measured in many boats today by GPS and not relative to the water its passing over.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

Weirs Channel, where there is more current than other NWZ: Small boats with small props need to respect the larger boats with larger props and a lot more windage. 750 rpm for you is a lot different for the same RPM for a large boat.

Pilots say "Establish a good scan and get your head out of the cockpit and pay attention." If you're fixated on your GPS to make 5 mph or 6 mph, you're not paying attention outside the cockpit. When I had a larger boat (37' fly bridge) I passed boats in the channel when there was room. As we approached the bridge, I just kept my steerage speed and when my anchor was about to touch their stern pole, I gave a little toot, smiled and waved. They always added throttle, usually smiled and waved too. Never got a Boston Salute, but they always added throttle. Mostly, they were just oblivious to what was happening around them.

For the long time sexists you've seen me post, "Let the lady drive. Smile, shrug your shoulders and wave"
I mostly don't drive anymore, but I'm great at smiling and waving, and she's great at driving. Easy.

Descant--a really interesting post. I do not dispute the difficulty of your situation in the larger boat.

But in your telling, you appear to be the give-way vessel. You then beep at a stand-on vessel who gives way and smiles as he does it.

Was he really "oblivious"? Haven't you violated the right of way rules?

I don't pose these questions to be critical, and I can see how at certain times you could have had virtually no choice. It's just that, if my understanding is correct, it's an interesting breakdown of the rules.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I have tried SO hard to stay out of this debate -- I think it is like the third or forth time in the past few years that this same old banter, same old arguments, same old points/counterpoints has been thrown forth & back!

Dave - think your statement through -- if your boat maintains steerage at 3MPH, your heading into a 4MPH current then it would stand to reason that you bring the boat speed up to 7MPH (due to the way speed is measured in boats). The net result is your STILL only moving (land speed) at 3 MPH.

Put a radar gun on the old Donna Jean's pier someday and try it this Fall when the Dam opens!


.

You would not need to bring the boat to 7 MPH over water to maintain steerage against a 4 MPH current, you could maintain steerage at 3 MPH over water. That equates to -1 MPH over ground which means you will be moving backwards at your minimum steerage speed. Obviously, the state does not expect you to go backwards and that is precisely why the law cannot possibly mean what you think it does. Anyone that's ever docked on the Piscataqua River knows what I mean. There are times there when you have to throttle up above idle speed to simply stand still. You can do that and gently move the boat sideways to the dock with nothing but steering inputs when facing into the current (assuming the dock is parallel to the current).

[Seaplane Pilot]

How can anyone possibly have fun anymore if we all have to worry about 4" wakes, MP's "interpretation" of laws as they are written, who's the stand-on and give-way vessel in a clogged, busy channel, anchoring too close to shore or another boat in a no rafting zone, going more than 45mph on the largest lake in the State, etc., etc. Good God...we should just get rid of all powerboats and then the factions will be happy. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if this were to happen, people would still find something about kayaks, SUP's and sailboats to bitch about!

But back to the no wake law for a minute: In my opinion, the language is convoluted and should be changed. Does the language in this section"
VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way" mean that if a boat can be operated LESS than 6mph and can maintain steerage, then that's what has to happen? Or does it mean that 6mph is the max, but if you have to go faster to maintain steerage, then you are allowed to do so?

I don't think MP has the authority to make this determination. They can claim they do all day long, but do they really as a fact of law? It's a law as written, so it would be up to the court to determine this, or the legislature to correct the obviously convoluted, confusing language.

Labor Day is fast approaching, so soon everyone can forget boating and start complaining about cold weather.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Descant--a really interesting post. I do not dispute the difficulty of your situation in the larger boat.

But in your telling, you appear to be the give-way vessel. You then beep at a stand-on vessel who gives way and smiles as he does it.

Was he really "oblivious"? Haven't you violated the right of way rules?

I don't pose these questions to be critical, and I can see how at certain times you could have had virtually no choice. It's just that, if my understanding is correct, it's an interesting breakdown of the rules.

One legal way to inform a person ahead of you that you intend to overtake them is with the horn (one toot for starboard, two toots for port (you can use the radio too)). If the stand-on vessel does not respond with the same horn signals you should not overtake. However, if instead they speed up, then there's no need to overtake so everybody wins. The funny thing is, if they speed up they are technically not following the rules of being a stand-on boat...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

How can anyone possibly have fun anymore if we all have to worry about 4" wakes, MP's "interpretation" of laws as they are written, who's the stand-on and give-way vessel in a clogged, busy channel, anchoring too close to shore or another boat in a no rafting zone, going more than 45mph on the largest lake in the State, etc., etc. Good God...we should just get rid of all powerboats and then the factions will be happy. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if this were to happen, people would still find something about kayaks, SUP's and sailboats to bitch about!

For some of us, a polite debate is fun and it's one of the reasons I enjoy this website so much.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

How can anyone possibly have fun anymore if we all have to worry about 4" wakes, MP's "interpretation" of laws as they are written, who's the stand-on and give-way vessel in a clogged, busy channel, anchoring too close to shore or another boat in a no rafting zone, going more than 45mph on the largest lake in the State, etc., etc. Good God...we should just get rid of all powerboats and then the factions will be happy. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if this were to happen, people would still find something about kayaks, SUP's and sailboats to bitch about!

But back to the no wake law for a minute: In my opinion, the language is convoluted and should be changed. Does the language in this section"
VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way" mean that if a boat can be operated LESS than 6mph and can maintain steerage, then that's what has to happen? Or does it mean that 6mph is the max, but if you have to go faster to maintain steerage, then you are allowed to do so?

I don't think MP has the authority to make this determination. They can claim they do all day long, but do they really as a fact of law? It's a law as written, so it would be up to the court to determine this, or the legislature to correct the obviously convoluted, confusing language.

Labor Day is fast approaching, so soon everyone can forget boating and start complaining about cold weather.

*************

I agree, the language should be changed to make it perfectly clear to all those who think they can interpret the law. But reading the law is like that to a non lawyer. Again, I have been told by the Capt. of MP that it HAS been determined by the court that no wake means no wake and when his officers has determined that a boater is breaking that law and taken it to court, the court has backed them up.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by tis

*************

I agree, the language should be changed to make it perfectly clear to all those who think they can interpret the law. But reading the law is like that to a non lawyer. Again, I have been told by the Capt. of MP that it HAS been determined by the court that no wake means no wake and when his officers has determined that a boater is breaking that law and taken it to court, the court has backed them up.

In court the RSA is black and white, no gray area. Not only different LEO interpret a law in their opinion, so do judges. That is why we have lawyers to sway opinions.

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by Dave R

For some of us, a polite debate is fun and it's one of the reasons I enjoy this website so much.

Ducks at Y Landing have been leaving wakes lately as he ducklings have matured. The lady on the point who yells at boats daily hasn't noticed them yet. We wonder if she'll call Marine Patrol.

[Phantom]

Okay - it's time to be kind and euthanize this thread !


.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Dave R

One legal way to inform a person ahead of you that you intend to overtake them is with the horn (one toot for starboard, two toots for port (you can use the radio too)). If the stand-on vessel does not respond with the same horn signals you should not overtake. However, if instead they speed up, then there's no need to overtake so everybody wins. The funny thing is, if they speed up they are technically not following the rules of being a stand-on boat...

As noted, if they speed up just a little, say to 6 mph, everybody is legal and happy. The less often noted part of the right of way protocol is that it is not appropriate to assert right of way to arbitrarily impede another vessel's safe progress.

[rander7823]

I am glad I don't own a boat sounds way to complicated and stressful

[tis]

I happened to run across this from Capt. Dunleavy:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...mothy+dunleavy

He explains the no wake zones and the way marine patrol deals with them.

[tis]

I am surprised after all this discussion that nobody replied to my post with Capt. Dunleavy's letter:



_________________________________________________ ______________

Sat, June 19, 2010 9:52:43 AM
Subject: Headway Speed/No Wake
From: "Dunleavy, Timothy"
To: lake_citizen


Lake Citizen,

Thank you for your inquiry.

Your research is accurate as to the definitions you cite. To clarify your question, I’ll offer you some history behind the law change that took effect in 1995. The “old” language stated, headway speed was the slowest speed that the boat could be operated and maintain steerage way, “but which does not exceed 6 miles per hour.”

In the early 1990’s Marine Patrol began patrolling our seacoast. It was recognized by our officers that the tidal currents in the state’s coastal rivers often exceeded 6 mph and therefore safe steerage for a vessel fighting the current would need to exceed the limits of the law.

As a result the law was changed to its current language. Local Judges have accepted and recognize the intent of the law and therefore the application of the “slowest speed necessary…” is the portion of the definition that our officers most often use in their application of the law.

To try and answer your question specifically as it applies to a 12’ jon boat (your example). The officer would look at several things when considering a boat stop for a violation. They would include the existing water conditions, the boat’s wake, how much faster than necessary they are travelling, is the attitude of the bow “lifting” vs. flat, speed and size of other vessels in the immediate area, etc. I believe that a common sense application of these concepts by any boat operator will keep them safe and legal.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me at Marine Patrol Headquarters or by phone at the number listed below.

Safe Boating!!

Tim

Timothy C. Dunleavy
Lieutenant,
New Hampshire Marine Patrol
31 Dock Rd.
Gilford, NH 03249
Ph. 603-293-2037
Fax 603-293-0096
Glove is offline Report Post Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 06:52 PM

[ApS]

Originally Posted by tis

I am surprised after all this discussion that nobody replied to my post with Capt. Dunleavy's letter:

Maybe because the letter had already been copied in post #58...?

.

[tis]

I am sorry. You are right, you did post that. I guess I was just too numb to realize that you were quoting from the same letter. YOU didn't get a lot of response to that letter.

[Woodsy]

Tis....

No response because as I have stated before... you are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ. Its clearly stated in the letter...

Original rule..

"Headway speed was the slowest speed that the boat could be operated and maintain steerage way, but which does not exceed 6 miles per hour.”

So you can go up to 6MPH...

New rule...

VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way"

You can exceed 6MPH if needed due to current/and or conditions!


Woodsy

[tis]

You read what you want, Woodsy. But if you get fined some day going your 6MPH I won't feel sorry for you. I just don't want others reading this forum to get into trouble because they believe what you say.

Do you not understand what Capt. Dunleavy said in the quote below?

"As a result the law was changed to its current language. Local Judges have accepted and recognize the intent of the law and therefore the application of the “slowest speed necessary…” is the portion of the definition that our officers most often use in their application of the law."

If you truly believe 6MPH is ok, I challenge you to meet me along with MP and see what they do when you go your 6MPH.

And having said that, I am not going to discuss it anymore. I just don't want others to believe that they might be ok going 6 MPH making a wake in a No Wake Zone.

[Descant]

From Woodsy: VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way"

You can exceed 6 MPH if needed due to current/and or conditions! "

That sounds simple and straightforward. I guess the confusion is between a No Wake Zone and a headway speed only area. Aren't they really the same thing? Shouldn't need several threads, right?

[Woodsy]

Descant...

The confusion is in the names.... people think No Wake Zone means don't make any sort of wake... where the actual legal definition is headway speed/up to 6MPH or more if needed.

I would rename the NWZ on Lake Winni to 5MPH zones... clear & concise.

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

Tis...

I know the law because I lived it for 2 years...

I owned a Donzi 22 Classic with a Blackhawk drive on it... in gear at idle the boat went 7-8 MPH GPS. Guess what... no ticket from the MP once I demonstrated that was as slow as the boat would idle in gear thus maintaining steerage...

Perhaps you should consult a lawyer on how the law is actually interpreted. I did when I owned the Donzi 22...

Woodsy

[gillygirl]

That's not the issue tis is talking about. For some boats, the slowest speed for them to make headway is 4 mph, and they throw a wake at 6 mph. As tis pointed out from the letter, it's up to the discretion of the MP officer making the stop to decide.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woodsy]

Actually... Its not up to the officer. The law is the law and the law gives up to 6 MPH. Its a pretty easy concept...

In places like the Weirs Channel 6 MPH is pretty impossible due to boat traffic. Its places like that where a 5 MPH zone would be way more safe and effective...

Woodsy

[Phantom]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Go as slow as your boat can go and still allow you to maneuver.



Simple ehh ?

Now let's see how many can tie up bandwidth making this more complicated than it really is.


.

[Woodsy]

Phantom...

The problem with that philosophy is that in places like the Weirs Channel where there is a current it can cause issues. Because boats all idle at different speeds.

Boat A (a large cabin cruiser) idles thru the channel at an easy 1-2 MPH... There are 26 other boats behind him that do not idle that slow. They are forced to shift in and out of gear and get pushed sideways by the current... Maintaining steerage is difficult.

Woodsy

[Garcia]

I've been on the lake for 50 years, driving boats since I was a child. NWZs have never been complicated and I've never had to parse the language of the law to know what to do. I guess common sense isn't so common after all - nor is understanding the intent of the boating rules. This thread does make an interesting read - not sure I want to meet all the posters in a NWZ, though!

[tis]

I agree, wow! Woodsy is either being stubborn or just doesn't get it. Gillygirl, we just can't get it through his head, but thanks for the help! Yes, Phantom, simple, but some people just can't seem to understand. Yes, Garcia, courtesy should be enough but it isn't-sometimes.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by tis

I am surprised after all this discussion that nobody replied to my post with Capt. Dunleavy's letter:

Also, 7 years is a lifetime in matters such as this.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Phantom

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Go as slow as your boat can go and still allow you to maneuver.



Simple ehh ?

Now let's see how many can tie up bandwidth making this more complicated than it really is.


.

Here's why that can't be right:

If your boat can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and you are going upstream in a 4 MPH current in a NWZ, and follow your interpretation of the law, you will be going backward at -1 MPH. Anyone that's ever docked on the Piscataqua River understands this.

[Joebon]

The law doesn't care what your speedometer says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BroadHopper]

Regardless of the current, wind etc. The GPS speed is the exact speed you are traveling from point A to B. Your boat speedometer does not compensate for this.

If the MP clock you with a laser gun it will get you theoretically the same reading as a GPS speed. Angle of boat, surface reflections etc does throw the accuracy off.

If the MP reads your speed by eye, i.e. the size of your wake, this is essentially the same as reading your boat speedometer.

The major problem with the headway speed (6 mph) law is that it does not state whether it means the traveling speed from point A to B or if it is the speed of the boat going from point A to B in regards to conditions.

Savvy?

[Hillcountry]

Geeze Louise...just DON'T MAKE A FREAKIN' WAKE WHEN IN A NO WAKE ZONE!!
Speed schmeed...NO WAKE!

[Phantom]

where the hell is the "THANK YOU" button when I need it most !

THANK YOU - HillCountry --

was kinda my point in post #82 ... I just should have added without making a wake... you said it even better!!

.

[Woodsy]

I guess some you just do not understand just how the law as written works... Oh well! The 6MPH wording is in there for a reason, it is not just an arbitrary random number... subject to an MP officer's interpretation. They don't get to "interpret" speed limit either. You are over 45 MPH or your not over 45 MPH.

Woodsy

[tis]

Agreed, Hillcountry said it perfectly! Very simple, just don't make a wake in a no wake zone!

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by tis

Agreed, Hillcountry said it perfectly! Very simple, just don't make a wake in a no wake zone!

No wake is no wake. I do not understand why once an area is designated no wake people feel the need to create a wake. I am sure if it affected their own boat or property they would not create a wake. It's following the law and simple respect for others. I may not like the new extended zone but out of respect for others and the obligation to follow the law I will.

[Woodsy]

That's the problem Joey...

270-D:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:

VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

6MPH is not some random number chosen by the legislature... it is a definable speed limit for a No Wake Zone.... just as definable as 45MPH/30MPH is elsewhere on the lake!

And to further this because some people just don't get it.. per the letter from MP...

"In the early 1990’s Marine Patrol began patrolling our seacoast. It was recognized by our officers that the tidal currents in the state’s coastal rivers often exceeded 6 mph and therefore safe steerage for a vessel fighting the current would need to exceed the limits of the law. "

So the law was rewritten to ALLOW you to go FASTER than 6MPH if the conditions so warranted it. (think springtime in the Weirs channel with Lakeport Dam wide open)


Woodsy

[ishoot308]

It would be a fairly simple change to simply say max speed is 6 MPH "per GPS" then it wouldn't matter if you were going against a 20 MPH current...

Let's not overly complicate (too late for that!) a simple rule that has clear intent.

Dan

[winni83]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

That's the problem Joey...

270-D:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:

VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

6MPH is not some random number chosen by the legislature... it is a definable speed limit for a No Wake Zone.... just as definable as 45MPH/30MPH is elsewhere on the lake!

And to further this because some people just don't get it.. per the letter from MP...

"In the early 1990’s Marine Patrol began patrolling our seacoast. It was recognized by our officers that the tidal currents in the state’s coastal rivers often exceeded 6 mph and therefore safe steerage for a vessel fighting the current would need to exceed the limits of the law. "

So the law was rewritten to ALLOW you to go FASTER than 6MPH if the conditions so warranted it. (think springtime in the Weirs channel with Lakeport Dam wide open)


Woodsy

So if your boat can maintain steerage at say 3 MPH, can you go 6 MPH or are you limited to 3 MPH? The law does not say the greater of 6 MPH or the slowest speed, etc.

[Woodsy]

Winni83...

Precisely... you can go up to 6MPH its a definable number. The issue is every boat is different so while 3MPH steerage works for you, the guy behind you might need 3.5-4MPH yet the guy in front of you might only need 2-2.5MPH. The legislature agreed on a 6MPH limit. Per the MP letter above, it was found that there are times that you need to exceed 6MPH due to conditions (tides/current). So they legislature rewrote the law to allow you to exceed 6 MPH if necessary.


Woodsy

[winni83]

Woodsy

Not sure about your conclusion. In my example the maximum headway speed might well be 3 MPH and not 6. Also not sure whether it is 6 or 3 makes much of a practical difference in the real world. My speedometer does not even register under 10 MPH and unless I have my gps on I look at my wake, or lack thereof, and maybe my tach.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

That's the problem Joey...

270-D:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:

VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

6MPH is not some random number chosen by the legislature... it is a definable speed limit for a No Wake Zone.... just as definable as 45MPH/30MPH is elsewhere on the lake!

And to further this because some people just don't get it.. per the letter from MP...

"In the early 1990’s Marine Patrol began patrolling our seacoast. It was recognized by our officers that the tidal currents in the state’s coastal rivers often exceeded 6 mph and therefore safe steerage for a vessel fighting the current would need to exceed the limits of the law. "

So the law was rewritten to ALLOW you to go FASTER than 6MPH if the conditions so warranted it. (think springtime in the Weirs channel with Lakeport Dam wide open)


Woodsy

Thank you Woodsy. Interesting quote from the MP