No Wake

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by KPW

It should be as simple as, no wake means no waves. If you are in a no wake zone and you are making waves, then you are breaking the law.

That doesn't work.... every boat has a different speed where it makes a noticeable wake, it is also very subjective and would likely not hold up in court. See my explanation above


Woodsy

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

That doesn't work.... every boat has a different speed where it makes a noticeable wake, it is also very subjective and would likely not hold up in court. See my explanation above





Woodsy

I don’t think you understand him. He’s saying it is not the speed, it’s the wake wave. If you are making a wake, slow down. Your boat won’t make a wake at idle no matter what speed that is. You’re apparently saying you don’t care the repercussions, you’re going to go the maximum speed allowed by law.

Sounds like it must be all about you. Sad way to go thru life.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woodsy]

Bigguy...


This is where you are wrong.... different hull designs throw wakes at different speeds. Also, at dead slow, different boats travel at different speeds. I had a Donzi 22 that idled at 7.5MPH and threw a wake doing so.

So while HillCountry can idle thru the Weirs Channel at 3MPH in his pontoon, the guy behind him idles at 4.5MPH. The guy behind him idles at 5MPH. So what you end up with is a traffic jam as the 2 guys behind HillCountry shift in and out of gear trying to hold position in winds and currents.

That being said... There is ALWAYS a wake when you push an object thru the water. ALWAYS. It just depends if it is visible or not, and then if it is visible, how big is it? But now you are crossing into opinion and subjectivity. The only way to truly control this is to use speed as it is an absolute. You are going to fast, or you are not going to fast... black & white.

In the NH RSA's... the 1st State law clearly defines "Headway Speed" as 6MPH. The law does not differentiate between Lake or Ocean. It is no different than the 70MPH highway speed limit or the 45 MPH daytime speed limit on the lake. Exceed the speed limit, possibly get a ticket. However, the State also realized that in some instances on the water you would need to EXCEED the 6MPH and they wrote a provision for that.

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

It is very simple! I am not saying anyone HAS to go 6MPH... I am just saying you are ALLOWED to go 6MPH.

Now if the State would just relabel the NWZ's to Headway Speed Zones... the confusion would be gone.

Woodsy

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Bigguy...


This is where you are wrong.... different hull designs throw wakes at different speeds. Also, at dead slow, different boats travel at different speeds. I had a Donzi 22 that idled at 7.5MPH and threw a wake doing so.

So while HillCountry can idle thru the Weirs Channel at 3MPH in his pontoon, the guy behind him idles at 4.5MPH. The guy behind him idles at 5MPH. So what you end up with is a traffic jam as the 2 guys behind HillCountry shift in and out of gear trying to hold position in winds and currents.

That being said... There is ALWAYS a wake when you push an object thru the water. ALWAYS. It just depends if it is visible or not, and then if it is visible, how big is it? But now you are crossing into opinion and subjectivity. The only way to truly control this is to use speed as it is an absolute. You are going to fast, or you are not going to fast... black & white.

In the NH RSA's... the 1st State law clearly defines "Headway Speed" as 6MPH. The law does not differentiate between Lake or Ocean. It is no different than the 70MPH highway speed limit or the 45 MPH daytime speed limit on the lake. Exceed the speed limit, possibly get a ticket. However, the State also realized that in some instances on the water you would need to EXCEED the 6MPH and they wrote a provision for that.

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

It is very simple! I am not saying anyone HAS to go 6MPH... I am just saying you are ALLOWED to go 6MPH.

Now if the State would just relabel the NWZ's to Headway Speed Zones... the confusion would be gone.

Woodsy

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

Perhaps we should consider changing the ATON system completely... but thats another argument!

Woodsy

[noreast]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

My vote is fluorescent yellow.

[jazzman]

I've always been confused if the law means no more than 6 mph or slower if you can control the boat. My 16 foot center console will go straight in idle at less than 1mph.

[tis]

Originally Posted by jazzman

I've always been confused if the law means no more than 6 mph or slower if you can control the boat. My 16 foot center console will go straight in idle at less than 1mph.

Why are you confused? It says: 6 MPH or the slowest speed. " 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way." I can't see how that can mean anything else. What am I missing?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Bigguy...This is where you are wrong.... different hull designs throw wakes at different speeds. Also, at dead slow, different boats travel at different speeds. I had a Donzi 22 that idled at 7.5MPH and threw a wake doing so. So while HillCountry can idle thru the Weirs Channel at 3MPH in his pontoon, the guy behind him idles at 4.5MPH. The guy behind him idles at 5MPH. So what you end up with is a traffic jam as the 2 guys behind HillCountry shift in and out of gear trying to hold position in winds and currents. That being said... There is ALWAYS a wake when you push an object thru the water. ALWAYS. It just depends if it is visible or not, and then if it is visible, how big is it? But now you are crossing into opinion and subjectivity. The only way to truly control this is to use speed as it is an absolute. You are going to fast, or you are not going to fast... black & white. In the NH RSA's... the 1st State law clearly defines "Headway Speed" as 6MPH. The law does not differentiate between Lake or Ocean. It is no different than the 70MPH highway speed limit or the 45 MPH daytime speed limit on the lake. Exceed the speed limit, possibly get a ticket. However, the State also realized that in some instances on the water you would need to EXCEED the 6MPH and they wrote a provision for that. The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone". It is very simple! I am not saying anyone HAS to go 6MPH... I am just saying you are ALLOWED to go 6MPH. Now if the State would just relabel the NWZ's to Headway Speed Zones... the confusion would be gone. Woodsy

I have a standard shift vehicle, so traffic jams could be a greater headache; therefore, what's worked is to adopt the technique to allow a greater space to the cars ahead of me (and coast, where I can, in neutral). Sure, some drivers will jump in front of me, but those caught in the same traffic jam are not going to get there noticeably faster by doing so.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Perhaps we should consider changing the ATON system completely... but thats another argument! Woodsy

ATON markers cost thousands each, and are moved by weaker sea ice. OTOH, they make a gratifying sound when struck by drunk or impaired ocean-racers.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

Those with color-blindness are still granted drivers licenses. When you can't see markers, consider going slower.

Originally Posted by jr616

I am always wondering . . . Where the hell are you going in such a rush? Boating on the Big Lake is meant to be enjoyable for ALL. Slow down when asked to do so the extra 2 minutes may just give you a chance to take in the scenery and relax.

Suggesting that Woodsy set his alarm for an earlier hour, or make a bridle and tow a bucket or a sea anchor?

Originally Posted by Rusty

To some shore front owners it's like a tsunami that caused a seismic like wave.

A seismometer would record that cruiser's thunder-clap wake. It may not record that my piling dock has just shuddered.

[tis]

At least Woodsy, now I can see how you are interpreting it, even though you are wrong. The spirit of the law is not meant to be 6 MPH hell and be damned. It is NO WAKE. And because you are so stubborn and insist you will make a wake in a NO WAKE zone because you choose to go 6MPH, no matter what, I honestly hope you get caught and get a ticket. You deserve it.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by tis

At least Woodsy, now I can see how you are interpreting it, even though you are wrong. The spirit of the law is not meant to be 6 MPH hell and be damned. It is NO WAKE. And because you are so stubborn and insist you will make a wake in a NO WAKE zone because you choose to go 6MPH, no matter what, I honestly hope you get caught and get a ticket. You deserve it.

It is not my fault your brain cannot understand the law.... but leave it to an idiot to wish ill on someone else in a dispute. This is just like a 20MPH School Zone... You are allowed 20MPH... doesn't mean you have to go 20MPH. It just means the cops can't ticket you unless you EXCEED 20MPH. I will go thru the NWZ at whatever speed the boat traffic is traveling. If there is no traffic I will go thru the NWZ at 5 - 5.5MPH and I will have my GPS on so as not to exceed 6MPH. If the MP stop me, so what? I will win the argument and be sent on my way.

The legal definitions are CLEAR.

For the record... Years ago (18?) I had a Donzi 22 Classic that idled @ 7.5MPH on GPS... guess who won the dispute? I will give you a hint... it wasn't the MP. I won on the "slowest and maintain steerage" clause in the law.

Woodsy

[Rusty]

Below is a forum thread that was posted some years back that might help:

I am posting an email sent to Marine Patrol seeking clarification on rules governing speed in "No Wake" zones, followed by the reply from Lieutenant Timothy Dunleavy. (He has provided his consent to reproduction of the email trail in this forum.) I found Lt. Dunleavy's reply to be both interesting and informative.u

Glove

__________________________________________________ ______________

Thu, June 17, 2010 9:19:47 AM
Subject: Clarification on "no wake rules"
From: Lake Citizen
To: marinepatrol@dos.nh.gov


Dear Marine Patrol:

I am writing seeking clarification of the New Hampshire laws pertaining to No Wake zones. I first started by researching the question, "what is a wake -- 4 inches, 6 inches, 8 inches?" But I then determined that New Hampshire law makes very clear that the speed allowed in a "No Wake" zone is headway speed...in other words headway speed and "no wake speed" are synonomous.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:1
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.



But believe it or not, I am seeking information on interpretation of the word "or" in the headway speed definition.

I can understand that for very large boats that cannot maintain steerage at less than 6 mph, they may have to travel at 7 or 8 mph to maintain steerage...but they should operate at the slowest speed above 6 mph that allows for steerage. (In other words, they select the second option: "slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.")

But the real question is what about tiny boats that can easily maintain steerage at extremely slow speeds? For example, a 12 foot jon boat with a motor on the back can maintain steerage at 1 mph. So in this case, is headway speed considered 1 mph (i.e. slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage"), or is headway speed considered any speed less than 6 mph? Based on the NH law, it appears that in the case of the jon boat, law abiding citizens may choose between the two options of :

6 miles per hour
OR
the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way

In other words, the jon boat can choose to travel at 6 mph (even if it creates a 4 inch "wake"). Is this correct?

Thank you in advance for taking the time to address this question.

Sincerely,
Lake_Citizen


__________________________________________________ ______________

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
https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...41&postcount=1

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It is not my fault your brain cannot understand the law.... but leave it to an idiot to wish ill on someone else in a dispute. This is just like a 20MPH School Zone... You are allowed 20MPH... doesn't mean you have to go 20MPH. It just means the cops can't ticket you unless you EXCEED 20MPH. I will go thru the NWZ at whatever speed the boat traffic is traveling. If there is no traffic I will go thru the NWZ at 5 - 5.5MPH and I will have my GPS on so as not to exceed 6MPH. If the MP stop me, so what? I will win the argument and be sent on my way.

The legal definitions are CLEAR.

For the record... Years ago (18?) I had a Donzi 22 Classic that idled @ 7.5MPH on GPS... guess who won the dispute? I will give you a hint... it wasn't the MP. I won on the "slowest and maintain steerage" clause in the law.

Woodsy

My big bad scary wave making wakeboard machine that everyone hates idles with out the slightest ripple at 7.5MPH. I have always found V drives to idle at higher speeds. I never care to look at the speedometer, put the boat in gear and that speed is the speed I travel in the NWZ.

[tis]

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.


I supposed you still know more than the Captain of our Marine Patrol, Woodsy?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by tis

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.


I supposed you still know more than the Captain of our Marine Patrol, Woodsy?

Well Tis.... Tim's letter proves my point. The legislature added "the slowest speed to maintain steerage" clause so that if conditions warrant it you can exceed the 6MPH speed limit. The original definition of "Headway Speed" was just 6MPH. The legislature made no differentiation in the law for Tidal vs. Inland waters. You can argue all you want, the reality is you are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ. I know this because I won my case... I demonstrated that my boat @ dead slow was 7.5MPH. Dead Slow being just in gear/no throttle. I won because the the statute reads "6MPH or slowest speed needed to maintain steerage". I ultimately prevailed in court.

There is no boat at 6MPH that is going to leave any sort of a damaging wake... Well, maybe one of those new ski boats with the ballast tanks and tabs... maybe.

Woodsy

Woodsy

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Well Tis.... Tim's letter proves my point. The legislature added "the slowest speed to maintain steerage" clause so that if conditions warrant it you can exceed the 6MPH speed limit. The original definition of "Headway Speed" was just 6MPH. The legislature made no differentiation in the law for Tidal vs. Inland waters. You can argue all you want, the reality is you are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ. I know this because I won my case... I demonstrated that my boat @ dead slow was 7.5MPH. Dead Slow being just in gear/no throttle. I won because the the statute reads "6MPH or slowest speed needed to maintain steerage". I ultimately prevailed in court.

There is no boat at 6MPH that is going to leave any sort of a damaging wake... Well, maybe one of those new ski boats with the ballast tanks and tabs... maybe.

Woodsy

Woodsy

What, pray tell, is the RPM’s of your boat at “dead slow idle”? Anone can turn an idle screw in or out...

[tis]

Woodsy, we are never going to see eye to eye on this so we might as well just give it up. I still read it as you can go UP to 6 MPH if conditions warrant it, not that you can go faster. If you are not making a wake in your boat at 6MPH then I agree you can go 6 MPH. If you are making a wake though, you should go slower. Apparently you DID get a ticket for making a wake if you went to court. If what you say that your boat will go no slower than 7.5 MPH, is true, then I guess you have no choice. Unless, as HILL said, you adjust something. However, I am curious as to how do you dock if you can't slow your boat down? Again, is you are not "pulling our legs", then all I can say is you are certainly the EXCEPTION to the rule. Most people are able to make their boat go slower than 7.5 MPH. And most of the boats I see I am sure can go slower than that, they just don't choose to. BTW, most of the offenders I see are jet skis.

[8gv]

I have enjoyed the give and take on this issue but...

I would bet that the participants here don’t put up a wake in a no wake zone.

The real issue isn’t the difference between the interpretations of the law offered in this thread.

It is the flagrant disregard for no wake zones by people piloting their boats way too fast.

Maybe we can get their speeds down first and then go back to splitting hairs?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by ApS

ATON markers cost thousands each, and are moved by weaker sea ice. OTOH, they make a gratifying sound when struck by drunk or impaired ocean-racers.


Those with color-blindness are still granted drivers licenses. When you can't see markers, consider going slower.

You think black markers are adequate at night? If so, you are as crazy as every one of your inane posts!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

You think black markers are adequate at night? If so, you are as crazy as every one of your inane posts!

Some days, sun and water conditions make none of the markers particularly noticeable; however, the NH navigation marking-system has seen a very high years-long endurance for what—eighty-plus years? (None appear on my 1909 Lake Winnipesaukee chart).

Why, suddenly, can markers not be seen?

Why is greater support seen here for night-time controls on "activity"?

Are we hearing from one of the male population that is colorblind—8%?

Let a woman drive: their colorblindness is only 1% of the population.

Ever notice how easy night navigation is when shoreline lights are not present?

Artificial light (aboard) can take away one's night vision for many minutes.

When you can't see markers, my advice is to become familiar at slow speeds in daylight, and especially slow down at night.

.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by ApS

Some days, sun and water conditions make none of the markers particularly noticeable; however, the NH navigation marking-system has seen a very high years-long endurance for what—eighty-plus years? (None appear on my 1909 Lake Winnipesaukee chart).

Why, suddenly, can markers not be seen?

Why is greater support seen here for night-time controls on "activity"?

Are we hearing from one of the male population that is colorblind—8%?

Let a woman drive: their colorblindness is only 1% of the population.

Ever notice how easy night navigation is when shoreline lights are not present?

Artificial light (aboard) can take away one's night vision for many minutes.

When you can't see markers, my advice is to become familiar at slow speeds in daylight, and especially slow down at night.

.

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.

[noreast]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.

Exactly, And the worst argument for anything is because it's always been that way. I think we can come up with an unlimited list of things that have been improved.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by noreast

Exactly, And the worst argument for anything is because it's always been that way. I think we can come up with an unlimited list of things that have been improved.

Normally, I'd agree, but our 1909 Winnipesaukee chart shows NO MARKERS at all. The first "improvement" was to go to anchored 6"x6" tapered wooden markers, painted red and black. Ice moved them around, and some captains struck them at night—knocking the tops off to leave just a hint of a marker at the surface.

Such boaters prompted the next improvement, which was PVC markers in red and black. Today, they break only if struck "dead-on", or if "sleds" break them off, level with the ice.

Now, if only we could agree with the color of the next "improvement".

Originally Posted by VitaBene

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.

Yes...We are all "above average".

Y'know, cataracts of the eyes can strike at middle age. Excluding advanced age, the one aggravating activity?

Boating in the sunshine—where direct UV rays are compounded by being reflected off the water, to take the double toll of skin cancers and cataracts.

BTW: Most everybody who has had cataract-surgery comments, "Color has come back".

Originally Posted by Descant

Wind driven waves have their place. Mostly, exposed areas have moved the waters edge up to the ledge or granite boulders over the last few hundred years. However, in a protected cove, or on a small lake, there is not a lot of natural wave action caused by wind. However, boats in these coves, with large wakes can cause some erosion or other damage to docks and boats if there is enough repeated activity of some magnitude. So the argument is very situational.

Exactly right!

I would add that ice has been shuffling the entire perimeter of the lake for ten thousand years—and perhaps more-so in the past hundred years. But it's the most recent three decades of "modern boating" has sent old-time residents to rescue their docked boats with breakwaters and hydraulic lifts. (Even for the oversized boats of our surprised newest residents, and there has been a remarkable turnover—no pun intended—of residents in Winter Harbor).

As for wave action, even the strongest of summer on-shore windstorms don't soak our dock. (Although our dock can get very hot, and a soaking is appreciated—wakes that throw gravel on the steps, not so much).

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

What, pray tell, is the RPM’s of your boat at “dead slow idle”? Anyone can turn an idle screw in or out...

True enough, and one can also select a propeller that allows speeds that conform to "no wake" speeds. But to have a ocean-racer to go a little bit faster, hire an attorney to argue the "no wake" law in court.

.

[Cal Coon]

Originally Posted by ApS

Normally, I'd agree, but our 1909 Winnipesaukee chart shows NO MARKERS at all. The first "improvement" was to go to anchored 4"x4" wooden markers, painted red and black. Ice moved them around, and some captains struck them at night—knocking the tops off to leave just a stump above the water.

Such boaters prompted the next improvement, which was PVC markers in red and black. Today, they break only if struck "dead-on", or if "sleds" break them off, level with the ice.

Now, if only we could agree with the color of the next "improvement".


Yes...We are all "above average".

Y'know, cataracts of the eyes can strike at middle age. Excluding advanced age, the one aggravating activity?

Boating in the sunshine—where direct UV rays are compounded by being reflected off the water, to take the double toll of skin cancers and cataracts.

BTW: Most everybody who has had cataract-surgery comments, "Color has come back".


Exactly right!

I would add that ice has been shuffling the entire perimeter of the lake for ten thousand years—and perhaps more-so in the past hundred years. But it's the most recent three decades of "modern boating" has sent old-time residents to rescue their boats with breakwaters and hydraulic lifts. (Even for the oversized boats of our surprised newest residents, and there has been a remarkable turnover—no pun intended—of residents in Winter Harbor).

As for wave action, even the strongest of summer on-shore windstorms don't soak our dock. (Although our dock can get very hot, and a soaking is appreciated—wakes that throw gravel on the steps, not so much).


True enough, and one can also select a propeller that allows speeds that conform to "no wake" speeds. But to have a ocean-racer to go a little bit faster, hire an attorney to argue the "no wake" law in court.

.

Maybe we should just ban all powerboats, regardless of size, and just allow sail boats, and anything operated by "people power". I don't know why anybody needs a powerboat anyways. All they do is cause trouble, (in more ways than one...!!)

[Bizer]

Bizer just received an eMail that said,

I want to give you an update on the NH No Wake law. Last Friday NH Representative Charlie St. Clair submitted legislation to change the No Wake law by removing any reference to 6 MPH. Simply: "VI. "Headway speed" means the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way."

If it passes it will clear up this law for the final time.

What that means is, for example, if a boat can maintain steerage way at one mile-per-hour, it will take him/her about 25 minutes to pass the 0.4 miles from the Governor's Island Bridge to light #69.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bizer

Bizer just received an eMail that said, What that means is, for example, if a boat can maintain steerage way at one mile-per-hour, it will take him/her about 25 minutes to pass the 0.4 miles from the Governor's Island Bridge to light #69.

The way the proposed law is worded, it's actually worse than that:

If you have a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and your boat is facing a 3 MPH current, the slowest you can go and maintain steerage is 0 MPH.

If you are in the same boat facing into a 4 MPH current, you can maintain steerage while moving backward at -1 MPH.

Perhaps someone that understands math should amend the proposal...

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Dave R

The way the proposed law is worded, it's actually worse than that:

If you have a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and your boat is facing a 3 MPH current, the slowest you can go and maintain steerage is 0 MPH.

If you are in the same boat facing into a 4 MPH current, you can maintain steerage while moving backward at -1 MPH.

Perhaps someone that understands math should amend the proposal...

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

Your absolutely correct but way too simple a solution for lawmakers. Everything needs convoluted language to confuse us. It’s how they keep their jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Garcia]

I am 100% confident that I will be able to follow the spirit and letter of the law in any boat, in any circumstances. I won't need a speedometer, tachometer, or to turn around and see if I'm creating a wake. My guess is this is the case for pretty much anyone on the forum. Those who are not abiding by the letter and spirit of the law know it.

That said, I do enjoy reading the ongoing discussion about the different ways to interpret what I find to be a pretty straightforward issue.

[Patofnaud]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Your absolutely correct but way too simple a solution for lawmakers. Everything needs convoluted language to confuse us. It’s how they keep their jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Exactly.

This is a Winni forum, not a Piscataqua River forum and to the best of my knowledge the only current is the Weirs Channel heading into Paugus, so everywhere else (Governors bridge, between Eagle and Gov, Bear Island post office, etc,,,,) there is ZERO current, meaning the wake your making, is the wake YOU are making. All the wording in the RSA means diddley. Wake = wake. Not rocket science.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Exactly.



This is a Winni forum, not a Piscataqua River forum and to the best of my knowledge the only current is the Weirs Channel heading into Paugus, so everywhere else (Governors bridge, between Eagle and Gov, Bear Island post office, etc,,,,) there is ZERO current, meaning the wake your making, is the wake YOU are making. All the wording in the RSA means diddley. Wake = wake. Not rocket science.

I think Garcia said it best. “Spirit” of the law. Just don’t make a wake, it’s not difficult the problem is there is always someone looking to circumvent the system.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

You can't assume a law implies anything, that's the opposite of the point of laws. Otherwise we could just have one law that says: "don't do anything bad".

[tis]

Wow, how can we make something so easy so difficult???

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Dave R

You can't assume a law implies anything, that's the opposite of the point of laws. Otherwise we could just have one law that says: "don't do anything bad".

This is a great example of why government gets bigger and bigger. The more we try to find loopholes, require specifics rather than use common sense, and try to over analyze the intent of rules and regulations, the more bureaucracy we create. I'm not trying to make a political statement, just pointing out the more we debate things, the more politicians try to clarify, and the more things get clogged up in the interpretation of the rules and regulations (which can lead to the court system).

[tis]

I agree with you again, Garcia. I can't believe how complicated some people have made this discussion.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree with you again, Garcia. I can't believe how complicated some people have made this discussion.

If you find this stuff complicated, perhaps boating isn't for you. No wake zones are pretty much the easiest part of boating to deal with.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

Maybe we should just ban all powerboats, regardless of size, and just allow sail boats, and anything operated by "people power". I don't know why anybody needs a powerboat anyways. All they do is cause trouble, (in more ways than one...!!)

If you ask APS this is what he would desire....

APS please get some new material....

[tis]

That is great! The wording of this law undoubtedly needs to be changed. I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. If you are not making a wake, you could go faster than that. Really headway speed has nothing to do with the rule. IMO they don't need it.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by tis

That is great! The wording of this law undoubtedly needs to be changed. I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. If you are not making a wake, you could go faster than that. Really headway speed has nothing to do with the rule. IMO they don't need it.

Yup! 6 mph is a bit fast and causes a substantial wake from my Tritoon!
Imagine what a non-pontoon boat makes at that speed. Hope the law passes...

[Descant]

I think hovercraft and others have no wake, and are registered as vessels, so with this change they can go through the channel at 45 mph?

[TiltonBB]

I am glad Charlie St.Clair is finally doing something. He has shown up for only 70% of the legislative days and voted in only 52% of the legislative votes.

That is truly Part Time representation!

Want to fix it? Vote for someone else

[Not to Worry]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

You think black markers are adequate at night? If so, you are as crazy as every one of your inane posts!

I love the forum for the information it provides about the lake. I hate the forum when it gets petty and attacks people for their opinions. I try not to post often for that reason because regardless of what I say someone will pounce on that and attack the person versus the opinion.

I am sure we all do it at times with the false courage of anonymity.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Not to Worry

I love the forum for the information it provides about the lake. I hate the forum when it gets petty and attacks people for their opinions. I try not to post often for that reason because regardless of what I say someone will pounce on that and attack the person versus the opinion.

I am sure we all do it at times with the false courage of anonymity.

APS and I have had differing opinions on many boating related topics dating back to the speed limit debate. I am certainly not the only one that takes issue with his parsed, taken out of context, often inane posts!

I am hardly anonymous- you can find my name and phone number on any number of posts on this forum!

[Descant]

Back to 'TIS original post. The jetski that started this thread, I think we can agree, deserved a ticket. Like Troopers on the highway, MP can't ticket every offender. But for repeat offenders there's special consideration: From RSA 270-D:2
XI. Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
I believe this applies to all speed limits, and convictions not just 45 mph on Winni.

Life's little embarrassments:
"So your insurance went up $1000? How come?"
"Speeding tickets"
"Wow! How fast were you going?"
"8 mph. The insurance hit me really hard because it was more than 30% over the limit."

[tis]

Woodsy wrote:

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

But you OMITTED the most important part. "OR THE SLOWEST SPEED THAT A BOAT CAN BE OPERATED AND MAINTAIN STEERAGE WAY".


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.


So if you are in a no wake area you operate at headway speed and headway speed is defined as 6 MPH OR the slowest speed that a boat can be operated.

I don't see why you can't understand that!!!!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

So if you are in a no wake area you operate at headway speed and headway speed is defined as 6 MPH OR the slowest speed that a boat can be operated.

I don't see why you can't understand that!!!!

Regardless of what is meant by the last part of the definition of headway speed, the word "OR" in there, without the term "whichever is slower", clearly means you have the choice of 6 MPH OR the slowest speed the boat can be operated.

If you were offered 6 million dollars OR the least amount of money you could barely survive on, which would you choose?

[tis]

DaveR. Thank you for enlightening me. I never took it as a "choice" of one or the other. Of course that's not the way it is meant to be interpreted but at least I can understand now.

[Cal Coon]

I said in an earlier post that I set my boat at 1200 rpm's for a no wake zone. The reason I went with 1200 rpm's is because it's the FASTEST my boat will go without making a wake!!! I don't care what the mph are, and I don't care what the "law" says. I'm going through all nwz as fast as possible without "making waves", and I have NEVER been pulled over for too big of a wake. What is so hard to understand about this?? I don't even pay attn to the mph in a nwz, I pay attn to my wake, and I really don't think MP cares about speed in a nwz as long as you have NO WAKE. I'm pretty sure all they care about is your WAKE, not your speed. Just go through nwz as fast as you can WITH NO WAKE, unless there is a strong wind or current going against you that you HAVE to power through. Pretty simple rule of thumb. I realize when you are in a "congested" channel, and you are at the mercy of the boat(s) in front of you, that changes everything. Sometimes you have to shift into and out of gear if they are crawling along, or they are going as fast as their boat will go without making a wake! Just common sense, really. Not complicated at all...

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by tis

Woodsy wrote:

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

But you OMITTED the most important part. "OR THE SLOWEST SPEED THAT A BOAT CAN BE OPERATED AND MAINTAIN STEERAGE WAY".


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.


So if you are in a no wake area you operate at headway speed and headway speed is defined as 6 MPH OR the slowest speed that a boat can be operated.

I don't see why you can't understand that!!!!

Tis.... I explained this.... you are not going to EVER get it because your mind is made up.

The Devil is in the details.... the wording of the RSA is "6MPH or the slowest speed needed to maintain steerage" This wording makes 6MPH the PRIMARY rule, the phrasing "or slowest speed possible" is the secondary rule that is there for conditions where you would have to exceed 6MPH. I listed some examples above.

Now had the the law just been phrased "slowest speed possible to maintain steerage"... you would be correct. But because the slowest speed possible to maintain steerage is different for every boat, the NH Legislature saw fit to to include the 6MPH wording as most boats have no problem maintaining steerage at 6MPH in the majority of conditions. That 6MPH defines the law!

I cannot explain it any simpler!

Woodsy