No wake zones

[phoenix]

I have a question regarding where does a no wake zone begin and end. It is easy when one is entering a cove or an obvious spot but at times a no wake buoy is less clear since you can approach from either direction and I have seen boaters slow down approaching and speed up right after so is there a rule when it is not clear

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I have a question regarding where does a no wake zone begin and end. It is easy when one is entering a cove or an obvious spot but at times a no wake buoy is less clear since you can approach from either direction and I have seen boaters slow down approaching and speed up right after so is there a rule when it is not clear

Like you said, some you can tell. For the others I have to break out my chart to know for sure.

[HomeWood]

I always just kept a no wake between the buoys or after the buoy when entering a cove, since there shouldn't be a second buoy.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Boats have to go through the narrows to get into Greene's Basin. There is a house on the left as you go through. All the family does is use a siren and scream "NO WAKE" when people go through. Yesterday I was on my Seadoo when going through and they screamed at me. I didn't even have my hand on the throttle. I couldn't possibly go any slower. I didn't have a wake. There are times when people are ridiculous. I have been in Greene's Basin my entire life. There are days when I wish I could go back go the "Good Ole Days". At that time people minded their own business. My house ( built and owned by my family since 1936) in Green's Basin is right after the no wake ends. Boaters will go by our place at full speed. They are breaking the rules because they are not out 150 feet. I don't scream at them! The siren the other people blast is so loud I think a frightened boater could have an accident. I follow the navigation rules on the lake and some people still have a problem. Those people just have to much time on their hands. It's summer so enjoy because before we know it the boating season will be over.

[Bizer]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule...saf-c5100.html

Scroll down to 5102.96

These are in addition to the 150-foot rule

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl

Boats have to go through the narrows to get into Greene's Basin. There is a house on the left as you go through. All the family does is use a siren and scream "NO WAKE" when people go through. Yesterday I was on my Seadoo when going through and they screamed at me. I didn't even have my hand on the throttle. I couldn't possibly go any slower. I didn't have a wake. There are times when people are ridiculous. I have been in Greene's Basin my entire life. There are days when I wish I could go back go the "Good Ole Days". At that time people minded their own business. My house ( built and owned by my family since 1936) in Green's Basin is right after the no wake ends. Boaters will go by our place at full speed. They are breaking the rules because they are not out 150 feet. I don't scream at them! The siren the other people blast is so loud I think a frightened boater could have an accident. I follow the navigation rules on the lake and some people still have a problem. Those people just have to much time on their hands. It's summer so enjoy because before we know it the boating season will be over.

jill I have not "met" them yet, but look forward to it...

[NH_boater]

The people who live to look for every violator, yell, jump up and down, blow sirens and such have carved out a miserable existence for themselves. They wallow in their own misery. Don't let them bother you and drag you into their personal hell.

.......Just enjoy the lake, wave back and say hello to them. It pays great dividends.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

jill I have not "met" them yet, but look forward to it...

John- I will look for you when you come up into the basin.

[phoenix]

Yes GBG I also love in the basin so remember one year that house but it's own no wake buoy out

[phoenix]

Of course meant live I pads will write anything

[tis]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Of course meant live I pads will write anything

Well, phoenix, you can love as well as live in the basin!!! :laugh

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by NH_boater

The people who live to look for every violator, yell, jump up and down, blow sirens and such have carved out a miserable existence for themselves. They wallow in their own misery. Don't let them bother you and drag you into their personal hell.

.......Just enjoy the lake, wave back and say hello to them. It pays great dividends.

People like that make me happy in a schadenfreude sort of way. I don't enjoy ACTUAL misfortune of others (unless it's deserved), but I do enjoy it when people get all worked up over nothing that's really important. The best term for this these days is "first world problems".

[tis]

Well in defense of the people who yell when the boats make a wake, maybe after a while they have just had enough. I know this won't be a popular statement but when laws are never followed it does get annoying after a while.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl

Boats have to go through the narrows to get into Greene's Basin. There is a house on the left as you go through. All the family does is use a siren and scream "NO WAKE" when people go through. Yesterday I was on my Seadoo when going through and they screamed at me. I didn't even have my hand on the throttle. I couldn't possibly go any slower. I didn't have a wake. There are times when people are ridiculous. I have been in Greene's Basin my entire life. There are days when I wish I could go back go the "Good Ole Days". At that time people minded their own business. My house ( built and owned by my family since 1936) in Green's Basin is right after the no wake ends. Boaters will go by our place at full speed. They are breaking the rules because they are not out 150 feet. I don't scream at them! The siren the other people blast is so loud I think a frightened boater could have an accident. I follow the navigation rules on the lake and some people still have a problem. Those people just have to much time on their hands. It's summer so enjoy because before we know it the boating season will be over.

Are they not out 150 ft from the shore, or 150 ft from the NWZ? If you need to be 150ft from the NWZ please show me where this is written in law. Not trying to start a pissing match, I've never heard this one before, but I could be wrong too.

Thanks!

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by NH_boater

The people who live to look for every violator, yell, jump up and down, blow sirens and such have carved out a miserable existence for themselves. They wallow in their own misery. Don't let them bother you and drag you into their personal hell.

.......Just enjoy the lake, wave back and say hello to them. It pays great dividends.

So true,NHBoater.....we see a few people like that on our end of the lake and also on the canals in Florida.......instead of enjoying themselves they seem to spend most of their time waiting for a boat to come by with a wake that doesn't meet their standards and they just erupt in a screaming rage.It's too bad because many people have a different idea of what a minimum wake is.
Some deep V boats leave a biggerwake even at the lowest RPM for headway speed.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by tis

Well in defense of the people who yell when the boats make a wake, maybe after a while they have just had enough. I know this won't be a popular statement but when laws are never followed it does get annoying after a while.

tis- I just want you to remember that I was going as slow as I possibly could on my Seadoo. I guess the people who yelled could call Bombardier ( the manufacturer of Seadoo) to see if they want to recall all their PWC's and figure out a way to make them go slower.

[dickiej]

I had a guy yell at me in Roberts cove and I was barely under headway speed, probably around 2 mph. Personally, I think he was drunk and looking for a fight. As tempted as we are to a.) yell back; b.) flip the bird; or c.) moon him; I always remember the saying "the best revenge is living well", so I smiled, waved back and said, " have a nice day!"

[tis]

Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl

tis- I just want you to remember that I was going as slow as I possibly could on my Seadoo. I guess the people who yelled could call Bombardier ( the manufacturer of Seadoo) to see if they want to recall all their PWC's and figure out a way to make them go slower.

He had no reason to yell at you if you were going as slow as you could. I am just saying that maybe he had been watching people make big wakes all day and just got tired of it. It does happen. Look how many people call other boaters boneheads on here (not that some people aren't.)

[phoenix]

Well thanks to Bizer the no wake entering greens basin starts 150 before entering which is around the first island Goodwin and ends at the no wake before GBG house which helps me understand

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Well thanks to Bizer the no wake entering greens basin starts 150 before entering which is around the first island Goodwin and ends at the no wake before GBG house which helps me understand

I always go no wake from Tea Rock to my house in Green's Basin.

[jetlag100]

I resided in the Hole in the Wall for years..you want to share stories? Too, many to tell.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

Are they not out 150 ft from the shore, or 150 ft from the NWZ? If you need to be 150ft from the NWZ please show me where this is written in law. Not trying to start a pissing match, I've never heard this one before, but I could be wrong too.

Thanks!

I think this 150' rule is specific to Green's Basin. This came out of the State "rules".

(z) From a point 150 feet from the east entrance of Green's Basin to a point 150 feet beyond the western entrance of Green's Basin shall be a “no wake” area.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

I think this 150' rule is specific to Green's Basin. This came out of the State "rules".

(z) From a point 150 feet from the east entrance of Green's Basin to a point 150 feet beyond the western entrance of Green's Basin shall be a “no wake” area.

Thank you, I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing it wrong in other places.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

The seventh edition of the " Boater's Guide of New Hampshire ( A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities) states the following:Unsafe Passage

Operating a vessel at greater than headway speed if within 150 feet of:

- Swimmers In the water
- Other vessels
- Rafts or Floats
- Permitted swimming areas
- Docks or mooring fields
- The shoreline
-Operating a vessel at greater than headway speed
while passing under a bridge
- Overtaking another vessel at a distance and speed
such that your sake causes danger or damage

[The Real BigGuy]

The problem with the no-wake issue is people don't usually look behind themselves to see what they are creating. (No offense meant but jetski's are some of the worst.) I don't believe that most people are intentionally malicious but, having lived in the Hole in the Wall no-wake for almost 20 years it doe get to the point where you have just had enough. You see you boat get banged around so many times that you have to get it out and you yell or whatever.

And then we get back to what is a no-wake? Headway or 6 mph. We don't want to go there. I remember coming out of the Weirs channel 25 years or so ago and getting yelled at by MP for a wake. "I'm not making a wake." I said. "Look behind you. Do you see white? That's a wake!" More people need to look behind them.

No reason everyone shouldn't be able to enjoy the lake all of time.

[tis]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

The problem with the no-wake issue is people don't usually look behind themselves to see what they are creating. (No offense meant but jetski's are some of the worst.) I don't believe that most people are intentionally malicious but, having lived in the Hole in the Wall no-wake for almost 20 years it doe get to the point where you have just had enough. You see you boat get banged around so many times that you have to get it out and you yell or whatever.

And then we get back to what is a no-wake? Headway or 6 mph. We don't want to go there. I remember coming out of the Weirs channel 25 years or so ago and getting yelled at by MP for a wake. "I'm not making a wake." I said. "Look behind you. Do you see white? That's a wake!" More people need to look behind them.

No reason everyone shouldn't be able to enjoy the lake all of time.

Excellent post!! You are exactly right.

[salty dog]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

The problem with the no-wake issue is people don't usually look behind themselves to see what they are creating. (No offense meant but jetski's are some of the worst.) I don't believe that most people are intentionally malicious but, having lived in the Hole in the Wall no-wake for almost 20 years it doe get to the point where you have just had enough. You see you boat get banged around so many times that you have to get it out and you yell or whatever.

And then we get back to what is a no-wake? Headway or 6 mph. We don't want to go there. I remember coming out of the Weirs channel 25 years or so ago and getting yelled at by MP for a wake. "I'm not making a wake." I said. "Look behind you. Do you see white? That's a wake!" More people need to look behind them.

No reason everyone shouldn't be able to enjoy the lake all of time.

This really is the key. Looking behind you, knowing your boat and paying attention. A couple of years ago I got the "arms down" motion from an MP in a no-wake. (luckily that was all). With my 21 ft Bayliner at dead low throttle or 3 mph, I'm just making a ripple. Any more than that and I see white. It seems maddeningly slow sometimes but following the no-wake to the T that's where I have to be. The problem sometimes is that, say in the Weirs Channel if you're leading the parade and they're lined up behind you, you feel like a jerk.

[Woodsy]

I really don't get why people do not understand this very simple, very clear rule.

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 legal interpretation is VERY clear.

You are allowed up to 6 MPH... regardless of the wake generated. The only reason you can exceed 6 MPH is to maintain steerage and control. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a moving boat to leave NO WAKE.

Some people think no wake means DEAD SLOW.... It does not nor was it ever intended to. If that was the case NOBODY would get out of Paugus Bay on Labor Day weekend.

I got pulled over once for NWZ violation.... I asked the officer what the issue was, he told me too fast in a NWZ... I indicated my GPS said otherwise. I was travelling at 5 MPH. I offered to demonstrate, he politely declined, and sent me on my way.

If you need more than 6 MPH that you better have a good reason why... water currents, boat hull design etc etc... the 6 MPH was not a randomly chosen number.

The NWZ should be relabeled to HEADWAY SPEED ONLY thus eliminating any confusion.

Also note that the term "headway speed" is also used in several other RSA's

Woodsy

[Grove84]

Out enjoying the lake Saturday evening , coming through the no wake zone between Governors and Eagle Island, while in the no wake zone, a new Mastercraft comes through the no wake still on plane. So hit the airhorn along with the boat behind me and inform the mastercraft "It's a no Wake Zone". No response , just kept on going, but the MP's were in the right place at the right time and pulled them over. I was once a first time boater and made my share of mistakes and learned along the years to respect the others around me and the 150' rule. I have to admit that having been on the lake 15+ years now , this summer has been won of the toughest for rules of the road violations. But any day on the lake , beats a day at work

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really don't get why people do not understand this very simple, very clear rule.

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 legal interpretation is VERY clear.

You are allowed up to 6 MPH... regardless of the wake generated. The only reason you can exceed 6 MPH is to maintain steerage and control. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a moving boat to leave NO WAKE.

Some people think no wake means DEAD SLOW.... It does not nor was it ever intended to. If that was the case NOBODY would get out of Paugus Bay on Labor Day weekend.

I got pulled over once for NWZ violation.... I asked the officer what the issue was, he told me too fast in a NWZ... I indicated my GPS said otherwise. I was travelling at 5 MPH. I offered to demonstrate, he politely declined, and sent me on my way.

If you need more than 6 MPH that you better have a good reason why... water currents, boat hull design etc etc... the 6 MPH was not a randomly chosen number.

The NWZ should be relabeled to HEADWAY SPEED ONLY thus eliminating any confusion.

Also note that the term "headway speed" is also used in several other RSA's

Woodsy

I have to confess that I used to think it meant the slowest possible speed to maintain steerage with an absolute max of 6 MPH...

[tis]

Obviously there is a big problem with this law. The way it is written it does sound like you can make a wake as long as you are doing the 6mph. However, MP is not usually going to agree with you. A wake is a wake.

[rsmlp]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really don't get why people do not understand this very simple, very clear rule.

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 legal interpretation is VERY clear.

You are allowed up to 6 MPH... regardless of the wake generated. The only reason you can exceed 6 MPH is to maintain steerage and control. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a moving boat to leave NO WAKE.

Some people think no wake means DEAD SLOW.... It does not nor was it ever intended to. If that was the case NOBODY would get out of Paugus Bay on Labor Day weekend.

I got pulled over once for NWZ violation.... I asked the officer what the issue was, he told me too fast in a NWZ... I indicated my GPS said otherwise. I was travelling at 5 MPH. I offered to demonstrate, he politely declined, and sent me on my way.

If you need more than 6 MPH that you better have a good reason why... water currents, boat hull design etc etc... the 6 MPH was not a randomly chosen number.

The NWZ should be relabeled to HEADWAY SPEED ONLY thus eliminating any confusion.

Also note that the term "headway speed" is also used in several other RSA's

Woodsy

Well said! few understand this obvious and correct interpretation-even MP!

[Woodsy]

Tis,

It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a boat moving forward NOT to leave a wake. A boat moving forward displaces water.. the water fills the void caused by the hull, creating a wake. Unless a boat is adrift and floating freely with the current, it is creating a wake. The height of the wake will vary with the type of hull, and the speed at which the hull goes thru the water.

Because of the myriad of boat hull designs, there is no way to define what is acceptable wake height, and what is not. Every hull is different and creates a different wake and that wake all varies with the forward speed of the boat.

The important clause here is "maintain steerage". Maintaining proper control of your boat is paramount and trumps ALL! Currents, boat traffic, wind & weather can all affect at what speed steerage can be maintained. For example, in the spring the Weirs Channel usually has a 5+ MPH current... to overcome that current you have to go a minimum of 7-11 MPH... guess what?? Your boat is making a pretty good wake!

The 6 MPH speed is essentially the standard acceptable speed that is universally recognized as the maximum speed necessary to maintain steerage for 98% of the recreational boats. Why 6 MPH and not 5 MPH? No idea!

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

Obviously there is a big problem with this law. The way it is written it does sound like you can make a wake as long as you are doing the 6mph. However, MP is not usually going to agree with you. A wake is a wake.

I don't think there's a problem with the law at all. The problem is that people, (including MP, apparently) seem to think that words on some little floating signs are to be taken literally and that they should ignore the actual law. I've seen signs in NH that say "idle speed only", but they are merely suggestions.

People that don't plan and prepare for the effects of wakes just because they have waterfront property or a slip in a no wake zone are being unrealistic and negligent. There's always a chance of a waves on water. Realistically, one could justifiably make a huge wake in a no wake zone if a human life was at stake.

With the 45/30 speed limit in place, and speed detection equipment on board MP boats, this seems like a VERY easy law for MP to enforce with quantifiable evidence.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Tis,

It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a boat moving forward NOT to leave a wake. A boat moving forward displaces water.. the water fills the void caused by the hull, creating a wake. Unless a boat is adrift and floating freely with the current, it is creating a wake. The height of the wake will vary with the type of hull, and the speed at which the hull goes thru the water.

Because of the myriad of boat hull designs, there is no way to define what is acceptable wake height, and what is not. Every hull is different and creates a different wake and that wake all varies with the forward speed of the boat.

The important clause here is "maintain steerage". Maintaining proper control of your boat is paramount and trumps ALL! Currents, boat traffic, wind & weather can all affect at what speed steerage can be maintained. For example, in the spring the Weirs Channel usually has a 5+ MPH current... to overcome that current you have to go a minimum of 7-11 MPH... guess what?? Your boat is making a pretty good wake!

The 6 MPH speed is essentially the standard acceptable speed that is universally recognized as the maximum speed necessary to maintain steerage for 98% of the recreational boats. Why 6 MPH and not 5 MPH? No idea!

Woodsy

You don't have to go faster to maintain steerage in a current. You become part of the mass of water when you travel in a current. If your headway speed is 5 mph in still water then it will be 5 mph in a current relative to the water. Your speed relative to the point on land will be different in a current than in still water, but this does not affect your steerage and your wake is the same unless you speed up, which is unnecessary to maintain steerage. It's simple physics.

[cillovely]

I stayed in Center Harbor for the first time this past summer. I was very surprised there isn't any sort of no-wake zone as you get closer to the docks they way they have it in Meredith Bay and Alton Bay. All sorts of craft come barrel a$$-ing thru there full bore. I didn't really care other than the times when I'd be trying to dock my boat and the waves would be crashing making things tricky. I just thought it was odd.

I know on the Charles River there were many a kayaker and row-boater that would do the slow down wave in certain zones, but as it's been stated 6mph is no-wake, anything less it does get harder to maintain control and if I do make a little wave there isn't much I can do.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by cillovely

I stayed in Center Harbor for the first time this past summer. I was very surprised there isn't any sort of no-wake zone as you get closer to the docks they way they have it in Meredith Bay and Alton Bay. All sorts of craft come barrel a$$-ing thru there full bore. I didn't really care other than the times when I'd be trying to dock my boat and the waves would be crashing making things tricky. I just thought it was odd.

I know on the Charles River there were many a kayaker and row-boater that would do the slow down wave in certain zones, but as it's been stated 6mph is no-wake, anything less it does get harder to maintain control and if I do make a little wave there isn't much I can do.

That's because Rusty McLear and Alex Ray don't have waterfront hotels and restaurants in Center Harbor as they do in Meredith. Does anyone really think that the HUGE no-wake zone in Meredith is there just because the State thought it was a good idea? If so, then I have some swamp land in Florida that I would love to sell to you.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Tis,

It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a boat moving forward NOT to leave a wake. A boat moving forward displaces water.. the water fills the void caused by the hull, creating a wake. Unless a boat is adrift and floating freely with the current, it is creating a wake. The height of the wake will vary with the type of hull, and the speed at which the hull goes thru the water.

Because of the myriad of boat hull designs, there is no way to define what is acceptable wake height, and what is not. Every hull is different and creates a different wake and that wake all varies with the forward speed of the boat.

The important clause here is "maintain steerage". Maintaining proper control of your boat is paramount and trumps ALL! Currents, boat traffic, wind & weather can all affect at what speed steerage can be maintained. For example, in the spring the Weirs Channel usually has a 5 MPH current... to overcome that current you have to go a minimum of 7-11 MPH... guess what your boat is making a pretty good wake!

The 6 MPH speed is essentially the standard acceptable speed that is universally recognized as the maximum speed necessary to maintain steerage for 98% of the recreational boats. Why 6 MPH and not 5 MPH? No idea!

Woodsy

A couple of points that I would disagree with:

The movement of water across your hull is what leaves a wake, not necessarily your boat speed. For example: If you maintain a constant stationary position against the current in the Weirs Channel in the spring your boat will be leaving a wake, though not moving at all.

To travel against the current in the Weirs Channel (or anywhere with a strong current) the same 5 to 7 mile per hour speed is all that is needed. Don't confuse the speed of the water across your hull with your actual speed over the stationary land. Your boat speedometer (if not GPS) will indicate a higher speed than you are actually going because it will read off the pressure sensor and will not correct for water flow.

Many people are use to one "No Wake" speed RPM setting and fail to account for the movement of water underneath them and adjust accordingly. Quite often that is the reason that the Weirs Channel backs up so much. It would be nice if people looked behind them to see if their slow speed is causing a backup or handling problem for the boats following them. Not all boats react the same way at slow speeds.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by tis

Obviously there is a big problem with this law. The way it is written it does sound like you can make a wake as long as you are doing the 6mph. However, MP is not usually going to agree with you. A wake is a wake.

And the law (which is very poorly worded and misleading) mentions nothing about wake, waves, ripples, or anything of that sort. It only mentions speed.

[Woodsy]

TiltonBB & ITD...

Agreed! Its the old Air Speed vs Ground speed. LOL!

I was just trying to keep it simple... you need to increase your power to overcome the current.. so if the current is at 5 MPH and you are stationary, you are creating the same wake as you would @ 5 MPH in a no current or wind sea state.

Being stationary in a current of 5MPH your boat speedo will usually read 5 MPH even though you are not moving forward. Your GPS will read 0 MPH. When you move forward through the current at 5 MPH... your boat speedo will read 10 MPH and your GPS will read 5 MPH. However, you will be creating a 10 MPH wake and the engine power will be the equivalent of 10 MPH in a no current or wind sea state.

I totally understand it... I just didn't explain it fully!

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by depasseg

And the law (which is very poorly worded and misleading) mentions nothing about wake, waves, ripples, or anything of that sort. It only mentions speed.

The law is not poorly written.. it is written to be easily enforceable. People unfortunately take the term "No Wake Zone" literally... when the term "No Wake Zone" is actually defined in the RSA as a "Headway Speed Zone"

Speed is the only thing that can be easily measured (radar, laser, etc) and is routinely accepted in a court of law...

Wake height is not easily measured and very much up for debate...

Woodsy

[SIKSUKR]

Against the current is not an issue with maintaining steerage. Going with the current is when you may sometimes need to go close to 10 mph(relative to the land) to maintain steerage in a 5 mph current.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

The problem with the no-wake issue is people don't usually look behind themselves to see what they are creating. (No offense meant but jetski's are some of the worst.) I don't believe that most people are intentionally malicious but, having lived in the Hole in the Wall no-wake for almost 20 years it doe get to the point where you have just had enough. You see you boat get banged around so many times that you have to get it out and you yell or whatever.

And then we get back to what is a no-wake? Headway or 6 mph. We don't want to go there. I remember coming out of the Weirs channel 25 years or so ago and getting yelled at by MP for a wake. "I'm not making a wake." I said. "Look behind you. Do you see white? That's a wake!" More people need to look behind them.

No reason everyone shouldn't be able to enjoy the lake all of time.

So what am I suppose to do? I live in an area where I have a large no-wake zone when heading out of the basin. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have a PWC because the wake at the slowest speed is to fast? Do not go there! I have been in the basin for over 60 years and I plan to continue to enjoy it. Also keep in mind- many people purchase property in a no-wake zone and then yell and complain to everyone. I have known several newbies that purchase a place in a no-wake zone and then sit there all day screaming at everyone.

[Orion]

Woodsy nails it on all four latest posts.

[jrc]

We seem to have the subject a lot. Just remember if the MP pulls you over to discuss your wake, be nice. Once he gives you a ticket, now the burden is on you to fight it. The process is the punishment. Even if you win, you lost your time.

Also remember that these laws were written before GPS, no one really had accurate speed measurement at 6 MPH. So the MP use the white water as their visual clue.

The number one reason for No Wake Zones is safety, if I'm driving my boat safely, I don't care what people yell from shore. Safety means ability to control my boat and that my wake doesn't damage or injure people on other boats.

[Rusty]

I think what was left out of the boater certification process was that nobody had to take a class or learn from an experienced boater how to improve boat handling skills. I wonder how many boaters know how to properly use the trim and throttle to reduce a wake?

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The law is not poorly written.. it is written to be easily enforceable. People unfortunately take the term "No Wake Zone" literally... when the term "No Wake Zone" is actually defined in the RSA as a "Headway Speed Zone"

Speed is the only thing that can be easily measured (radar, laser, etc) and is routinely accepted in a court of law...

Wake height is not easily measured and very much up for debate...

Woodsy

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The law is clearly about speed, not wake, which I'm fine with. The poorly written part is how it's written as an "OR" without any sort of clarification and a bit of ambiguity.

As it is written, I see two interpretations:

- One is if you put an "either" before the 6mph
- The other is if you apply the "slowest" to the entire statement (i.e. the slower of either 6mph or maintain steerage")

Applying Boolean logic to the statement, the OR statement means only one of the 2 things must be true. Either 6MPH OR slowest possible to maintain steerage. You only need to do one of these. However, it seems there is enough confusion over the intent of the "slower" phrase, that it has become part of the equation. And in either case, it doesn't clarify if it is speed through water, or speed over ground.

To me, it would be much clearer if it were worded as either:

A) "Headway speed'' means no faster than 6 miles per hour (Speed over Ground i.e. GPS measured) unless the vessel is unable to maintain steerage, in which case the vessel must operate at the slowest possible speed to maintain steerage way. (this means you can go up to 6mph, and only go over in order to maintain steerage.)

or

B) "Headway speed'' means operating at the slowest possible speed to maintain steerage way. (this means go as slow as possible to maintain steerage).


Actual 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.

[Woodsy]

depasseg,

The law is actually very clearly written to allow variation and still have a set enforceable parameter. The set parameter is 6 MPH, you are not to exceed that unless deemed necessary (by you the captain) to maintain steerage. That's the variation. The burden of proof is on the MP below 6 MPH, the Burden of proof above 6 MPH is on you, the captain, to justify why you had to exceed 6 MPH.

There is no need for Boolean logic. There are plenty of precedents in the courts.

The NH Legislature recognized that different boats require different speeds to maintain steerage. They also recognized that requiring all boats to travel at the slowest possible speed of another craft was an undue burden. 6 MPH was the decided upon headway speed recommendation. This takes into account boat type, safety, boat traffic, currents, weather condition etc. Thus, you can actually get out of Paugus bay on a holiday weekend... Or up the Piscataqua River with an outgoing tide.

The Weirs Channel is approx 3/4 of a mile long... not counting boats stacking up. At 3 MPH its a 15 minute transit time... at 6 MPH its a 7.5 minute transit time.

Woodsy

[Orion]

I agree the law is poorly written.....but also agree with Woodsy. It makes no sense to make the slowest possible speed to maintain steerage the limit. I can reduce my speed to near zero and maintain steerage (such as when docking), so how could that possibly be the intent? Clearly the intent is 6 MPH speed limit and the MP needs to be re-educated.

[tis]

If the law was meant to be headway speed why don't they use headway speed signs like they used to.

Sorry, I don't think headway speed and no wake are the same thing and I don't think when you see a No Wake sign that the intention is to allow one to go headway speed no matter how much wake you are making. If the law was properly written we obviously would not have differing opinions on this.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by tis

If the law was meant to be headway speed why don't they use headway speed signs like they used to.

Sorry, I don't think headway speed and no wake are the same thing and I don't think when you see a No Wake sign that the intention is to allow one to go headway speed no matter how much wake you are making. If the law was properly written we obviously would not have differing opinions on this.

Actually, No Wake Area and Headway speed are exactly the same according to the law. That part is clear. Headway speed markers instead of NWZ would be very helpful.

Perhaps it's a training issue with the Marine Patrol. There have been too many stories of people being stopped for making a wake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl

So what am I suppose to do? I live in an area where I have a large no-wake zone when heading out of the basin. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have a PWC because the wake at the slowest speed is to fast? Do not go there! I have been in the basin for over 60 years and I plan to continue to enjoy it. Also keep in mind- many people purchase property in a no-wake zone and then yell and complain to everyone. I have known several newbies that purchase a place in a no-wake zone and then sit there all day screaming at everyone.

There is a way to make your SeaDoo go slower in a now wake zone. If you pull the reverse lever back about half way the thrust will be pointed straight down and you will have no forward thrust. From that position you move the lever slightly to the forward setting and you will have a small amount of thrust and will be able to go as slow as you want.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is a way to make your SeaDoo go slower in a now wake zone. If you pull the reverse lever back about half way the thrust will be pointed straight down and you will have no forward thrust. From that position you move the lever slightly to the forward setting and you will have a small amount of thrust and will be able to go as slow as you want.

Actually an easier way is to zig and zag. Turn the handlebars from stop to stop quickly enough so the pwc doesn't turn that much. You effectively cut the amount of thrust to move forward.. But I would be hard pressed to do this because some yahoos sitting on a proch think I am going too fast.........

[jrc]

Does anyone really think the intent of the No Wake laws was to restrict the speed of a jetski to below their normal idle speed? If an idling jetski causes too much disturbance to your shorefront, fix your shorefront.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by jrc

We seem to have the subject a lot. Just remember if the MP pulls you over to discuss your wake, be nice. Once he gives you a ticket, now the burden is on you to fight it. The process is the punishment. Even if you win, you lost your time.

Also remember that these laws were written before GPS, no one really had accurate speed measurement at 6 MPH. So the MP use the white water as their visual clue.

The number one reason for No Wake Zones is safety, if I'm driving my boat safely, I don't care what people yell from shore. Safety means ability to control my boat and that my wake doesn't damage or injure people on other boats.

I agree with everything you said with the exception of the bolded. I don't think safety is really the number one reason for no wake zones. For example, the giant NWZ on the other side of the Mosquito bridge at Lake Winnisquam. It is huge, and I don't see how that NWZ could have been put there for safety reasons.

[SIKSUKR]

I dont understand what the confusion is. Woodsy explained it very simply. As far as my PWC, when in line through the channel I frequently have to use my reverse to slow down so I'm not getting dirty looks for passing other boats. I do sometimes use my reverse 1/2 open like BR posted to slow.

[Woodsy]

The difference between the two....

Headway speed is REQUIRED in numerous SITUATIONS... within 150' of shore, other boats, docks, people, etc...

No Wake Zones are designated AREAS where headway speed is required but would not normally be required. Weirs Channel, Bridges, Bear Island, Meredith Bay, Between Governors & Eagle Is. Hole in the Wall etc...

The No Wake Zones have many uses... safety, traffic control, shoreline protection, political...

Woodsy

[jrc]

You're right, I should have said "supposed to be safety". As in any government endeavor, the intent of a law is not always the result.

[Rich]

Here's a puzzle for you captain batman:

You're headed into Paugus Bay, while going under the Weir's bridge, you throttle is at it's minimum possible, your GPS indicates a speed of 8 MPH. You have no problems steering and controlling your boat. Are you 'legal'?

Later in the day you're headed out of Paugus bay, while going under the same bridge, but you are not making any headway. The bridge is over your head but doesn't appear to be moving. So you add some throttle. Your GPS indicates a speed of 3 MPH, you can just barely maintain your heading, but your tach is showing a much higher engine speed than you would normally run to avoid a wake. Are you legal?

Some data if you need it (pick any day):

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rich

Here's a puzzle for you captain batman:

You're headed into Paugus Bay, while going under the Weir's bridge, you throttle is at it's minimum possible, your GPS indicates a speed of 8 MPH. You have no problems steering and controlling your boat. Are you 'legal'?

Later in the day you're headed out of Paugus bay, while going under the same bridge, but you are not making any headway. The bridge is over your head but doesn't appear to be moving. So you add some throttle. Your GPS indicates a speed of 3 MPH, you can just barely maintain your heading, but your tach is showing a much higher engine speed than you would normally run to avoid a wake. Are you legal?

Some data if you need it (pick any day):

This is almost more comical than the speed limit debate was. To answer your question, you are "legal" in both cases as mentioned (as interpreted by the law). The law says "headway speed is 6mph or the slowest speed necessary to maintain steerage". It does NOT say, "which ever speed is lower". Why is this so difficult to understand? Woodsy had it right earlier in this thread.

[Rich]

It isn't so hard to understand. Actually it's quite simple.

Some may not realize that you can't simply glance at your GPS to say that you're 'legal'. There are some places on the lake where there can be a significant current which can affect your boat.

In the first example, the current could be going 5 MPH or so, and your GPS could be indicating ground speed, not over the water speed. Which would the MP use (if the headway/steerage requirement was not in play)?

[Woodsy]

Rich...

Its pretty clear cut to me.... and I am guessing you too!

Thus the wording in the RSA "or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way"

If you are in a current moving at 5 MPH, and you are going an extra 3 MPH to maintain steerage... (you need to maintain control of the boat and not let the current push you sideways or into the middle of the channel) the MP are NOT going to bust on you. In fact sometimes in the spring & fall when they have the Lakeport Dam wide open to drain the lake, that is precisely what happens.

You could probably even successfully argue 11 MPH total. 5 MPH for the current and the 6 MPH you are allowed under the law....

Woodsy

[Rich]

Woodsy,

Yes, it's very clear to me also!

But I can't tell you how many times I've been in that channel and had to try to encourage people to move along. To me, this means that most people are trying hard to comply with the 'no wake zones', but almost to the point of being dangerous to others!

Small boats and jet skis may not feel it as bad as larger boats. But if you have a 38 foot boat (12.5 ft beam) that has over 16,000 lbs of weight (think: inertia), you sure need to maintain headway!

I've often thought I need a bull horn instead of a horn to warn others, but that may not help much either!

[Descant]

As you know, most small boat owners (not Forum members, of course) don't realize the size and thrust of your props, even at less than 500 rpm. They certainly don't think about speed as much as they concentrate on "No Wake".

1. "No wake zone" doesn't mean "No Passing Zone". If there's room...
2. In the Weirs Channel, just keep going at your slowest steerage speed. Don't blow your horn until your bow pulpit/anchor is just about even with the transom of the boat that is going too slow. They'll add a little more throttle.
3. Send somebody up to the bow to speak, not shout, with the offender and tell them you can't go any slower, safely.

I've seen these methods used with great effect.
The Weirs Channel is a difficult example for logic, when many people are there to "Cruise Main Street" not to transit to/from Paugus Bay.

There used to be explanatory signs by the bridge and at the south end of the Weirs Channel explaining that it should take 5 minutes from that point to the equivalent sign at the other end. The signs are long gone, but in my mind, if I were going slow enough to read the sign out loud, my speed was about right. No speedo, no GPS in those days. When I did get a boat with a speedo, it didn't register until about 10 kts.

[GodSmile]

Seems to me that if one stops to think about the intent of the rule, and not the lawyer wordsmith weasel words.... and respects others.... boaters, and people with shore property... seems to me all would be well. I've witnessed idiots on boats and land.... I must be in the minority.... I err on the side of the other person's rights. Seems to keep me out of trouble, although I will admit to being more than a little peeved at what I see at times.

[Phantom]

Lets get simple here......

The law is the law and you can interpret it or have it interpreted for you by an attorney.

But the sad fact remains, I have never ( not once) ever been successful explaining in a calm & professional manner to a MP ( or land LEO) that he is sadly mistaken in his interpretation of the regulation and why he pulled me over and should go back to training class !

I STILL get the citation-- (for which I am Pissed cuz I know I'm right)-- and an invitation to pay the fine or to challenge it in a court of their choice in the middle of the week ! Which is awesome seeing as I travel close to 40 weeks a year and
Live 2-1/2 hours away from the lake.


All this discussion is mute !

Just Sayin :

.

[tis]

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
07-06-2010, 04:44 PM #1
Glove
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Clarification on "No Wake" rules
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.

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

[phoenix]

First I did my question answered but I think many people including a lot of water front homeowners ( me included) don't rally understand the law and assume no wake means no wake . Also you have many based on this that sit on their dock and scream at people they think are in violation but really aren't . I am sure GBG knows who I am talking about

[depasseg]

Tis - His answer isn't clear to me. It sounds like they are just trying to determine if a vessel is going as slow as it can. Can you ask a clarifying question of: Can I go any speed under 6 MPH (according to a GPS) regardless of the wake produced?

Thanks,
Greg

[tis]

In my opinion his answer is pretty clear. The new wording in the law came about when the MP started patrolling in the ocean because boats could not always go slow enough to not cause a wake and still maintain steerage. The lake is a different story. As far as the lake is concerned he says:

"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."


I do think the Weirs channel is a little different than other no wake zones and sometimes you might need a little more speed , but overall I wouldn't be making a wake when in a no wake zone. The best advice here is look behind you and see if you are making a wake. If you are, slow down.

[Orion]

How can that MP answer be clear when every parameter he listed is totally subjective? In other words it's completely up to the judgement of the MP officer (many of whom have far less boating experience then most of the boaters).

[Happy Gourmand]

Originally Posted by Orion

How can that MP answer be clear when every parameter he listed is totally subjective? In other words it's completely up to the judgement of the MP officer (many of whom have far less boating experience then most of the boaters).

Not for nothing, but I totally agree. The clarification from the MP was clear as mud. To clear this up, I feel that headway speed and no wake speed be defined as 6 MPH or less...period. The only exception that would allow any amount of subjective judgement by a LEO would be in the channel when the current doesn't allow for forward progress over the ground at 6MPH.

[SIKSUKR]

I agree that nothing was cleared up here at all.Still a judgement call.As far as wake size goes in a fast current,that will increase relative to water speed but maintaining steerage into a current can be done virtually standing still relative to land.The only way to maintain steerage going with a current is to go faster than the current which is why you might need to go faster than the 6 mph.Or keep turning your wheel from one side to the other or using reverse which makes no sense at all.

[jrc]

So my general rule still works, stay under 6 mph, unless a MP tells me to slow down.

Since I am only a Winni boater, the only exception would be a real strong current in the Weirs channel, might force me to go faster.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

So my general rule still works, stay under 6 mph, unless a MP tells me to slow down.

Since I am only a Winni boater, the only exception would be a real strong current in the Weirs channel, might force me to go faster.

OR...you've had a few beers and don't care.

[jrc]

Wow, what are you talking about? If you had so many you can't follow the rules, then you're too drunk to operate a boat.

Not to change the subject, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lake should be a no drunk operator zone. Maximum speed of 0 mph for drunk operators, they should be tied to the dock.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by jrc

Wow, what are you talking about? If you had so many you can't follow the rules, then you're too drunk to operate a boat.

Not to change the subject, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lake should be a no drunk operator zone. Maximum speed of 0 mph for drunk operators, they should be tied to the dock.

I'm guessing that was a joke.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by depasseg

I'm guessing that was a joke.

Yes but not a very good one

[jrc]

OK, I'm a dope and didn't get it. Is it time to go to the lake yet...

[Chaselady]

I live by a no wake zone. The worst offenders I see, are the older drivers that have been driving a boat for decades. Their idea of no-wake is to just come off plane, and plow through throwing a queen Mary size tidal wave that can throw a boat onto it's dock. They aren't drunk, just oblivious.
The younger hot shots just fly through, full speed. At least they don't create as much damage that way.

[RailroadJoe]

I guess all you people with boats will have to buy oars. Then shut off the motors and row through the no wake zone. Maybe MP willm do the same.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

I guess all you people with boats will have to buy oars. Then shut off the motors and row through the no wake zone. Maybe MP willm do the same.

To heck with that Joe, I'm the captain, the crew rows.....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

Wow, what are you talking about? If you had so many you can't follow the rules, then you're too drunk to operate a boat.

Not to change the subject, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lake should be a no drunk operator zone. Maximum speed of 0 mph for drunk operators, they should be tied to the dock.

Sorry I didn't mean that you personally had a few beers, although I worded that way.

Alcohol plays a big roll in the way people act on a hot mid July weekend.

Not to get off the "wake" subject but when inexperienced boaters get a few beers in them the results are what you see on that hot summer day. IMO that is.

I'm sure most Winni forum members know better and treat other boaters with respect.

[Dave R]

I recently spent a couple of days covering 210 miles of water in NY. Most of the no wake zones were posted at 5 MPH. Seems like a simple solution.

[caloway]

What's the deal with the NWZ between Eagle and Governors? Plenty of distance to shore and that area is like a giant washing machine anyway.

[Descant]

Like most NWZ areas, a group filed a petition, the MP held a hearing, there was little or no objection, so they granted the petition.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Some newbies tried to make a NWZ area larger a few years back. Our area has an incredible amount of NWZ's. Many of us own who had owned property since the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's protested. We attended the meeting at the Moultonborough Town office and we spoke up. The increased area of the NWZ did not pass. If people don't say anything things around them can change in a blink of an eye.

[jrc]

And if you miss those meetings, the change is even harder to stop. Keep an eye on the DOS website for meeting announcements.

If you are complacent, a savvy petitioner can use the system to get what they want, take a look at the NRZ on three coves last year and the almost NWZ in the Barber Pole before that. They can keep trying over and over again.

[tis]

When you are in an area where you cannot be 150 feet from shore it is a no wake zone anyway. It just isn't marked.

[fpartri497]

that's correct > last year a M.P. told me that when not marked the safe passage law automatically kicks In. If less than 150 ft. .

[jrc]

You could make the argument that a lot of No Wake Zones do not need to exist, because they are redundant with the safe passage law. But I think in general, they need to be a NWZ to have the buoys.

I mean do Sally's Gut and the Weirs Channel need to be NWZ, there is no point in either that is more than 150' from shore? They are de-facto NWZ. Some places like Smith cove near Glendale might have a few square feet in the middle that are more than 150' from either shore, a dock or a moored boat, so I guess a NWZ keeps somebody from trying waterski in that spot.

[cmack]

One big problem with the 150' rule... very few actually obey it. I'm passed at times no further than 50' apart. Hell, some slow down just enough to make the biggest wake possible!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by cmack

One big problem with the 150' rule... very few actually obey it. I'm passed at times no further than 50' apart. Hell, some slow down just enough to make the biggest wake possible!

That's not a problem with the rule. That is a problem with people not following the rule.

[lfm]

Originally Posted by caloway

What's the deal with the NWZ between Eagle and Governors? Plenty of distance to shore and that area is like a giant washing machine anyway.

I actually think that area was better before the NWZ was instituted. Boats coming on and off plane are creating a bigger problem there.

[Misha888]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

I always just kept a no wake between the buoys or after the buoy when entering a cove, since there shouldn't be a second buoy.

you are entering Smith Cove where there are two buoys. 10% of the people ignore the first and sometimes the second. It is my perception that of the 10% who ignore it are island residents who just don't give a care to the damage their doing to the docks, boats and retaining walls. The other 2% are just yahoo's who don't know the difference.

[Woodsy]

NH is unique with the 150' Safe Passage Rule.... I think this is the main reason we do not have a lot of boat vs. boat collisions on NH inland waterways.

I used to get upset about people who violated the 150' rule. Then I did some ocean boating.... YIKES!

I view the Safe Passage rule as more of a guideline.... I don't get upset if someone pops the 150' bubble. I will slow down if they do. As long as they are not what I consider "danger close" within 25' - 50' or so. Most people pass well outside with absolutely no danger.... so what if they are within 150'? If they are not operating their boat in a dangerous manner, then its not dangerous, its not worth getting twisted over.

Of course there will be those Rules are Rules folks.... flame on!

Woodsy

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

NH is unique with the 150' Safe Passage Rule.... I think this is the main reason we do not have a lot of boat vs. boat collisions on NH inland waterways.

I used to get upset about people who violated the 150' rule. Then I did some ocean boating.... YIKES!


Woodsy

You are quite correct about "Ocean" rules......I use to boat on the Inland Waterway in Florida! ( Yikes- twice!)

But just about every State I can think of has the 150' rule in effect for "Inland Waters"





.

[NH_boater]

Originally Posted by Phantom

You are quite correct about "Ocean" rules......I use to boat on the Inland Waterway in Florida! ( Yikes- twice!)

But just about every State I can think of has the 150' rule in effect for "Inland Waters"





.

Is this true? I am sure I have read that 150 safe passage is unique to NH.

[Woodsy]

Phantom...

Lots of states have rules regarding the distance from the shoreline or docks that boat must be at headway speed...

NH is unique (to the best of my knowledge) in that NH requires boats to keep a minimum distance of 150' from each other while traveling above headway speed.

Woodsy

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Phantom...

Lots of states have rules regarding the distance from the shoreline or docks that boat must be at headway speed...

NH is unique (to the best of my knowledge) in that NH requires boats to keep a minimum distance of 150' from each other while traveling above headway speed.

Woodsy

Woodsy:
MA has the same 150' Law for inland waters (I live on a Lake in Central Ma when not at Winni)

.