No wake zones

[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.

[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.