No wake zones

[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: [email protected]


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.