Adjusting the No Wake Zone law

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Anyone that's ever operated a boat going upstream into a stiff current can understand why this is dumb. Against a 5 MPH current, my boat can still steer at -1 MPH SOG. In other words, I can be going 4MPH against the water and be in total control of my boat while moving backwards at -1 MPH relative to the shore. If this passes, anyone that can steer their boat at 5 MPH or less may not legally go upstream into a 5 MPH current. They need to adjust the wording to make it clear that actually making headway is the goal when it comes to headway speed, defining the speed by steering capability alone is dumb dumb dumb...

You're just being silly and deflective. You do not have headway, steerage, or "total control" (take your pick) if you cannot point your bow 360 degrees.

Let's keep the objections to this bill on stuff that's at least fact-based and tied to the English language. Stuff like--"But I gotta get to Twin Docks before they fill up!" or "I hate going 4 mph through this miserable place!"

[TiltonBB]

I think one of the major problems with legislators making rules for boating is that (I would be willing to bet) most of them have not ever owned or spent any significant time in a boat. Many have never spent even one minute on Winnipesaukee.

They tend to use their life experiences when voting on boating issues and sometimes that results in regulations for boaters that are not quite right.

Some of the problems result when they think things like "We have ..................on Route 93 so we must need it on the lakes".

The lack of information or practical experience on their part sometimes causes changes that are not necessary or regulations that have a negative impact on the people who actually use and enjoy the lake.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

You're just being silly and deflective. You do not have headway, steerage, or "total control" (take your pick) if you cannot point your bow 360 degrees.

Re-read the bill, does not mention "total control", only steerage. That said, in my example, I'd be able to point my bow 360 degrees without any difficulty. In one direction, I'd be going -1 MPH SOG, in the other direction I'd be going +9 MPH SOG. Any heading in between would result in a velocity between those two speeds with total control.

I'm not being silly, I'm being realistic. There's a reason "6MPH" is in the law now, this is the reason. IF they want to make a realisticchange, just make it 5 MPH.

[Descant]

The Marine Trades Association used to take legislators out on the lake every year, from the committees that dealt with lake issues. The legislature passed new ethics rules that prevented Reps from accepting anything in excess of a $25 value. It wasn't clear what the value of a boat ride, sandwich and ice cream cone was, so they stopped.

When we were in a kerfuffle about speed limits, a group of legislators borrowed a radar gun and did their own research on speeds and noise. That was discussed, I believe, here, but could have been on one of the speed related websites.
Marine Patrol will probably take out any legislator who asks. (Our local PD will take any adult resident for a ride-along.)

As with anything else, educating somebody does not necessarily mean they will end up agreeing with what you or I think is the obvious.

[BroadHopper]

Did not hear about the group that went out on its own with a radar gun, but I do know Rusty Mclear rented a large pontoon boat and took out legislatures to the Weirs on a weekend in the middle of a poker run. The poker run was slow in front of the Weirs due to traffic and boat waves, someone told the legislatures they were going 100 mph. Since they only saw the weekend traffic in front of the Weirs, they were lead to believe this is normal throughout the whole lake!

Originally Posted by Descant

The Marine Trades Association used to take legislators out on the lake every year, from the committees that dealt with lake issues. The legislature passed new ethics rules that prevented Reps from accepting anything in excess of a $25 value. It wasn't clear what the value of a boat ride, sandwich and ice cream cone was, so they stopped.

When we were in a kerfuffle about speed limits, a group of legislators borrowed a radar gun and did their own research on speeds and noise. That was discussed, I believe, here, but could have been on one of the speed related websites.
Marine Patrol will probably take out any legislator who asks. (Our local PD will take any adult resident for a ride-along.)

As with anything else, educating somebody does not necessarily mean they will end up agreeing with what you or I think is the obvious.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

The Marine Trades Association used to take legislators out on the lake every year, from the committees that dealt with lake issues. The legislature passed new ethics rules that prevented Reps from accepting anything in excess of a $25 value. It wasn't clear what the value of a boat ride, sandwich and ice cream cone was, so they stopped.

When we were in a kerfuffle about speed limits, a group of legislators borrowed a radar gun and did their own research on speeds and noise. That was discussed, I believe, here, but could have been on one of the speed related websites.
Marine Patrol will probably take out any legislator who asks. (Our local PD will take any adult resident for a ride-along.)

As with anything else, educating somebody does not necessarily mean they will end up agreeing with what you or I think is the obvious.

Exactly, we entrust our elected officials to make laws on all sorts of things in which they do not have direct experience. Presumably they are able to access experts to advise them and warn them off of dishonesty. People may not like this, but the "solution" would be a much bigger issue than boat speeds.

[fatlazyless]

Just googled NH Marine Trades Association and learned it is a political action committee, or a PAC, and is located at 65 Gold St in Laconia, and what's also interesting is that 65 Gold St is also the address for Lakeport Landing Marina.

Back in 2008, Lakeport Landing Marina was very big with its opposition to the Lake Winnipesaukee 45-mph speed limit, so having the same address raises a red flag on this no-wake speed issue.

In motor boating, the size of the boat makes a difference, and what works good for say a 16' boat with a 40-hp motor, can be a lot different for a 27' or 32' boat with a 900-hp motor; how it putt-putts along slowly cruis'n down a no-wake zone. Just seems like for these big powerful, mega monster, big money BEHEMOTHs ....the putt-putt speed is just too danged slow of a putt-putt .... and the boat captain is always aching to put the pedal to the metal ..... push that throttle(s) way forward ..... power it up ...... and move on up and outta that no-wake zone ...... as long as there's no Marine Patrol nearby ..... big, fast, powerful boats just want to go fast ..... is what it seems?

[DPatnaude]

Steerageway: (of a vessel) the minimum speed required for proper response to the helm.

If you want to go forward and you are going backwards you do not have proper response to the helm.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Re-read the bill, does not mention "total control", only steerage. That said, in my example, I'd be able to point my bow 360 degrees without any difficulty. In one direction, I'd be going -1 MPH SOG, in the other direction I'd be going +9 MPH SOG. Any heading in between would result in a velocity between those two speeds with total control.



I'm not being silly, I'm being realistic. There's a reason "6MPH" is in the law now, this is the reason. IF they want to make a realisticchange, just make it 5 MPH.

You are being silly. There is no way you could keep your bow directly in the current, all boats wander. As soon as your bow came off 180 degrees to the current you would fall off, effectively losing steerage.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

I think it's about time this wording got corrected for the way that MP intends it to be on the lake. There will no longer be any question. No Wake will now mean NO Wake to everybody without any misunderstandings.

[Chimi]

Everyone who is a resident of NH should contact their representative and tell them to vote NO on this foolish bill. Those of us who are not residents cannot vote in NH, although it still would not hurt to call.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Everyone who is a resident of NH should contact their representative and tell them to vote NO on this foolish bill. Those of us who are not residents cannot vote in NH, although it still would not hurt to call.

As noted above (#90?) the House voted on this already. Too late to call your Rep. A hearing will be scheduled in the Senate and they will vote later.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Descant

As noted above (#90?) the House voted on this already. Too late to call your Rep. A hearing will be scheduled in the Senate and they will vote later.

Correction - call your State senator.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

You are being silly. There is no way you could keep your bow directly in the current, all boats wander. As soon as your bow came off 180 degrees to the current you would fall off, effectively losing steerage.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Um, no. That's not at all how it works. If boats were like that, you'd never be able to steer them at all.