Adjusting the No Wake Zone law

[Descant]

HB 188, amending the definition of headway speed. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Patricia Bushway for Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill removes from the definition of
headway speed the reference to 6 miles per hour and establishes headway speed as the slowest speed that a
boat can be operated and maintain the ability to steer. The current definition that specifies 6 miles per hour
is too fast for some watercraft because they still create a wake. For some other craft, the speed may be too
slow to maintain steerage. The committee decision was informed by the input of the Marine Patrol. Vote 19-0.
The "Ought To Pass" Recommendation was adopted today by the whole house on a voice vote.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Descant

HB 188, amending the definition of headway speed. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Patricia Bushway for Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill removes from the definition of
headway speed the reference to 6 miles per hour and establishes headway speed as the slowest speed that a
boat can be operated and maintain the ability to steer. The current definition that specifies 6 miles per hour
is too fast for some watercraft because they still create a wake. For some other craft, the speed may be too
slow to maintain steerage. The committee decision was informed by the input of the Marine Patrol. Vote 19-0.
The "Ought To Pass" Recommendation was adopted today by the whole house on a voice vote.

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...

[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.

[DPatnaude]

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...

If you intend to be going forward and you are actually going backwards, you are not in control of your boat...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by DPatnaude

If you intend to be going forward and you are actually going backwards, you are not in control of your boat...

Re-read the way the bill is worded, does not mention control at all, just steering.

[Garcia]

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...

In earlier threads about NWZs there are those who argue that as long as you are not exceeding 6MPH you are fine, regardless of the wake being created - and are willing to take the time and effort to challenge a ticket which means the MP is off the water and in a courtroom.

This poster’s scenario is definitely not going to create a wake, nor will he receive a ticket.

If I have to choose between the two scenarios, and it seems we all do as there is always that group looking for loopholes rather use common sense and follow the intent of the law, I opt for the revisions to the rule.

[Outdoorsman]

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...

The problem with your example is that you (appear to imply) that MPH is defined as what the speedometer reads at the time. If I take my truck on to the ice and spin the tires until my speedometer reaches 50 MPH am i actually traveling 50 MPH?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

The problem with your example is that you (appear to imply) that MPH is defined as what the speedometer reads at the time. If I take my truck on to the ice and spin the tires until my speedometer reaches 50 MPH am i actually traveling 50 MPH?

I never meant to imply how speed needs to be measured, I just think there needs to be an actual measurable and articulable limit expressed in speed over ground, not an arbitrary one expressed as the ability to steer. I don't really care what the limit is, but there needs to be one, otherwise you end up with confusion and tickets based on someone's opinion of how slowly someone else should go and still be able to steer. I cannot imagine why we'd ever want to define a law this way when there is a superior alternative (miles per hour) that's been in use for decades in the state.

[Woodsy]

Dave R.... I agree. The current law sets that number as 6MPH.


Woodsy

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I never meant to imply how speed needs to be measured, I just think there needs to be an actual measurable and articulable limit expressed in speed over ground, not an arbitrary one expressed as the ability to steer. I don't really care what the limit is, but there needs to be one, otherwise you end up with confusion and tickets based on someone's opinion of how slowly someone else should go and still be able to steer. I cannot imagine why we'd ever want to define a law this way when there is a superior alternative (miles per hour) that's been in use for decades in the state.

I think the point is, there is way to accurately measure (speed over land) MPH when you are on the water unless you are using a GPS.

[Rusty]

Question:

The speed of a boat in still water is 30 mph. It takes the same time for the boat to travel 5 miles upstream as it does to travel 10 miles downstream. What is the speed of the current.

Don't google this to get the answer, all you captains should be able to answer it by your vast experience.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Question:

The speed of a boat in still water is 30 mph. It takes the same time for the boat to travel 5 miles upstream as it does to travel 10 miles downstream. What is the speed of the current.

Don't google this to get the answer, all you captains should be able to answer it by your vast experience.

I know the answer...

[DickR]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Question:
The speed of a boat in still water is 30 mph. It takes the same time for the boat to travel 5 miles upstream as it does to travel 10 miles downstream. What is the speed of the current.

Shall I post the simple one-equation/one-unknown algebra solution, or should I wait and not ruin the puzzle for others?

[fatlazyless]

The correct answer to the question asked is the current is 5-mph, except in the real world of boating in the Weirs channel, you need to consider the different drag coefficient for each boat.

A 16' fishing boat with a 40-hp outboard can weigh 800-lbs, while a 27' cruiser with twin 450-hp inboards can weigh maybe 10,000-lbs. The length, weight, and surface friction work together to determine the drag coefficient, and how each boat is effected by the 5-mph current, plus the hull is effected by the wind, too.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

I think the point is, there is way to accurately measure (speed over land) MPH when you are on the water unless you are using a GPS.

GPS receivers are more ubiquitous than smart phones (every smart phone has one, and a large percentage of boats have GPS).

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I never meant to imply how speed needs to be measured, I just think there needs to be an actual measurable and articulable limit expressed in speed over ground, not an arbitrary one expressed as the ability to steer. I don't really care what the limit is, but there needs to be one, otherwise you end up with confusion and tickets based on someone's opinion of how slowly someone else should go and still be able to steer. I cannot imagine why we'd ever want to define a law this way when there is a superior alternative (miles per hour) that's been in use for decades in the state.

Agree completely. How will MP know what speed is required on each and every boat to maintain steerage? I see this as causing confusion and many ticket challenges in court.

[Woodsy]

We have a de-facto speed limit of 6MPH now... We have that because conditions are variable, and every boat has a different steerage speed.

I would propose that we remove the NWZ definition and just replace it with a 5MPH zone. Easily definable, and easy to enforce!

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We have a de-facto speed limit of 6MPH now... We have that because conditions are variable, and every boat has a different steerage speed.

I would propose that we remove the NWZ definition and just replace it with a 5MPH zone. Easily definable, and easy to enforce!

Woodsy

Could not agree more. This works really well outside NH.This aspect of boating does not need to be complex.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Could not agree more. This works really well outside NH.This aspect of boating does not need to be complex.

As you well know, boating outside of New Hampshire or off of Winnipesaukee is an entirely different experience.

"No wake" speeds are about twice what they are on Winnipessaukee and there is no safe passage law. If you go through a no wake zone in Florida at the same speed you would go through the Weirs Channel you could get rear ended.

I think that different interpretation partially explains why so many boats with out of state registrations go through the Weirs Channel throwing a significant wake and have no idea that they are doing anything wrong. It means different things to different people in other states.

Even without a safe passage law it always surprises me in Florida when another boat overtakes and passes mine at 30 to 40 MPH and is almost close enough that you could shake the Captain's hand. I think so many people are just unaware of the wake behind them and how much it affects other boats they pass.

We have it pretty good on Winnipesaukee and most boat operators are courteous and respectful. The state could have stopped making new boating laws and new No Wake zones on Winnipesaukee about 15 years ago and we might all be better off.

[Seaplane Pilot]

While MP wastes their resources busting people for making white foam and ripples smaller than a duck makes, they will not be bothering me while I cruise (safely) in the Broads at 65-70. Lemonade out of lemons!

[Woodsy]

Just like the Speed Limit proponents said when that debate was raging...

You need an actual NUMBER to allow for enforcement, as "reasonable & prudent" was too vague.

The same goes here... you need a number. Different boats have different steerage speeds. How do you differentiate? How can you tell if they are going over their "maintain steerage" speed? At what height does a wake become a violation? How do you write a ticket for that?

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

While MP wastes their resources busting people for making white foam and ripples smaller than a duck makes, they will not be bothering me while I cruise (safely) in the Broads at 65-70. Lemonade out of lemons!

ALL of us Lake Winnipesaukee boat captains are above average.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

As you well know, boating outside of New Hampshire or off of Winnipesaukee is an entirely different experience.

"No wake" speeds are about twice what they are on Winnipessaukee and there is no safe passage law. If you go through a no wake zone in Florida at the same speed you would go through the Weirs Channel you could get rear ended.

I think that different interpretation partially explains why so many boats with out of state registrations go through the Weirs Channel throwing a significant wake and have no idea that they are doing anything wrong. It means different things to different people in other states.

Even without a safe passage law it always surprises me in Florida when another boat overtakes and passes mine at 30 to 40 MPH and is almost close enough that you could shake the Captain's hand. I think so many people are just unaware of the wake behind them and how much it affects other boats they pass.

We have it pretty good on Winnipesaukee and most boat operators are courteous and respectful. The state could have stopped making new boating laws and new No Wake zones on Winnipesaukee about 15 years ago and we might all be better off.

I like the way it's done in Ontario. The government posts some areas at 10 KPH for safety reasons and people understand and expect that there will be a small wake at 10KPH (6.2 MPH). Additionally, there are private signs that say "no wake please" where people really don't want a wake. You don't have to obey the "no wake please" signs, but most do and drop to less than 10 KPH out of courtesy.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Agree completely. How will MP know what speed is required on each and every boat to maintain steerage? I see this as causing confusion and many ticket challenges in court.

I disagree and think it will lead to fewer issues. It clears up the intent of the law - go slow and minimize the wake (I said minimize as I realize one cannot completely eliminate it). Those people who are going to contest a ticket under the current system (I was going 6MPH...) are probably the same ones who are going to contest a ticket under the proposed system (I can’t steer my boat if I go any slower...).

As to GPS in a boat, perhaps I’m the exception to the rule. I’ve driven a wide range of boats during my five decades on the lake and only the most recent has had GPS - in fact, most have not had a speedometer. In my current boat I rarely turn on the GPS; I’ve never felt the need to use it to monitor my speed in a NWZ or anywhere else.

I feel confident I can get through a NWZ safely and efficiently - and my guess is so can anyone else on this forum. That said, it is interesting in these winter months to talk about boating - ice out is not far away!

[Pineedles]

I've got the answer to the problem in the Weirs Channel. Block off boat access to the channel. Winnipesaukee boats stay in Winnipesaukee proper, and Paugus Bay boats stay in Paugus Bay. Problem solved.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I disagree and think it will lead to fewer issues. It clears up the intent of the law - go slow and minimize the wake (I said minimize as I realize one cannot completely eliminate it). Those people who are going to contest a ticket under the current system (I was going 6MPH...) are probably the same ones who are going to contest a ticket under the proposed system (I can’t steer my boat if I go any slower...).

As to GPS in a boat, perhaps I’m the exception to the rule. I’ve driven a wide range of boats during my five decades on the lake and only the most recent has had GPS - in fact, most have not had a speedometerr. In my current boat I rarely turn on the GPS; I’ve never felt the need to use it to monitor my speed in a NWZ or anywhere else.

I feel confident I can get through a NWZ safely and efficiently - and my guess is so can anyone else on this forum. That said, it is interesting in these winter months to talk about boating - ice out is not far away!

Well said, Garcia! The intent of the law is to NOT make a wake. it has nothing to do with speed limit. And as you said most people in most circumstances on the lake will still be able to steer. As MP has said before, they have been taken to court over this and have won. And this argument which is the same thing over and over and over is exactly why this change in the law is needed. The 6 MPH was never intended for the lake. After it is passed, there will be no more dispute. No wake is no wake. And if there is the occasional boat or current that requires a boater to go a little faster at certain time, I am sure the MP is smart enough to figure that out.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Garcia

As to GPS in a boat, perhaps I’m the exception to the rule. I’ve driven a wide range of boats during my five decades on the lake and only the most recent has had GPS - in fact, most have not had a speedometer. In my current boat I rarely turn on the GPS; I’ve never felt the need to use it to monitor my speed in a NWZ or anywhere else.

I feel confident I can get through a NWZ safely and efficiently - and my guess is so can anyone else on this forum. That said, it is interesting in these winter months to talk about boating - ice out is not far away!

You probably have not been taking full advantage of the allowable 6 MPH. Think of the time lost!

FWIW, I've had GPS on my boats since 2005 and use it extensively. My latest boat has two GPS plotters (a 10 year old one that still works great, and a brand new one that displays Active Captain). I plan to augment them with a tablet running Navionics as well. I explore/cruise (off Winni) quite a bit and like to have as much information as possible to avoid touching bottom. One of the props or shafts on my latest boat costs more than the tablet, the newer GPS, and the Navionics app combined, so it's money well-spent if it keeps the props and shafts straight. I think Active Captain is a must for anyone that likes to do multi-day cruises too, it's super handy.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Dave R

You probably have not been taking full advantage of the allowable 6 MPH. Think of the time lost!

And therein lies the problem. “Taking advantage of the allowable 6 MPH” regardless of the effect on others, and “...time lost.” Now it is so much easier, look behind you, if you see white you’re creating a wake, slow down.

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

And therein lies the problem. “Taking advantage of the allowable 6 MPH” regardless of the effect on others, and “...time lost.” Now it is so much easier, look behind you, if you see white you’re creating a wake, slow down.
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Ah yes.... effect on others. What effect might that be? There is very little energy difference in wake between 2-3MPH or 5MPH. Erosion is minimal.


However... all it takes is 1 loser to go thru the Weirs Channel at 2MPH on a busy summer Saturday to cause a boat traffic jam 1/2-3/4 of a mile long. Resulting in 40+ boats having to shift in and out of gear to try and maintain steerage in a 2-3 knot current.

So again the effect on others?

Woodsy