Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > Boating
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-18-2011, 01:18 PM   #1
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default Why did 150 ft rule come into being?

So does anyone have the history of the 150 rule and how it got on the books? Was it the result of an accident or collision? Was is based on complaints of wakes unto shore?

I'm interested in hearing from those around when it was enacted as to why it was proposed?

Lastly, how was the 150 ft distance decided as the appropriate number?
lawn psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 03:40 PM   #2
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

lots of states have minimum spacing requirements, I've heard of 50' and 200'.

Our law has been in place since at least the early 80's when Dad taught be to drive his boat.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 03:53 PM   #3
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Many states have required distances from shore. I think it's more uncommon to require two passing boats to slow to a crawl within 150 ft. Most other lakes I've been on have no such a law.

I'm just curious why NH adopted it given the "Live Free of Die" mantra. Something had to be the catalyst for the law being put on the books and I was wondering the details.

Who wrote and sponsored the bill? Were there debates or did it pass with no fan-fare, etc?

I'm not looking to debate the 150 rule, just curious about how it was adopted and if boaters were divided about it.
lawn psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 04:32 PM   #4
Jonas Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wolfeboro, New Hampshire is my home, 24-7-365
Posts: 1,686
Thanks: 1,047
Thanked 336 Times in 189 Posts
Default

Maybe they were politer back then and thought with a lake that is 44,586 acres big that there was no reason to crowd each other.
Jonas Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 06:43 PM   #5
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

I'll bet Skip or Rusty knows. NB
NoBozo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to NoBozo For This Useful Post:
Rusty (04-19-2011)
Sponsored Links
Old 04-18-2011, 07:10 PM   #6
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,333
Thanks: 744
Thanked 533 Times in 310 Posts
Default

Having spent many of my almost 50 years of boating on rivers and navigating inlets where you can almost jump in a passing boat, I too am interested to hear the history of this particular rule.

And like you, just interested in the facts, as I have no desire to know how much better it has been with the rule (or not) or start any new (and surly futile) debate about the matter.

So anyone can offer up the unadulterated version of how this came to be I'll tip my hat to them.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 08:23 PM   #7
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts
Default

I think it's because tow lines are 75 feet long. 150 feet keeps the two from colliding. In theory anyway.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Rattlesnake Guy For This Useful Post:
lawn psycho (04-19-2011)
Old 04-18-2011, 08:37 PM   #8
NHBUOY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loon Mtn. winters...Meredith Neck summers
Posts: 398
Thanks: 288
Thanked 94 Times in 60 Posts
Default

...makes sense & works for me...
NHBUOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 08:47 PM   #9
Knomad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Center Tuftonboro
Posts: 173
Thanks: 0
Thanked 33 Times in 19 Posts
Default

In my opinion there are a couple of factors that helped determine the 150 ft rule.

Reaction time:
A boat traveling at 20 MPH will cover 1760 ft in one minute, leaving only 5.1 sec to avoid an object or person 150 ft away. A boat traveling 6 MPH has 17 sec to avoid an object or person 150 ft away.

Damage due to wake:
You are responsible for any damage caused by your wake. However, since different boats produce different size wakes at different speeds, I don't know how anyone could say that 150' or any other distance is the point where the wake would not cause damage.
Knomad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 08:11 AM   #10
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

OK we need some old timers to chime in. Who, what, and why was involved with the 150 ft rule coming into place?
lawn psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 09:24 AM   #11
thebix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Down since 2009.
Posts: 97
Thanks: 2
Thanked 32 Times in 23 Posts
Default When did it change from 75 teet?

I seem to recall that in the 80's the rule was 75 feet, not 150. That was back when I first build my camp on Rattlesnake. I was out of the state in the starting in the 90's and don't know when it was upped to 150'.
thebix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 10:58 AM   #12
Flyfisha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Rattlesnake Island
Posts: 139
Thanks: 58
Thanked 45 Times in 23 Posts
Default 150' for a while

I worked for Marine Patrol (We were called Boat Inspectors back then) in the late 70's. It was 150' at that time. Interestingly enough the way we explained it back then was two lengths of a water ski rope!!
Flyfisha is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flyfisha For This Useful Post:
Jonas Pilot (04-19-2011)
Old 04-19-2011, 12:03 PM   #13
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,925
Thanks: 2,285
Thanked 4,937 Times in 1,913 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfisha View Post
I worked for Marine Patrol (We were called Boat Inspectors back then) in the late 70's. It was 150' at that time. Interestingly enough the way we explained it back then was two lengths of a water ski rope!!
That actually makes good sense!

Thanks!

Dan
ishoot308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 01:05 PM   #14
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,404
Thanks: 719
Thanked 1,379 Times in 955 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
Having spent many of my almost 50 years of boating on rivers and navigating inlets where you can almost jump in a passing boat, I too am interested to hear the history of this particular rule.

And like you, just interested in the facts, as I have no desire to know how much better it has been with the rule (or not) or start any new (and surly futile) debate about the matter.

So anyone can offer up the unadulterated version of how this came to be I'll tip my hat to them.
Me too! I can't remember a thing about it being started. All I can remember is someone being stopped for something which we had never even heard of, the 150' rule. It seems to me that was in the mid 80s. Then it seemed they were stopping people left and right for that violation. It seems they get on a kick for a while and that is the "in" thing to be stopped for. The next year or two it might be something else. Just like the loud boats. They never stopped anyone for that and then all of a sudden that was THE thing to be stopped for. I don't know why that is. Maybe someone who was a former MP officer can tell us if you have meetings and they tell you to watch for a certain thing-or what…..
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
NHBUOY (04-19-2011)
Old 04-19-2011, 01:52 PM   #15
NHBUOY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loon Mtn. winters...Meredith Neck summers
Posts: 398
Thanks: 288
Thanked 94 Times in 60 Posts
Default

...good, truthful, observation Tis...
NHBUOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 05:29 AM   #16
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,788
Thanks: 2,084
Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts
Default Not "Common" Sense, But...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfisha View Post
I worked for Marine Patrol (We were called Boat Inspectors back then) in the late 70's. It was 150' at that time. Interestingly enough the way we explained it back then was two lengths of a water ski rope!!
That is a sensible regulation.

With its hull, canvas, and spray, ski-boats approaching one another can hide a skier's view of the other skier.
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 07:57 PM   #17
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 213
Thanks: 219
Thanked 36 Times in 20 Posts
Default

I distinctly remember the result of the rule. For years I would either stand or sit on the dock to start slalom skiing. Once the rule came into play that was the end of that. Deep water starts on one ski was no big deal, but it was a lot cooler from the dock. I'm guessing it was late 70s or early 80s.

Interestingly enough, I tried the same start from the swim platform of another boat (in MA) with terrible results last fall. It wasn't as easy as it used to be! Stubbornly making many failed attempts resulted in months of back pain. Back to deep water starts for me!

When I boat in MA I subconsciously observe the 150' rule. It has become ingrained, and it makes sense.

Peter
Cobalt 25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 05:13 AM   #18
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Exclamation 150' rule still allows ski starts from docks....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt 25 View Post
...I distinctly remember the result of the rule. For years I would either stand or sit on the dock to start slalom skiing. Once the rule came into play that was the end of that. Deep water starts on one ski was no big deal, but it was a lot cooler from the dock. I'm guessing it was late 70s or early 80s...
As long as you use due care, the 150' rule does not prevent you from skiing from a dock, pier or the shore:


270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –

VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
(b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
NoRegrets (04-21-2011)
Old 04-21-2011, 06:29 AM   #19
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,404
Thanks: 719
Thanked 1,379 Times in 955 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
As long as you use due care, the 150' rule does not prevent you from skiing from a dock, pier or the shore:


270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –

VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
(b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.



Cobalt is right though, I think. For years most of us didn't do a beach or dock start because of that. The first time I heard it was still legal was when one of the first boating classes was held at WCYC and the instructor said it was ok.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 09:00 AM   #20
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,333
Thanks: 744
Thanked 533 Times in 310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt 25 View Post
I distinctly remember the result of the rule. For years I would either stand or sit on the dock to start slalom skiing. Once the rule came into play that was the end of that. Deep water starts on one ski was no big deal, but it was a lot cooler from the dock. I'm guessing it was late 70s or early 80s.

Interestingly enough, I tried the same start from the swim platform of another boat (in MA) with terrible results last fall. It wasn't as easy as it used to be! Stubbornly making many failed attempts resulted in months of back pain. Back to deep water starts for me!

When I boat in MA I subconsciously observe the 150' rule. It has become ingrained, and it makes sense.

Peter
Not if you are boating on the Merrimack River or through the inlet,,,

There are days when you could give the other guy a high-five in passing,,,



Note the trio of powerboats next to the sailboat and the jetty,,, I'll bet all 5 items are less than 150' apart and the powerboats are clearly running at cruising speed.

Not debating the pros and cons, just showing that 150' rule is clearly not practiced in many places.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 09:29 AM   #21
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Smile Along the NH seacoast as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
Not if you are boating on the Merrimack River or through the inlet,,,

There are days when you could give the other guy a high-five in passing,,,



Note the trio of powerboats next to the sailboat and the jetty,,, I'll bet all 5 items are less than 150' apart and the powerboats are clearly running at cruising speed.

Not debating the pros and cons, just showing that 150' rule is clearly not practiced in many places.
I grew up boating along the seacoast here in NH, and the 150' law does not pertain here from Newington out into the Atlantic. On the weekends it can get a bit hairy but it is what it is, and everyone down here handles it as well as possible. But on a busy Saturday afternoon, especially in the area of PNSY, it ain't for the faint of heart!

the exemption:

(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 10:02 AM   #22
Jonas Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wolfeboro, New Hampshire is my home, 24-7-365
Posts: 1,686
Thanks: 1,047
Thanked 336 Times in 189 Posts
Default

Hey Skip, Could you explain that a little more?
Jonas Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 11:06 AM   #23
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot View Post
Hey Skip, Could you explain that a little more?
Sure....

On the Piscataqua River from an area near the General Sullivan Bridges out to the mouth of the river at Portsmouth Harbor there is no 150' rule between vessels as long as you are in the deepwater channel.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
Jonas Pilot (04-21-2011)
Old 04-21-2011, 11:52 AM   #24
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

I did 5 minutes of Bing searching and found that LP is right, a few states have "distance from shore" speed limts, I could not find a "distance from other boats" rule.

That said, I think the rule is much more good than bad. The good is obvious, the bad is only in a few spots. Places like the six pack that would probably be just as safe if two boats could pass on plane.

One thing that is kind of funny is leaving the Weirs channel. If you're leaving the channel moving at headway speed and another boat is 100 feet behind you moving at the same speed, you can never speed up. The MP could write tickets all day following people out of the channel
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 02:52 PM   #25
Onshore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 500
Thanks: 12
Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts
Default

I can't necessarily answer why but perhaps this will help someone else track the answer down. Chapter 171 (HB 716) of NH laws of the 1990 session took many of the standards then established as Dept of Safety rules and codified them into new sections RSA 270-D:1 - 270-D:9. Among them was the 150 ft rule. New question is why did the Dept of Safety make the rule that would later become law.
Onshore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 03:50 PM   #26
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

I think the vast majority of boaters couldn't closely approximate 150' if there was a reward for doing so. but 50 yards isn't really that far, and I still think many that get worried, are actually further away than they think they are.

Our rule is 200', and not really that hard to do in open waters. The trickier times are when several boats leave a bay headed for an outlet. Generally speaking, the CG and police boats will stay in the lane along with the other boats, typically 50' to 100' or so. Speed is generally dictated by keeping up with the overall flow. Problems usually begin when boats returning don't adhere to the normal flow of boat traffic.

I think the intent of the 150' rule is a good one, and enforcement is usually based on common sense. The boats that roar off from a channel with other boats close are the ones that typically will draw the ire of law enforcement. Last year, a CG boat was to my port, an a 50' Carver between us leaving and inlet. We both took off quickly, and we were boat about 30' when we did so. Our wakes were not going to budge the Carver, but we'd not have much fun doing so with his wake. I waved, the CG dude waved back.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 04:46 PM   #27
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shore things View Post
I can't necessarily answer why but perhaps this will help someone else track the answer down. Chapter 171 (HB 716) of NH laws of the 1990 session took many of the standards then established as Dept of Safety rules and codified them into new sections RSA 270-D:1 - 270-D:9. Among them was the 150 ft rule. New question is why did the Dept of Safety make the rule that would later become law.
I noticed that and I wondered if the true intent of the law was to have two moving vessels be required to slow to 6 MPH. If you above the section as provided by Skip you will see mention of ensuring safe distance to pass, etc, etc.

When the 150ft paragraph is reached, it appears to reference stationary objects. Having read that section many times I have wondered if it was truly intended for two moving boats who can alter course to be required to slow to 6 MPH. Usually a law is written more clearly but it requires interpretation to reach the 150 ft "safe passage" conclusion.

The fact that you have to concatenate sentences is what's the most troubling to me.
lawn psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 05:00 PM   #28
Jonas Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wolfeboro, New Hampshire is my home, 24-7-365
Posts: 1,686
Thanks: 1,047
Thanked 336 Times in 189 Posts
Default concatenate

Wow, that's the third time I heard that today.
Jonas Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 06:51 PM   #29
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

Two moving boats can usually alter their courses slightly so they pass more than 150' apart. Unless of course you are in a narrow spot.

In theory this should work great. If your the only boat around you can stay on plane through the Graveyard, etc. But if there enough boats around that you cannot maintain a safe distance, then everyone needs to slow down. Nothing is perfect but this tries to addresses the problem.

The big problem is people don't know the rule, or pretend they don't.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 07:11 AM   #30
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
Two moving boats can usually alter their courses slightly so they pass more than 150' apart. Unless of course you are in a narrow spot.

In theory this should work great. If your the only boat around you can stay on plane through the Graveyard, etc. But if there enough boats around that you cannot maintain a safe distance, then everyone needs to slow down. Nothing is perfect but this tries to addresses the problem.

The big problem is people don't know the rule, or pretend they don't.
The only problem I have had with boat wakes is in the Wiers area. It had nothing to do with speed but I had a wave almost swamp me from two cruisers in plow mode. Headway speed may have been the culprit.

I've just learned to steer wide of the fracas if I want to go over to that area.

What some captains need to learn is you don't HAVE to always drive in a straight line and a slight deviation to either port or starboard can give both boats a wide clearance. Some captains just seem unwilling to alter their course even slightly to thin the herd.

I have no problem with the 150 ft rule but I still would like to know how it got on the books. Did it pass with some adminstrative rule or did it get debated in Concord? From what I am reading it seems as if it got on the books with no fan-fare.
lawn psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 07:26 AM   #31
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default Fracas

That's the third time I heard that today also.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.23585 seconds