I hate to be negative, but based on what you say, Capt. Dunleavy is dead wrong and really should just concentrate on law enforcement, not making up laws and reasons for them. There's no difference in steering a boat in salt water versus fresh water and the law clearly makes no distinction.


Really DaveR? Making up laws? I don't believe you posted that. I guess you know more than Capt. Dunleavy?

His point was the currents are worse in the ocean than the lake.

Read the law, it is very simply put and really makes no distinction between salt water and fresh water. In fact it never once mentions "salt", "fresh", "lake", "ocean" or "current". Please explain how it can be interpreted to mean anything more than: "up to 6MPH, unless you really need to go faster to maintain control".

You people are talking about the differences between 5, 6 or 7 MPH.

The boats I am talking about violating the Bear Island NWZ or ON PLANE!

Bear Islander...

I have witnessed that while going thru that NWZ.... it is nuts!

Woodsy

I saw you violating the no wake zone by a lot a season or so back;)

IIRC you were operating a purplish bowrider, maybe a Maxum.

Dave R. I have read the law. Many times in fact. Because of the way it is written and the discussions on here and other forums is why I asked Capt. Dunleavy about it. I agree and I think he does too, it is not very well written. Nevertheless, he said no wake on the lake means no wake, not headway speed. He also said that they can and do stop people and take them to court if they challenge it and win. And I don't know how many more times I need to say it.

Sometimes that is better, they make less wake doing that than the half way plow. Dangerous though.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am disagreeing with Capt. Dunleavy. He is doing the right thing from a common sense point of view, but the law does not back him up. NH should just change the law to from 6 MPH to 5 MPH, like the other states, and be done with it.

FWIW: My boat makes a wake that seems a little excessive at 6 MPH, so I typically go 5 MPH, make a minimal wake, and have never been stopped by any law enforcement for my wake. However, if the natural chop is bigger than my 6 MPH wake, I go 6 MPH. There's no point going slower than 6 MPH in 1' chop.

Rsa....
 

The LAW is pretty definitive...

RSA 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.

VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

The RSA CLEARLY defines what Headway speed is... and it CLEARLY defines what a 'No Wake Area" means.

There is NO ambiguity. You are allowed up to 6MPH in a NWZ.

Sorry people don't get it!

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-D/270-D-1.htm

Woodsy

No matter how the law is worded, I'm going to take a stab at the intent;

In a NWZ,,,, do your best to not make a wake. ;)

I don't think anyone, including MP care if your going 3, 5 or 8 MPH. On the other hand, if your making a wake, that will get you noticed.

It's really funny to me, because I have always looked at headway speed as a maximum speed of 6 MPH or the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained. Maybe the slowest speed is 3, maybe 4, maybe 5. It depends on conditions such as wind or current. (I know, the word maximum is not in the definition.

At 6 MPH, my 25 ft Mariah bowrider throws a noticeable wake.

As a result, I do all that is possible to not throw a wake in a NWZ. And if I am holding any of you up by going too slow and not making a wake, I apologize in advance.
Dave



Sent from my SM-T580 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Headway speed is defined like a speed limit.... you are allowed to go as fast as 6 MPH. It is up to you if you want to go slower. It is allowable to go faster than 6 MPH if it is necessary to maintain steerage.

The issue here is the definition of a No Wake Area.. the title is misleading. It should be called "Headway Speed Zone".

Woodsy

Smile and wave
 

Weirs Channel, where there is more current than other NWZ: Small boats with small props need to respect the larger boats with larger props and a lot more windage. 750 rpm for you is a lot different for the same RPM for a large boat.

Pilots say "Establish a good scan and get your head out of the cockpit and pay attention." If you're fixated on your GPS to make 5 mph or 6 mph, you're not paying attention outside the cockpit. When I had a larger boat (37' fly bridge) I passed boats in the channel when there was room. As we approached the bridge, I just kept my steerage speed and when my anchor was about to touch their stern pole, I gave a little toot, smiled and waved. They always added throttle, usually smiled and waved too. Never got a Boston Salute, but they always added throttle. Mostly, they were just oblivious to what was happening around them.

For the long time sexists you've seen me post, "Let the lady drive. Smile, shrug your shoulders and wave"
I mostly don't drive anymore, but I'm great at smiling and waving, and she's great at driving. Easy.

I have never operated a Maxum.

I have never operated a purple boat.

I have never violated a NWZ.

If you want to accuse me of a violation please be more specific.

It seems you don't remember correctly.

Based on that logic: If you are in a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH, and you are heading into a 4 MPH current, the slowest you can go and still maintain steerage, is -1 MPH. Can you now see why the law could not possibly imply that you must go "the slowest speed at which steerage can be maintained"? If true, in certain cases you'd be moving backwards.

It doesn't imply that,it clearly states that.

Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

"No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

I have tried SO hard to stay out of this debate -- I think it is like the third or forth time in the past few years that this same old banter, same old arguments, same old points/counterpoints has been thrown forth & back!

Dave - think your statement through -- if your boat maintains steerage at 3MPH, your heading into a 4MPH current then it would stand to reason that you bring the boat speed up to 7MPH (due to the way speed is measured in boats). The net result is your STILL only moving (land speed) at 3 MPH.

Put a radar gun on the old Donna Jean's pier someday and try it this Fall when the Dam opens!


.

The "Common Sense" Clause...
 

Some of "the confusion" may be grounded in the manner in which speed is measured. Some boats can't register such speeds, when others use SOG—when SOG doesn't meet the RSA's criteria.

The default position goes to "common sense". :cool:

The RSA was changed in 1995, when proliferation of over-sized boats (most-suitable to the ocean) began on Lake Winnipesaukee. Here's a quote re NHMP enforcement:

From the first paragraph, notice how the issue was skirted when every other coastal state has kept the old statute! (Except Oregon, which added "making white water behind").

Yes, indeed! :coolsm:

There is no provision for "being forced" to shift in-and-out of gear. :rolleye2:

BTW: I see two more boat lifts have been added this season within a stone's throw from my place—in a protected harbor—and it's not because there are too many pontoon boats! :rolleye1:
.

Speed is measured in many boats today by GPS and not relative to the water its passing over.

Descant--a really interesting post. I do not dispute the difficulty of your situation in the larger boat.

But in your telling, you appear to be the give-way vessel. You then beep at a stand-on vessel who gives way and smiles as he does it.

Was he really "oblivious"? Haven't you violated the right of way rules?

I don't pose these questions to be critical, and I can see how at certain times you could have had virtually no choice. It's just that, if my understanding is correct, it's an interesting breakdown of the rules.

You would not need to bring the boat to 7 MPH over water to maintain steerage against a 4 MPH current, you could maintain steerage at 3 MPH over water. That equates to -1 MPH over ground which means you will be moving backwards at your minimum steerage speed. Obviously, the state does not expect you to go backwards and that is precisely why the law cannot possibly mean what you think it does. Anyone that's ever docked on the Piscataqua River knows what I mean. There are times there when you have to throttle up above idle speed to simply stand still. You can do that and gently move the boat sideways to the dock with nothing but steering inputs when facing into the current (assuming the dock is parallel to the current).

When does the fun start?
 

How can anyone possibly have fun anymore if we all have to worry about 4" wakes, MP's "interpretation" of laws as they are written, who's the stand-on and give-way vessel in a clogged, busy channel, anchoring too close to shore or another boat in a no rafting zone, going more than 45mph on the largest lake in the State, etc., etc. Good God...we should just get rid of all powerboats and then the factions will be happy. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if this were to happen, people would still find something about kayaks, SUP's and sailboats to bitch about!

But back to the no wake law for a minute: In my opinion, the language is convoluted and should be changed. Does the language in this section"
VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way" mean that if a boat can be operated LESS than 6mph and can maintain steerage, then that's what has to happen? Or does it mean that 6mph is the max, but if you have to go faster to maintain steerage, then you are allowed to do so?

I don't think MP has the authority to make this determination. They can claim they do all day long, but do they really as a fact of law? It's a law as written, so it would be up to the court to determine this, or the legislature to correct the obviously convoluted, confusing language.

Labor Day is fast approaching, so soon everyone can forget boating and start complaining about cold weather.

One legal way to inform a person ahead of you that you intend to overtake them is with the horn (one toot for starboard, two toots for port (you can use the radio too)). If the stand-on vessel does not respond with the same horn signals you should not overtake. However, if instead they speed up, then there's no need to overtake so everybody wins. The funny thing is, if they speed up they are technically not following the rules of being a stand-on boat...

For some of us, a polite debate is fun and it's one of the reasons I enjoy this website so much.

*************

I agree, the language should be changed to make it perfectly clear to all those who think they can interpret the law. But reading the law is like that to a non lawyer. Again, I have been told by the Capt. of MP that it HAS been determined by the court that no wake means no wake and when his officers has determined that a boater is breaking that law and taken it to court, the court has backed them up.

In court the RSA is black and white, no gray area. Not only different LEO interpret a law in their opinion, so do judges. That is why we have lawyers to sway opinions.

Quacks me Up
 

Ducks at Y Landing have been leaving wakes lately as he ducklings have matured. The lady on the point who yells at boats daily hasn't noticed them yet. We wonder if she'll call Marine Patrol.:D

Okay - it's time to be kind and euthanize this thread !


.

As noted, if they speed up just a little, say to 6 mph, everybody is legal and happy. The less often noted part of the right of way protocol is that it is not appropriate to assert right of way to arbitrarily impede another vessel's safe progress.

Glad
 

I am glad I don't own a boat sounds way to complicated and stressful

I happened to run across this from Capt. Dunleavy:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...mothy+dunleavy

He explains the no wake zones and the way marine patrol deals with them.

I am surprised after all this discussion that nobody replied to my post with Capt. Dunleavy's letter:



_________________________________________________ ______________

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
Glove is offline Report Post Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 06:52 PM

Check Again...
 

Maybe because the letter had already been copied in post #58...? :confused:

.

I am sorry. You are right, you did post that. I guess I was just too numb to realize that you were quoting from the same letter. YOU didn't get a lot of response to that letter.

Tis....

No response because as I have stated before... you are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ. Its clearly stated in the letter...

Original rule..

"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.”

So you can go up to 6MPH...

New rule...

VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way"

You can exceed 6MPH if needed due to current/and or conditions!


Woodsy

You read what you want, Woodsy. But if you get fined some day going your 6MPH I won't feel sorry for you. I just don't want others reading this forum to get into trouble because they believe what you say.

Do you not understand what Capt. Dunleavy said in the quote below?

"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."

If you truly believe 6MPH is ok, I challenge you to meet me along with MP and see what they do when you go your 6MPH.

And having said that, I am not going to discuss it anymore. I just don't want others to believe that they might be ok going 6 MPH making a wake in a No Wake Zone.

so simple
 

From Woodsy: VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way"

You can exceed 6 MPH if needed due to current/and or conditions! "

That sounds simple and straightforward. I guess the confusion is between a No Wake Zone and a headway speed only area. Aren't they really the same thing? Shouldn't need several threads, right?

Descant...

The confusion is in the names.... people think No Wake Zone means don't make any sort of wake... where the actual legal definition is headway speed/up to 6MPH or more if needed.

I would rename the NWZ on Lake Winni to 5MPH zones... clear & concise.

Woodsy

Tis...

I know the law because I lived it for 2 years... :)

I owned a Donzi 22 Classic with a Blackhawk drive on it... in gear at idle the boat went 7-8 MPH GPS. Guess what... no ticket from the MP once I demonstrated that was as slow as the boat would idle in gear thus maintaining steerage...

Perhaps you should consult a lawyer on how the law is actually interpreted. I did when I owned the Donzi 22... :)

Woodsy

That's not the issue tis is talking about. For some boats, the slowest speed for them to make headway is 4 mph, and they throw a wake at 6 mph. As tis pointed out from the letter, it's up to the discretion of the MP officer making the stop to decide.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app