Headway Speed
 

I received the following today from a Governors Island resident. He only wrote me because he wanted to make sure Bizer updated its chart

It's fitting that it was signed into law on the first day of summer.

Will it make a difference in behavior or enforcement? I note the new wording takes effect 60 days after being passed into law.

Won’t make an iota of a difference even if it was law tomorrow...the scofflaws are still going to continue making wakes in NWZs as usual.

The only way I can see it making any difference at all (next season) is if MP actually comes out in enough force to make it a deterrent. I don’t see this happening either. At least it puts an end to the “argument” that 6 mph is okay to run at in a NWZ. :rolleye1:

My jet ski will make headway with no throttle at all. At about 1 mph. If they make Wolfeboro bay NWZ it would take me an hour to get out of the bay:(

Since boats of many sizes and jet skis all have different speeds necessary to maintain control it would make sense to include in the legislation that your speed must not impede the safe navigation of other boats.

In other words, just because you can control your 13 foot Whaler at 1 MPH doesn't make it right when the 30 foot boat behind you ends up on the rocks because the current made it impossible to control at 1 MPH.

Do you honestly think most people are going to go 1mph?????

What is the goal of "headway speed"? I always thought it was to minimize wake and, if so, wondered why that wasn't in the definition...

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

It is in the definition, thinkxingu. You are right. Headway speed was MEANT to be the slowest speed a boat can operate to maintain steerage.

The no wake law refers to the headway speed law. "No wake area means an area where a boat is to operated only at headway speed." And the definition of headway speed WAS:

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

The new law has DELETED the 6mph so should read: Headway speed means the SLOWEST SPEED A BOAT CAN BE OPERATED and maintain steerage way.

Because the No wake law uses headway speed in it's definition, people would then go and look at the headway speed law and interpret it to mean that they could go 6 mph. (It could have been because of the OR). However, this is not the way MP meant it to be so they made their intention clear. I am sure you have read the arguments on here over and over about this in the past.

This is the way I understand it.

Of course maintaing steerage is pretty open to interpretation too. You can go very slow if you adjust every 10 seconds. These are all terms better suited to large craft in places of tides and currents.

You are right. MP has said that the law including the 6mph was meant for the currents in the ocean and not for the lakes. But NH had the same law for both the lakes and the ocean.

Here we go again with another Popsicle headache post about NWZ's and headway speed... We all know what doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result is, right...?? Why even bother with this conversation, NOTHING will EVER change on this subject regardless of whatever the "law" says. I mean no disrespect to the OP, just living in the "real" world.

...the definition of optimism? No. That's not right.

When I first seen this pop up as a new thread and read it for the first time, Popsicle headache was the first thing I thought of. I believe someone else, maybe it was even you who used the phrase once before on this same subject mater in a different thread.

It absolutely best describes this topic. There is a little bit more to this topic but its my own personal speculation / my own humble opinion. Will think about posing later about it. Time for yard work at the moment in between the rain showers.

O.P. here. I was merely reporting what was reported to me. The person who wrote me was the primary instigator of this change and wanted to make sure that Bizer updated its chart ASAP.

Last fall, I took a look at my wake at 6 MPH (measured with GPS). The wake was under two inches.

No I do not. But it only takes one boater going through the Weirs Channel at an extremely slow speed to make it difficult for 20 boats in line behind them to maintain control. That is especially true when the dam is operating at a high flow rate.

While piloting a larger, higher vessel through the Channel I have passed a slow moving small boat because the wind was catching my boat and pushing it around. It was safer than going down the channel sideways or having the wind push the boat into the rocks.

Many people in boats are oblivious to what is going on behind them. (That seems to be true in cars too!)

Will be interesting to see if this results in any changes in people's behavior. I have argued a number of times that this is to broad a definition and thus difficult to enforce since everyone's idea of maintaining control is different.

I've also noticed that MP tends to turn a blind eye to violations of this that are not completely an utterly egregious.

So far, I see no change for the better. If anything, I’ve seen more violations of “no wake” zone in front of my place then in the past. I guess you just can’t correct stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I think you are right. MP is not the same as they used to be. In the old days I remember them stopping somebody for a tiny wake and I actually asked him about it. He said it was still a wake. Today they don't want to bother to even come out. We hardly ever see them any more on this side of the lake so if you want to break the law come over here.

I don’t understand why the legislature bothered with deleting the 6 mph clause. Was there a real concern about boats actually obeying the law going 5 or 6 mph and throwing a large wake? It seems to me that the issue is compliance in general, not with the particularities of whether it’s “minimum speed to maintain steerage” or 6 mph. Seems like a waste of government resources to amend the statute if it is not also combined with an emphasis on enforcement.

Perhaps MP can start in the graveyard, where the majority of boats think headway speed within 150’ means coming off of plane and going about 10 mph plowing the water and throwing the largest wake possible. And those are the folks that are even bothering to reduce speed.

Rant over. The problem with ranting on this topic here is that the folks that need education are probably not on the forum reading posts.

Unfortunately, 6 mph became 8, became 10. Most people don’t have a clue of how fast they are going. They actually think their speedometer is accurate at low speed. It isn’t!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I would be happy if boats going through the NWZ in front of my house would just come off plane. I estimate 50 boats a day go through on plane.

It gets worse every year, and now its like the NWZ is optional.

[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I agree. And what's even worse is that half speed plow so many of them do.

That is unreal! That is one of the most well known and necessary no wake zones on the lake. Hard to believe people are that ignorant!...

Dan

MP was there monitoring the situation in the NWZ by Bear for quite a while yesterday


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

As Einstein said, only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

headway speed
 

Would love to be in court when they try to prosecute a headway speed case. Defense attorney: "Well now mister MP, how did you determine that my client's craft was unable to maintain steerage at 55 MPH?"

Went through the NWZ by Bear Island around 2:30pm yesterday heading North into a strong breeze. Tried like heck not to create a wake, but there were some waves just making headway into the wind. I would have been real annoyed if I got pulled over. No MP in sight though.

I guess they could say it is one way when the wind is blowing making everyone go around Bear Island on windy days....

I went thru about 12:30 in the wind did the best I could while MP was watching myself and another boat. Both were boats were putting up a small wake to maintain steerage and MP kept an eye on us but didn’t move so I think they understood the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

MP operates enough boats to have a pretty good idea of what it takes to maintain control in a strong wind. They are looking for you to be reasonable. The ones they are going to grab are the ones who think, “I can maintain control at 5mph in this wind but, I can maintain REALLY good control at 10”. Now, calm winds it is a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

NWZ Cameras
 

Marine Patrol and towns should install these NWZ cameras all around the lake to slow boats down and generate revenue. Saw a guy Sunday heading toward Gov Island bridge from the Weir's with the wind behind him on plane waving and smiling a good 200' beyond the NWZ marker. Would have looked good on camera.

Isn't that a speed camera? If so, how would one know what speed to set it to take a photo, now that the 6 MPH part is removed from the law?

Hahaha... like those would work!

Woodsy

Meanwhile, the NW winds were howling on Saturday and Sunday, probably creating waves in some of the no-wake zones 10 to 20 times higher than any boat going 6 mph (which is the current max allowed by law in a NW zone). Perhaps MP can issue tickets to Mother Nature? This is the most ridiculous, time-wasting argument I've ever seen. If someone is blasting through a no-wake zone, then they deserve a ticket. But if someone is going 5-6 mph, putting out a 1-2" "WAKE" (more than a duck makes), then leave them the hell alone. What type of shorefront or property damage can a 1-2" wake produce? NONE! :mad:

Unfortunately, for a lot of boats 5-6 mph makes a wake a lot bigger than 1 - 2”. How about just showing a little courtesy? I know, that is a lot to ask of some people.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Do they make them with rockets or lasers attached[emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

That is one of the places I see these numbnuts going WAY too fast and creating huge wakes...I swear, they are happily clueless.

I think "government" is big enough... The last thing we need is more camera's. I have nothing to hide, but I believe that even "big brother" has to "earn" his revenue the old fashioned way, (just like everybody else), by actually WORKING, being there, on location, catching violators at the time of the violation. Fair is fair. The LAST thing I want to do is ALLOW big brother to put camera's up wherever "HE" desires to "catch" law breaker's doing whatever, and just mailing them a ticket in the mail. "They" have already stolen enough of our liberties, how much more are you willing to give up voluntarily...??? In case you haven't noticed, if "they" could control every aspect of your life, they would... That's NOT my America.

I don't see how getting caught breaking the law on camera violates your civil liberties. You don't have a constitutional right to violate the law. How about this idea - don't violate the law! Or if you do, and get caught, take you medicine.

What are we supposed to teach our children. "Unless the cops personally see you do it, you have not done anything wrong."

That's not my America!

That wasn't my point at all, and you probably know that. We can agree to disagree, but you don't have to twist my words around with your warped way of thinking. If you need an explanation on how camera's violates our civil liberties, you will probably never understand. Live FREE, or Die. Does that need explaining too?

Not sure why you're complaining. Your post illustrates exactly why it made sense to eliminate the nominal speed limit. And nobody would call a 1" wake a wake.

I was out Sunday in my centerboard sail boat (Doh! I just couldn't help myself). What would normally be inappropriate wakes from nearby power boats made things even more difficult, but it was obvious that they needed the extra juice. I'm sure MP would have seen it the same way.

You'
 

Every time you see a bad boater, pat yourself on the back that you're not one of them. People aren't just going to imitate bad boaters. There will be plenty that imitate good boaters.

You have that back asswards...every time I go out there are far more bad ones than good in the areas I frequent.

Unfortunately I agree with you. It didn't used to be that way but things have changed.

A Yikes experience yesterday
 

Yikes! Yesterday, I was golfing with a friend, and the pro shop matched us up with a single. In the course of the round, the subject of boating came up. He was on vacation with his wife and family. He said he rented a 15 ft pontoon with a 25 hp engine, that way he didn't have to bother with a boating license.

He went out on Sunday, I think, and remarked about how windy it was, especially once they got out in the Broads. He said it was really a challenge to get into the shelter of islands to get away from the rough water. After I remarked that Winni can be downright dangerous in those conditions, he went on to say he had been boating most of his life without a boating license, and could not believe the number of "bad" boaters out there that didn't know anything about boating, like who has the right of way, who gives way when two boats are approaching each other from opposite directions, and not even knowing "red on right on reentering "! We changed the subject quickly after that. ;)

Nice guy to golf with but glad I wasn't out on the lake near him, or even worse, with him.:eek:

Dave

Must have been a misunderstanding. My comment had nothing to do with the number of bad boaters.

While I agree with you to some extent, I cannot tell you how many times I see on any given morning commuting to work seeing people blowing through the ezpass lanes in the toll booth and setting it off either with no ezpass or one that is past due. Thankfully there are cameras there to record this and nail the people doing this, otherwise how many armies of cops would be needed to catch the violators, how much of a traffic disaster that would cause, safety problems and lost revenue to support the highway system? I can see if this were not in place tolls would be increased and increased placing the burden on the ones that do pay to make up for the ones that are not. I say in this case, I like the fact there are cameras to catch the violators.

Sure it did. You said “there will be PLENTY that imitate good boaters”
Wrong...seems I am one of the few good boaters out there and no one imitates me...they more than likely try to swamp me.

Okay. Then when I get out there, I'll imitate you. You'll have your first "forever student."

Toll booths are an exception for the reasons you state, as well as to save money on the toll collector salaries. Camera's have, for the most part, replaced most of the toll collectors, and it is NOT illegal to drive through an ez pass lane without an ez pass. (Most) people expect camera's to be at toll booths. As a matter of fact, there are signs on the Tobin bridge, and the Mass Pike telling motorists that they have "pay by plate" if you don't have an ez pass, and they just mail a bill to whoever the plate is registered too. The penalty for going through an ez pass lane without an ez pass is a bill in the mail for double whatever the amount of the toll was. No fine(s). I do it all the time. A 1.00 toll becomes 2.00 toll, and so on... That is in NH and Mass that I know of, but it is probably the new rule of thumb for all the states that have the ez pass system. I used to have an ez pass for a commercial trucking company that I owned, and the state was always "helping themselves" to my checking acct beyond the limits that were initially set up, so when I sold the business, I returned the ez pass, and will never get another one, and will be perfectly happy to pay double the tolls in exchange to keep "big brother" out of my checking accts from here on out...!! Big brother is NOT your friend. Thank God our founding fathers were brilliant enough to give us the second amendment...!! I don't want to get too far off topic, you know how some people get upset... LOL I'm not against camera's altogether, BUT, unlike today's Govt, they need to be (extremely) limited, and I am seeing more and more of them in my travels, and, imho, that is totally UN-American.