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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2018, 04:06 PM   #1
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,706
Thanks: 2,223
Thanked 818 Times in 569 Posts
Default Adjusting the No Wake Zone law

Basically removing the 6 mph minimum clause.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...d14a71b81.html
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2018, 04:32 PM   #2
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

Broad hopper, because I know a lot of people won't bother to open the link, I thought I would copy the article. Thanks for posting the link.



Quote:
LACONIA — State Rep. Charlie St. Clair has started the process to draft a bill that would change a boating law restricting the speed of travel in no-wake zones.

Current law requires boats to slow down to “headway speed” in these zones. Headway speed is defined as 6 mph or the slowest speed to travel and maintain an ability to steer the boat.

St. Clair, R-Laconia, said a Gilford resident who lives on Governors Island urged that the reference to 6 mph be removed from the law. The resident said boat wakes can cause erosion, and many boats can maintain steerage at less than 6 mph.


Capt. Tim Dunleavy of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol said he has no objection to the proposed change and agreed that a speed of 6 mph is not usually needed to maintain steerage.

“There is room to clean up that definition,” he said.

He said the reference to 6 mph in the law came from the conditions in the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth, where such speed is needed because of strong current caused by tidal action.

Dunleavy said some homeowners along lakes assert that wakes erode land.

“People get impatient and travel too fast in no-wake zones,” he said. “I’m not sure if it rises to the level of causing erosions. There are places in no-wake zones where Mother Nature throws significantly more wave action than boat traffic.”

St. Clair filed a legislative service request for the bill. Such a request is the beginning of the drafting process to create a bill.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
steve c (12-05-2018)
Old 12-04-2018, 04:55 PM   #3
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 282
Thanked 355 Times in 233 Posts
Default

I think the clarification will help. Although experienced boaters understand the law others read into it too much and just use 6 mph which can cause a wake especially on larger boats


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (12-04-2018)
Old 12-04-2018, 05:08 PM   #4
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

No,no, not this (topic) again! AHAAAAAA


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2018, 05:23 PM   #5
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,743
Thanks: 435
Thanked 493 Times in 277 Posts
Default

Pretty soon you're going to need to pack an overnight bag if you plan to travel more than a couple of miles on the lake.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-04-2018, 06:36 PM   #6
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

I agree with you and what you said, Joey. The clarification is needed. Proof of that is BigGuy's comment: " no, not this again!" We have gone over and over it and there is no agreement. There are those that still think the law means you can always go 6 MPH in a NWZ.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 08:58 AM   #7
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,078
Thanks: 546
Thanked 243 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his town and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what a resident from Gilford sees from his/her Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"

Last edited by AC2717; 12-05-2018 at 09:58 AM.
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AC2717 For This Useful Post:
Reilly (12-06-2018)
Old 12-05-2018, 09:43 AM   #8
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,269
Thanks: 187
Thanked 672 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2717 View Post
Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep, that lives in Gilford and is a rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his towns and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what he sees from his Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time
For those that are unaware Charlie St.Clair the State Representative referred to is the head of Laconia Motorcycle Week. He also owns the Laconia Antique Center in downtown Laconia.

Also, not all of the houses on Governors Island are waterfront high value homes. There are numerous inland homes that have a much lower value.

But, most importantly, the article did not say he lives on Governors Island and he does not. He lives in Laconia.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (12-05-2018)
Old 12-05-2018, 09:56 AM   #9
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,078
Thanks: 546
Thanked 243 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
For those that are unaware Charlie St.Clair the State Representative referred to is the head of Laconia Motorcycle Week. He also owns the Laconia Antique Center in downtown Laconia.

Also, not all of the houses on Governors Island are waterfront high value homes. There are numerous inland homes that have a much lower value.

But, most importantly, the article did not say he lives on Governors Island and he does not. He lives in Laconia.
I stand corrected and misread, thank you for the clarification, I will edit my post to be correct, but will stand by my opinions of it the proposal
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 12:06 PM   #10
Winni P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: S. Shore, MA/Saunders Bay
Posts: 78
Thanks: 119
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2717 View Post
Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his town and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what a resident from Gilford sees from his/her Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time
Correct me if I'm wrong. If they remove the 6mph wording, they won't need a radar gun, they would just look at the size of your wake, right?
Winni P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 12:09 PM   #11
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,078
Thanks: 546
Thanked 243 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni P View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong. If they remove the 6mph wording, they won't need a radar gun, they would just look at the size of your wake, right?
was being sarcastic
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 01:23 PM   #12
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 213
Thanks: 21
Thanked 53 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Just so I get this right... it's NOT the landowners that removed the vegetation and changed the shoreline that's responsible for the erosion... it's the boaters? Makes perfect sense to me! The real problem is that you can't fix stupid.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 01:31 PM   #13
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

This is NOT adding a law, it is not changing anything. It is trying to clarify that you can't just go 6 MPH as many of you argue, but that NO WAKE means just that.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 10:56 PM   #14
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 402
Thanks: 161
Thanked 84 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Just so I get this right... it's NOT the landowners that removed the vegetation and changed the shoreline that's responsible for the erosion... it's the boaters? Makes perfect sense to me! The real problem is that you can't fix stupid.
Actually, these are two separate problems. Both cause erosion, independently of each other. And of course when combined, it's even worse.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 01:36 PM   #15
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 21
Thanked 348 Times in 163 Posts
Default

So the purpose of this bill is to get people to go SLOWER than 6mph in no wake zones? Seriously?

I live on the Bear Island NWZ and would love it if people went through under 12mph. In the summer about one boat every hour, on average, goes through at FULL SPEED!

I think about half of them don't know they are in a NWZ and the other half don't care. Plus most boater have an exaggerated idea of what 6mph is.

If Capt. Dunleavy wants to actually do something constructive about NWZ violations he should send a patrol boat out to Bear and have them hide around the corner. Usually the patrol boats sit out in plain sight. This causes people to act like good citizens... until the patrol boat leaves.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (12-05-2018), Pineedles (12-24-2018)
Old 12-05-2018, 01:48 PM   #16
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

The purpose is to make people understand that NO Wake is just that, BI. To make people understand that it's not Headway Speed, not 6 MPH, it's NO WAKE. You are right though. It needs to be enforced if anything is going to change no matter how they write the law.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 02:30 PM   #17
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 21
Thanked 348 Times in 163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
The purpose is to make people understand that NO Wake is just that, BI. To make people understand that it's not Headway Speed, not 6 MPH, it's NO WAKE. You are right though. It needs to be enforced if anything is going to change no matter how they write the law.
What does No Wake actually mean. Every boat, including canoes and kayaks, produces a wake. At 1mph you have a small wake. Yes the wake becomes larger as speed increases. But at no point in increased speed does a wake suddenly appear when there was no wake before.

I have had people tell me they take their PWC through the NWZ at full speed because they don't produce and appreciable wake at high speeds. Which is true. However they are clearly violating the 6mph rule.

Hydrofoils produce very little wake. Will they be able to go through NWZs at high speed under the new rule? How about ground effect boats that actually fly a couple of feet above the water and never touch the water when at speed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiLxXWgwj0M

Anyway in most instances NWZs are not about wake, they are about safe speed in a congested area. I took part in advocating for the BI NWZ, and I don't think the word erosion was ever used by us. It was about safety.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 02:39 PM   #18
Bizer
Senior Member
 
Bizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 309
Thanks: 0
Thanked 220 Times in 69 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
So the purpose of this bill is to get people to go SLOWER than 6mph in no wake zones? Seriously? ...
That is the precise purpose of this law. The bill is being pushed by a Governors Island resident who wants exactly that. This has NIMBY written all over it.

Consider the following. A boat in Paugus Bay wants to get through the Weirs Channel. Normal current in the Weirs Channel is about 1.5 MPH, but if the Lakeport Dam is letting out lots of water the current can get upwards of 4 MPH. If, for example, the current in the Weirs Channel is 2.5 MPH, and the boat can maintain steerage way at 3 MPH, then it will take the boater one hour to get through the half-mile NO-WAKE zone. What happens if the boat behind him needs 4 MPH to maintain steerage way and there is no room for passing?

Last September, I was made aware of this bill. When Bizer did its annual survey in September, I was piloting a boat that could maintain steerageway at about 2 MPH. According to the GPS, I was going 5.1 MPH when this photo of my wake was taken. Those are ripples, not a wake.
Attached Images
 
Bizer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bizer For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (12-05-2018)
Old 12-05-2018, 09:44 AM   #19
Lakewinn1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 93
Thanks: 78
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
Pretty soon you're going to need to pack an overnight bag if you plan to travel more than a couple of miles on the lake.
Couldn't agree with you more!
Lakewinn1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 03:12 PM   #20
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

Geez, I canít believe this


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 03:16 PM   #21
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

I mean the twisting and turning people will go thru to try and justify something. They are finally getting things right. If you see white behind you you are making a wake. Get over it!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The Real BigGuy For This Useful Post:
tis (12-05-2018)
Old 12-05-2018, 05:59 PM   #22
Billy Bob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tiera Verdi Fl & Moultonborough
Posts: 209
Thanks: 87
Thanked 94 Times in 58 Posts
Default

The State of NewHampshire has more laws and restrictions on boating then any other state in the country. In Florida we have substantially more boats per cap.
And basically stick with the Coast Guard guidelines . The lake is used heavy about 8 week ends a year but we have restrictions that imply full usage 365 days a year. Lighten up with this crap
Billy Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Billy Bob For This Useful Post:
Cal Coon (12-05-2018), christo1 (12-27-2018), Descant (12-06-2018), pm203 (12-09-2018), Reilly (12-06-2018)
Old 12-05-2018, 06:26 PM   #23
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

There are those that really believe it is possible to legislate the stupidity out of people.

My opinion of this language change is that to me it creates more ambiguity in the sense that it doesn't specify a maximum speed. At least with 6 MPH it indicated a bit of a measuring stick - not that it was perfect but its something. If a captain doesn't get 6 MPH what makes you think they will understand "the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe steerage".
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 06:28 PM   #24
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

Maxum, all you need to do to see if you are making a wake is look behind you. How easy is that?
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 06:45 PM   #25
Cal Coon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 153
Thanks: 61
Thanked 43 Times in 30 Posts
Default

You can change the law all you want, but I bet any amount of money it will have NO impact on anyone's behavior towards their wake, and NOTHING will change... Complete waste of time.
Cal Coon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cal Coon For This Useful Post:
Lake Charm (12-29-2018)
Old 12-06-2018, 07:27 AM   #26
MDoug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 244
Thanks: 86
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Default Wake Watchers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal Coon View Post
You can change the law all you want, but I bet any amount of money it will have NO impact on anyone's behavior towards their wake, and NOTHING will change... Complete waste of time.
The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho
MDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 10:40 AM   #27
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 407
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default

I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 11:17 AM   #28
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 21
Thanked 348 Times in 163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.
Sorry, but that idea is just nuts.

Before the BI NWZ was created we would sit on the porch and watch the near misses. The area between Bear and Pine was the definition of an accident waiting to happen. The combination of high speed, high volume and going around a blind corner was treacherous. There were collisions, I don't remember the numbers.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 11:45 AM   #29
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 282
Thanked 355 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.
Completely disagree. Many boaters can't even measure the 150ft in their head, never mind obeying the law itself (If they even know the law exists). The NWZ is absolutely needed especially in those two particular areas.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 07:47 PM   #30
Cal Coon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 153
Thanks: 61
Thanked 43 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDoug View Post
The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho
I have read about this crazy lady a few times on here now, so I'm looking forward to taking a ride by next summer to see if I can attract her attention just for the entertainment value..!!
Cal Coon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:59 PM   #31
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,477
Thanks: 278
Thanked 457 Times in 201 Posts
Default Low Wake anyone?

We could use a low wake zone to go with the no wake zone. The no wake signs seem silly in some spots, but spot on in others. A no wake should mean it, but allowing up to 6mph in a low wake zone would get better compliance than expecting everyone to crawl along.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 01:17 AM   #32
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,662
Thanks: 21
Thanked 348 Times in 163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDoug View Post
The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho
I have gone to the Y-Landing just about every day during the summer, for many many years, to get the newspaper. I have never had this lady yell at me or wave her arms. Never!

Perhaps you are passing by her property at too great a speed. I recommend slowing down before you get to her area and see what she does.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Descant (12-07-2018)
Old 12-07-2018, 05:46 AM   #33
bilproject
Senior Member
 
bilproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla
Posts: 177
Thanks: 1
Thanked 21 Times in 20 Posts
Default No wake Zones are about Safety

No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed. Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.
bilproject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 06:29 AM   #34
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 830
Thanks: 286
Thanked 427 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilproject View Post
No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed. Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.
Iím sure ďSAFETYĒ was the primary reason for making that ridiculously huge no-wake zone in Meredith Bay.
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 08:49 AM   #35
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Based on the comments on this thread and others, the whole idea here will not solve any real or perceived issues. Those who flagrantly disregard NWZs, either by choice or ignorance, will continue to do so as will those who parse the language looking for inconsistencies or things that are open for interpretation.

Moreover, it would be really interesting to see increased MP presence and enforcement. My guess is that should that happen, there would be lots of complaints about cost, MP being in the wrong place, unjust tickets, etc.

I'm confident I know what to do when I encounter a NWZ now and should the wording change. Most important, I get a kick out of reading different thoughts and opinions on the subject here on the forum!
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Garcia For This Useful Post:
Shreddy (12-07-2018)
Old 12-07-2018, 09:22 AM   #36
BrunoSR
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

More MP Officers? Yes, I would agree! Last year I think I saw 4 MP boats total, all season!! Except for the 4th of July. I really didnít see any MP boats on the 4th either, however I did see a lot of blue lights!!

Of the four I did see, two were at the same time. We were coming out of the Weirs channel heading into the big lake. We passed two marine patrol boats, they were heading into the channel. The first MP boat had two MP officers on it. I waved, they both waved back. The second MP boat, the old war horse boat, had three MP officers on board. I waved, two waved back, the third told me to slow down!!! REALY!!
BrunoSR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 09:25 AM   #37
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

In case it wasn't clear from my post, I am all for an increased, more visible presence of the MP!
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 10:27 AM   #38
BrunoSR
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia View Post
In case it wasn't clear from my post, I am all for an increased, more visible presence of the MP!
I hope you didn't think that I thought you weren't. I was agreeing with you.

I guess I was pointing out that even the MP officers don't agree on what the proper boat speed. I was clearly going slow, I bet I wasn't doing 3 MPH against the current. I guess I can say 4 out of 5 officers agreed with me LOL!!
BrunoSR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 10:32 AM   #39
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,127
Thanks: 753
Thanked 592 Times in 314 Posts
Default

These threads help me remember why I stepped out of fighting hard for boating rights in NH.... everyone has there own thoughts. And there are valid points to most arguments. But no one ever seems to want to discuss compromise.

Do a search on "what does no wake mean" You will find plenty of definitions most notably this one:

http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/095-45-01/Slow_No_Wake.pdf


What most all the definitions have in common is that there is no mention of speed relative to no wake. This law will do what some of us have been fighting for years for, which is to bring the NH legislation in line with Federal laws, concerning boating regulations.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Garcia (12-07-2018), Pineedles (12-24-2018)
Old 12-07-2018, 12:49 PM   #40
Little Bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 444
Thanks: 65
Thanked 151 Times in 82 Posts
Default Cry me a river!

The article in the original post stated that some guy on Governor's Island was complaining about erosion caused by wakes of boats going 6 mph. Give me a break! As I've said in prior posts, what about those of us that are subjected to 3 foot rollers coming in from wake surf boats and cruisers? What about those people that live on Locke's Island facing mainland? This is not a no-wake zone, and these people are subjected to huge amounts of traffic and substantial wakes. Come see the damage to my shoreline that these wakes cause, then talk to me about erosion. But as I also said before, I knew what I was getting into when I bought the property, so I'm not complaining about the erosion or the traffic. What I am complaining about are the people that are crying over a ripple of water or "white foam" behind a boat that is going slower than a duck swimming.

Let's just make the entire lake a no-wake zone, then see what the next thing is that people will complain about.
Little Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Little Bear For This Useful Post:
Cal Coon (12-07-2018)
Old 12-07-2018, 01:08 PM   #41
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

Even the USCG Aux states the following in their no wake definition:

It has nothing to do with you actually making a small wake or not. The speed and maintaining steerage depends on your boat and boat characteristics.

DING DING DING, exactly, although as I previously stated the ability to confidently maintain safe steerage is a direct reflection of the driver's skill and ability to handle whatever boat they are operating and the circumstance and conditions at the time. Thus the relationship between wake size and a designated NWZ that everyone seems to think should be wave free is fundamentally flawed.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Little Bear (12-07-2018)
Old 12-09-2018, 06:54 AM   #42
Reilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 140
Thanks: 433
Thanked 38 Times in 24 Posts
Default Or better yet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bear View Post
The article in the original post stated that some guy on Governor's Island was complaining about erosion caused by wakes of boats going 6 mph. Give me a break! As I've said in prior posts, what about those of us that are subjected to 3 foot rollers coming in from wake surf boats and cruisers? What about those people that live on Locke's Island facing mainland? This is not a no-wake zone, and these people are subjected to huge amounts of traffic and substantial wakes. Come see the damage to my shoreline that these wakes cause, then talk to me about erosion. But as I also said before, I knew what I was getting into when I bought the property, so I'm not complaining about the erosion or the traffic. What I am complaining about are the people that are crying over a ripple of water or "white foam" behind a boat that is going slower than a duck swimming.

Let's just make the entire lake a no-wake zone, then see what the next thing is that people will complain about.
Let's just say NO Power Boats
Reilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 06:10 PM   #43
bilproject
Senior Member
 
bilproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla
Posts: 177
Thanks: 1
Thanked 21 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Iím sure ďSAFETYĒ was the primary reason for making that ridiculously huge no-wake zone in Meredith Bay.
Yes as crazy as it seems that whole no wake zone was extended due to documented injuries at Meredith Marina due to the large amount of wake in the area. All of Meredith bay is travelled pretty much in a north south direction so there is no confusion in the sea to break up wake.
bilproject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 08:44 AM   #44
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,218
Thanks: 786
Thanked 392 Times in 280 Posts
Unhappy Lakes RegionóMeet City-Speeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilproject View Post
No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed.
Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.
Said another way, would "oversized" be a better description? Also increasing are exhaust fumes and noise—taking-in exhaust pipe noise and over-amplified stereo systems.

Using a 28-footer for waterskiing or tubing in a harbor long-protected by Mother Nature will erode the shoreline. Too often, relaxing on my dock, I'll get wet—can't hear my radio—or have to put a caller on hold.

At one time, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters in Winter Harbor. These days, they're popping up like mushrooms after an August rain.

Alas, we have no Low-Wake zones—and only one tiny No-Wake area—especially sensible so Loons still can raise their families.

If you've come to the Lakes Region to maintain your hectic "city-speed", you've come to the wrong place.
__________________
.SailingóGood for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 06:24 AM   #45
MDoug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 244
Thanks: 86
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Default Wake Watcher

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I have gone to the Y-Landing just about every day during the summer, for many many years, to get the newspaper. I have never had this lady yell at me or wave her arms. Never!

Perhaps you are passing by her property at too great a speed. I recommend slowing down before you get to her area and see what she does.
Shes been yelling at just about everybody for at least twenty years now. Maybe she has a crush on you
MDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 05:25 PM   #46
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
Maxum, all you need to do to see if you are making a wake is look behind you. How easy is that?
For starters it's pretty much impossible to move a boat without causing some sort of wake. So the term "no wake" is just stupid and really shouldn't be used.

Furthermore in the absence of any specific parameters governing speed or size it's a judgment call of the captain and those vary greatly. Again good luck with that.


I get what the spirit of the law is in regards to "no wake" but when somebody comes through a NWZ plowing water and you get mad - just remember that under the current definition it's the slowest possible speed and still maintain steerage. Well this this example maybe the captain feels that going that fast is needed to comfortably meet (for him or her) that requirement. Are they breaking the law? After all when you've got some decent forward momentum it's far easier to maintain a straight course of travel than if you're barely moving and trying to do the same thing.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 06:34 PM   #47
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

I disagree with you. I have watched plenty of boats causing no visible wake. I think if Marine Patrol had a bigger presence in NW Zones, almost ALL boats could manage to somehow maintain steerage without making a wake Funny that.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 06:46 PM   #48
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

Well, as I said, here we go again


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 08:46 AM   #49
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

Geez, the lake is beautiful! Slow down and enjoy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2019, 10:56 PM   #50
Blyblvrd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Londonderry & Moultonborough
Posts: 67
Thanks: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

On rainy days Mother Nature soaks our dock.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Blyblvrd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2019, 10:16 AM   #51
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blyblvrd View Post
On rainy days Mother Nature soaks our dock.

Is mother nature oversized too?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 05:26 PM   #52
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 407
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default House Committee Report

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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (02-14-2019), Loub52 (02-14-2019)
Old 02-15-2019, 06:48 AM   #53
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
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...
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 10:05 AM   #54
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 402
Thanks: 161
Thanked 84 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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!"
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 10:43 AM   #55
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,269
Thanks: 187
Thanked 672 Times in 269 Posts
Default

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.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 11:48 AM   #56
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 01:25 PM   #57
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 407
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default Ethics in action

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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 03:42 PM   #58
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,706
Thanks: 2,223
Thanked 818 Times in 569 Posts
Default Perception vs Reality

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
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.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 06:05 PM   #59
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 402
Thanks: 161
Thanked 84 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
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.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (02-15-2019)
Old 02-15-2019, 06:35 PM   #60
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,936
Thanks: 187
Thanked 441 Times in 325 Posts
Default

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?
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (02-16-2019)
Old 02-15-2019, 03:37 PM   #61
DPatnaude
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hopkinton, MA / Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

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.
DPatnaude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 07:54 PM   #62
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2019, 07:59 AM   #63
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

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.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2019, 01:42 PM   #64
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 68
Thanks: 39
Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts
Default

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.
Chimi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 03:42 PM   #65
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 407
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default Don't call your rep

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
Chimi (02-18-2019)
Old 02-18-2019, 02:58 PM   #66
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 68
Thanks: 39
Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
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.
Chimi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 06:09 AM   #67
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 11:20 AM   #68
DPatnaude
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hopkinton, MA / Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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...
DPatnaude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 11:42 AM   #69
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatnaude View Post
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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2019, 02:33 PM   #70
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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 posterís 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.
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 10:32 AM   #71
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 581
Thanks: 62
Thanked 131 Times in 90 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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?
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 12:55 PM   #72
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 01:29 PM   #73
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,522
Thanks: 42
Thanked 630 Times in 259 Posts
Default

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


Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 02:25 PM   #74
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 581
Thanks: 62
Thanked 131 Times in 90 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 03:24 PM   #75
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,976
Thanks: 587
Thanked 672 Times in 413 Posts
Default What is the speed of the current?

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.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 04:14 PM   #76
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
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...
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 05:43 PM   #77
DickR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 490
Thanks: 0
Thanked 132 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
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?
DickR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 06:40 PM   #78
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,936
Thanks: 187
Thanked 441 Times in 325 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:30 AM   #79
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
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).
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:51 AM   #80
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,852
Thanks: 477
Thanked 285 Times in 151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:10 AM   #81
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,522
Thanks: 42
Thanked 630 Times in 259 Posts
Default

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
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:56 AM   #82
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:33 PM   #83
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,269
Thanks: 187
Thanked 672 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
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.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
Seaplane Pilot (Yesterday)
Old Yesterday, 01:41 PM   #84
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 830
Thanks: 286
Thanked 427 Times in 166 Posts
Default And the good news is....

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!
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:56 PM   #85
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,522
Thanks: 42
Thanked 630 Times in 259 Posts
Default

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
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:28 PM   #86
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,218
Thanks: 786
Thanked 392 Times in 280 Posts
Cool "Where the Men are Good-Looking"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
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.
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM   #87
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
Woodsy (Yesterday)
Old Yesterday, 09:14 AM   #88
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
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 canít steer my boat if I go any slower...).

As to GPS in a boat, perhaps Iím the exception to the rule. Iíve 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; Iíve 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!
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:53 AM   #89
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,417
Thanks: 949
Thanked 592 Times in 330 Posts
Default One solution

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.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:11 PM   #90
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,351
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia View Post
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 canít steer my boat if I go any slower...).

As to GPS in a boat, perhaps Iím the exception to the rule. Iíve 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; Iíve 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.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:25 PM   #91
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia View Post

As to GPS in a boat, perhaps Iím the exception to the rule. Iíve 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; Iíve 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.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:48 PM   #92
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Dave R;307595]You probably have not been taking full advantage of the allowable 6 MPH. Think of the time lost!



And therein lies the problem. ďTaking advantage of the allowable 6 MPHĒ regardless of the effect on others, and ď...time lost.Ē Now it is so much easier, look behind you, if you see white youíre creating a wake, slow down.




Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:23 PM   #93
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,522
Thanks: 42
Thanked 630 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
And therein lies the problem. ďTaking advantage of the allowable 6 MPHĒ regardless of the effect on others, and ď...time lost.Ē Now it is so much easier, look behind you, if you see white youíre 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
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Woodsy For This Useful Post:
Dave R (Yesterday), TiltonBB (Yesterday)
Old 02-16-2019, 06:50 PM   #94
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,901
Thanks: 539
Thanked 516 Times in 301 Posts
Default

The NWZ discussion is one more indication that the human species is doomed.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to thinkxingu For This Useful Post:
TheRoBoat (02-16-2019)
Old 02-17-2019, 06:59 AM   #95
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 349
Thanks: 12
Thanked 114 Times in 68 Posts
Default

You donít know what your talking about or, youíve never driven a boat at headway speed. Yes they work like that. Try holding the helm in one position and see what happens. Youíll turn slightly in one direction then turn slightly in the other. Against a current that is pushing you backwards (your example) the boat would not be able to recover even if you turned into the current. The only reason you go straight in normal conditions is because you have the velocity to overcome the velocity of the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 07:30 AM   #96
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,936
Thanks: 187
Thanked 441 Times in 325 Posts
Default ..... a Neanderthal can steer a motor boat!

At no wake speed of 6-mph, the larger hull of a bigger boat makes it more difficult for the captain to maintain the desired direction. Not enough engine torque to control it against wind, waves, and current.

Is just like trying to paddle a stand up paddle board using just your hands, and not the paddle, with the sup gets pushed by wind, waves and current.

Moving water can have a lot of resistance working against the hull, and more resistance working against a bigger hull.

See ...... you need to get a smaller boat!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2019, 07:47 AM   #97
Poor Richard
Senior Member
 
Poor Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: The humbling river
Posts: 109
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

If steerage is lost then why is it all boats don't loop around and end up in the ocean?

The physics at play do not require a vessel to overcome the velocity of the water as the hull is not acting as a dam.
Poor Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 11:35 AM   #98
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
You donít know what your talking about or, youíve never driven a boat at headway speed. Yes they work like that. Try holding the helm in one position and see what happens. Youíll turn slightly in one direction then turn slightly in the other. Against a current that is pushing you backwards (your example) the boat would not be able to recover even if you turned into the current. The only reason you go straight in normal conditions is because you have the velocity to overcome the velocity of the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Yeah, you got me. My experience operating a power boat in current is limited to just the Piscataqua, Penobscot, Lamprey, Cocheco, Taunton, Annisquam, Connecticut, Songo, Merrimack, Potomac, Tom's, Susquaehanna, Pawtuxent, Chester, St. Lawrence, Rideau, Ottawa, Hudson, East, and Harlem Rivers; and Rondout, Esopus, and Otter Creeks. Also, it was never for more than a couple of weeks at a time.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 02:03 PM   #99
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Doesn't steerage mean going where you want to go? If so, how can you maintain steerage if your speed is not enough to overcome the effect of current or wind and you are moving backwards? Sure, one can keep control of the boat and keep the bow pointing in the correct direction, but is this the same as steerage? Maybe I'm missing the point of the post...

Regardless, for Lake Winnipesaukee, I like the proposed revised definition of NWZ as it is clear in its intent. At least it is to me...

Last edited by Garcia; 02-18-2019 at 02:59 PM.
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 04:54 PM   #100
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,652
Thanks: 207
Thanked 527 Times in 322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia View Post
Doesn't steerage mean going where you want to go? If so, how can you maintain steerage if your speed is not enough to overcome the effect of current or wind and you are moving backwards? Sure, one can keep control of the boat and keep the bow pointing in the correct direction, but is this the same as steerage? Maybe I'm missing the point of the post...

Regardless, for Lake Winnipesaukee, I like the proposed revised definition of NWZ as it is clear in its intent. At least it is to me...
NH does not define "steerage", nor do COLREGS.

Merriam Webster says:
Definition of steerageway

: a rate of motion sufficient to make a ship or boat respond to movements of the rudder

Does not mention what direction the motion needs to be.

I totally agree on intent and I think most boaters will understand. I also believe it will make no difference to damaging wakes, but will make congestion worse in tight channels when a few boaters inevitably fail to understand the intent and take the law at face value.
__________________
Captain of "Mischief Managed"
Say hi if you see us on the lake.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
Garcia (02-18-2019)
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 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.70404 seconds