Dealing With (Inconsiderate) Wakes

[Cathy Monaghan]

Neil, .....Are you over 2500 yet?...

Yup, he is.


Cathy
Webmaster--CDSOA, Inc.

[Neil Gordon]

Are you over 2500 yet?

Yes, I am. (<--- Note three word response, the secret to an exceedingly high message count.)

[Sea Hunt]

I have been reluctant to enter this discussion - mostly because of my admittedly simplistic "right versus wrong", "good versus evil" view of the world.

That said, whether on a Cape Dory Typhoon Weekender or on an elegant Robinhood 36, the unmistakable shape of a shoulder strapped BAR (probably chambered in .30-06) or the silhouette of a .50 cal BMG mounted on the stern near the taff rail (substantial stainless steel backing plates needed), WILL have an undeniable impact on power boater aggression in channels, restricted waterways, etc.

DISCLAIMER AND CAUTION: You must comply with all local, state and federal firearms law when carrying, displaying or discharging either of the above "defensive systems".


P.S. Just kidding. Oh gosh, I don't know anything about bmgs or bars (except the drinking kind )

[rorik]

Doesn't "bmgs" stand for "big mug, grog sloshing"?
And a bar is where you find that big mug, right?

I've used the camera idea to no effect, and have once or twice made a lane change at the last second without signaling - with slightly better results... and some days I'll admit to thinking about the .45 in the shoulder rig below deck.... but they'd have to be real pirates for me to actually go get it.

[John Danicic]

All the stories of power boater's wakes awakened one of my pet peaves and this one is mainly directed towards sailboat owners.

I hate being a nice quiet anchorage and some sailboat owner fires up his 13 + horse power outboard on his dinghy and proceeds through the anchorage at high speed with no regard for what he leaves in his wake.

Now granted, the wake from a lightweight inflatable dingy is no where near the size of a cigarette boat or cabin cruiser traveling at high speeds but it still up sets the apples and is highly unnessesary for the most part. Where do you need to be in such a hurry? Besides, sailboat owners should know better. Taking out their pent up need to move fast after a day of sailing along at under 5 knots is no excuse for spilling a glass of Madeira or, heaven forbid, a Dark and Stormy in a fellow sailor's boat.

Sail on

John Danicic

CD36 - Mariah- #124
Lake Superior- The Apostle Islands
CDSOA #655

[Duncan]

...Taking out their pent up need to move fast after a day of sailing along at under 5 knots is no excuse for spilling a glass of Madeira or, heaven forbid, a Dark and Stormy in a fellow sailor's boat. ..

I love to sail around anchorages in my CD 10, socializing with my new neighbours for the evening, and not spilling their Dark 'n Stormys.



Anybody in that much of a hurry to walk their dog, dump their garbage, etc., is missing that nice sense of community I feel from a bunch of sailboats at anchor in a good spot.

[John Danicic]

Duncan:

What you do is not only easy on your fellow anchorage mate's drinks but most pleasing to their eyes.

In my opinion, you have taken the moral high ground on the issue with your good example.

I would love to see a CD10 sailing around and would readily raise my glass to her and her Captain.


Sail on

John Danicic

CD36 - Mariah- #124
Lake Superior- The Apostle Islands
CDSOA #655

[mike ritenour]

John,

Let us not forget the visions of kayaks weaving in and out of a few awesome Cape Dory's on York Is.

Now that's the way to sea an anchorage and not disturb any cocktails.

http://www.seascan.com/seawecancampain/ ... e2010.html

Scroll to bottom.

Rit

[Carl Thunberg]

This story is a humble reminder that there are bozos among every group. Sailors are not immune from being inconsiderate @$$HOLES. Check out this story!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvid ... -time.html

[Jim Davis]

It is a shame that rescue agencies can't bill for their services when it comes to rescuing "stupid", either that or require a waiver when someoe gets ready to do a stupid. Once OK, twice - perhaps - but this dingbat is career.

Of course 13 is his "lucky number".

[SurryMark]

Mike's SeaDozer story is a doozer; I wonder how it fits with what I heard about Coast Guard regs. About 15 years ago a high-speed no-muffler moron who made regular ear-splitting runs on our bay swamped a skiff with a family fishing for mackerel. They were in a reasonable high-sided outboard, not overloaded. I was told they had no case against the speedboat because if you go out in a boat, it's your responsibility to be able to handle whatever seas come along. Rather than looking up the law, I'm wondering if anyone here knows about it.

[Troy Scott]

Mark is asking about: "it's your responsibility to be able to handle whatever seas come along"

NATURAL seas, yes, we should be ready. But saying I should be able to handle whatever any irresponsible boater dishes out is like saying I'm irresponsible if I walk down the street without a bullet proof vest. Really. Actually I DON'T know about the law in question. But if there is such a law it sounds pretty misguided to me...... Was the family boat that got swamped in a NO WAKE zone? Or were they anchored in the way in a busy channel?

[mike ritenour]

From my limited understanding, a vessel is responsible for any damage or injury done by its wake.

Now on the open ocean, I doubt that it would fly, but nearshore and inshore I believe it is something that can be prosecuted.

The NYS Police had no qualms about giving mr. dozer a ticket.

Rit

[SurryMark]

"Was the family boat that got swamped in a NO WAKE zone? Or were they anchored in the way in a busy channel?"

I believe they were trolling about 100 yards off shore in a deep two mile wide bay.

My information on"being responsible for any condition" came from a chat at a public landing with a Maine Warden Service officer. I just looked up a Maine law against boat operation that endangers people or property. The same law forbids changing or tampering with factory mufflers, but enforcement on both seems to be just about nil. Maybe I'll see what the Coast Guard says.
_________________

[Jim Davis]

http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title46/46usc2302.html

Sec. 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering
with safe operation

(a) A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering
with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb,
or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a
civil penalty of not more than $5,000 in the case of a recreational
vessel, or $25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
(b) A person operating a vessel in a grossly negligent manner that
endangers the life, limb, or property of a person commits a class A
misdemeanor.
(c) An individual who is under the influence of alcohol, or a
dangerous drug in violation of a law of the United States when operating
a vessel, as determined under standards prescribed by the Secretary by
regulation--
(1) is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty of not more than $5,000; or
(2) commits a class A misdemeanor.

Most states have similar wording and I'm sure there are a lot of lawyers that would take on a civil case for damages caused by the wake. The operator who caused the damage is generally at fault. There may be an issue with the Rules of the Road, but negligent or reckless operation tends to fall back on the "You break it, you bought it" philosophy.

Do a Google on "reckless or negligent operation of a vessel"