| Name: |
dmp
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 9:39:36 AM
|
I just wanted to get your ideas on the newly (at least to me) proposed law requiring idle speed only within 100 feet of a dock or residential shoreline.
I see that HOBO has sent out a survey requesting feedback. Personally on the surface the law sounds good to me but there are always situations where its' interpretation could get dicey. Of course, then there is the enforcement aspect -- (was that 99' or 101')?
|
| Name: |
Samdog
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 12:06:26 PM
|
While I don't like waves bouncing my boat around at the dock, I would not like this proposal at Lake Martin. There are too many sloughs that would fall into the wake only rule. There would be no possible way to enforce it!
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 12:11:01 PM
|
Any slough less than 300' wide (a football field wide!) with the maximum 50' piers on each side would be idle speed. Too restrictive. Leave it to the Marine Police to set no wake zones..
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 12:36:07 PM
|
Oh my goodness - what do we have here? I am more confused than ever now.
The biggest complaint I have heard for years on the Forum is the danger of boats traveling too fast in sleughs and congested areas of the Lake. Not only is the complaint about wave damage, but a lot of folks complain about the safety aspect of children and people swimming in these areas.
I bet the Marine Police have heard far more complaints than have been posted on the Forum. I gather they (the Marine Police) are attempting to help the people of Lake Martin with the proposed law.
I guess I need to hear the side or rationale of those opposed to such a law. I don't see how the lack of enforcement ability cuts bait. Who would the proposed law harm and why? It is not like we don't have sufficient big water. ???
|
| Name: |
Chevy4x4
-
|
|
| Subject: |
nay
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 1:11:28 PM
|
Lets just go ahead and ban all boats from the lake.
seems to be the direction we are headed anyway...
|
| Name: |
DJ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
nay
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 1:29:50 PM
|
Nah, just ban all except human powered water vehicles, that would allow paddleboats, non-motorized canoes, kayaks and bicycle boats, I might have missed a few. Oh wait, that would never work cause then someone would build one of those old Viking style multi oared monsters and put a porta-potty on it and we’d be right back to square one. I guess the best thing to do is drain the lake and make it a big farm.
|
| Name: |
Hadenuff
-
|
|
| Subject: |
nay
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 1:37:14 PM
|
Please read my post from 3/23/2007.
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did I MIss Something?
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 1:54:34 PM
|
I did not know this had anything to do with banning boats?
Is there a portion of the proposal dealing with boats other than idle speed in congested segments of the Lake?
Why have I been under the impression that this was something everyone wanted? Why all the past discussions about no-wake areas, authority to put up swimming and no-wake buoys and etc.?
Give me a straight answer on this proposal. I did not think it had anything to do with last year's Big Boat ban.
|
| Name: |
PC Al
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did I MIss Something?
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 2:05:57 PM
|
To me, the best thing having such a law would prevent someone from going back and forth, back and forth say pulling someone on a tube, etc. I think all of us have seen this happen from time to time with no respect to the boats, etc. tied off in close proximity. I can’t see that the police would enforce the law if a boat is just going by faster than idle speed if it is going to or coming from a certain direction and not just back and forth. I agree with feb that I have been reading for years where people have been complaining about such actions and now that a remedy is at hand, you get all these negatives.
|
| Name: |
DJ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did I MIss Something?
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 2:07:54 PM
|
You are correct, has nothing to do with the band, its called sarcasm and I thought I made it drip with it, guess I'm slipping.
|
| Name: |
Chevy4x4
-
|
|
| Subject: |
feb
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 4:16:58 PM
|
as said, it has nothing to with the ban.. directly at least.
my point being: if we keep putting restrictions on the lake, where do we stop?
|
| Name: |
Nutin Bitein
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Look at the other lakes....
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 5:20:56 PM
|
Look at the other lakes for answers to that question. Lake Martin is not the first lake to ban big boats or have speed limits or no wake zones. Some have electric only days and stickers that restrict the days on the water.
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
feb
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 5:34:19 PM
|
I have been at a disadvantge and still am since I am yet a resident of Alabama. Although I am an Alabama property owner and tax payer, I have no represenative to address.
Unlike the Boat Law/ban, this proposal is being circulated for comment to citizens, home owners and/or boat owners. Pro or Con, we all have to see this as an improvement in the process. My understanding is the 100 ft. idle proposal is being initiated by the Marine Police. I would like to think they are in a position to best judge for the wellfare of us Lake Martin users.
The negatism concerning the idle speed proposal was surprising to me after having read past post on the Forum. I guess it is a simply a back wash or wake from the anger of some to the boat ban.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 8:54:03 PM
|
This is an overview of what they are proposing:
The Marine Police proposal, dubbed the “One-Hundred-Foot Restriction,” would make it illegal to run any watercraft faster than idle speed within 100 feet of any other vessel that is moored, anchored or adrift, any wharf, dock, pier, piling, bridge structure or abutment, any person in the water or any shoreline adjacent to a residence, public park, public beach, public swimming area, marina, restaurant or other public-use area. The offense is punishable as a class C misdemeanor and carries a minimum fine of $50.
Think about it, any boat that is moored, anhcored or adrift would require idle speed within 100 feet. So its not just boats at the dock or the pier. What it does is to leave it to the judgment of the Marine Police whether you came too close to a boat anchored in the middle. Can any of you easily judge 100'? This creates a right for anyone who wants to anchor their boat anywhere to dictate to all the other boaters what spped they will go. To me it seems overly restrictive and unenforcable. If hit with a fine I would dispute the distance calculation of the Marine Police and they would have to prove with some form of measurement device that operated in real time that you came within 100'. This is just plain stupid and will never stand up in court (if you wanted to fight over the fine).
And for those who are concerned about the waves from boats damaging boats in the dock, this will not help in the least. Waves do not attenuate in amplitude very much over 100'. For example, we were skiing in an open area of the lake and two boats tied together in the middle waved us over and asked us to move on because our wake was disturbing them. We never got close to them but after several turns in the area there were a lot of waves. We did so out of courtesy but frankly it galled me that they had the nerve to anchor up in the middle of the lake and then ask us to move on. This law will now allow me to say that I can do what I want as long as I stay 100' away. It is only going to legalize bad behaviour when common courtesy should rule the day.
Pretty soon you will hear people clamoring for 200' or 300' (or even worse suggestions like electric-only days). What I believe is happening is there is a vocal minority who constantly badger the Marine Police. As I said in earlier posts I now come into our slough at idle speed because of complaints from a neighbor. I am guessing that with this new law I will now legally be able to blow into his portion of the slough as fast as I want. I won't, but I will be legally able to. My point is that a new law is not the solution.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 9:15:17 PM
|
Well said MM. I think an all electric day would be a great Idea. On that day you simply order arial photo's or sattelite image to show NOBODY on the lake, thereby nullifying the idea forever.
You are much nicer than I am. I am far more curtious than most boaters but if those fools called me over and asked me to move on I would have given them the ine finger salute and proceeded to ride in cirles around them till they 'moved on'.
It was nice to see that there is someone besides me and PP that understand wave action too. Although I am upset with him for quelching the LTL for president idea so quickly and soundly.....lol. I am sure if it weren't for him there would have been groundswell of support for me and my cuop de' tat.
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 9:54:58 PM
|
I have been given the impression over the years that the Marine Police usually turned down most requests for more no wake zones. Are they really behind the proposal, or is it a HOBO proposal?
|
| Name: |
DJ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 10:13:53 PM
|
Yeah, I agree you had one foot in the freakin door. Well better luck next time. How about just starting a new group that will only have members
that have been coming to this lake for over 15 years, I know that there would only be a few members but we could have a great time........
|
| Name: |
Ulysses E. McGill
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I am against this as proposed
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 11:16:32 PM
|
I am however, ALL for MANY more "no wake" zones that "should be" marked by buoys in sloughs....we need several hundred buoy and we need marine police support to place them.
I am for speed limits; I have stated this many times, and I believe it is especially important at night,
That being said, 100 feet is almost impossible to measure on the open water and this is a bad law.....I agree with almost all of the previously posted reasons to oppose this law as written; this is a knee jerk solution to real problems. From an enforcement standpoint, it is way too arbitrary and we don't have realistic enforcement capability. As a deterrent, very few will care and most will be unaware of the law.
If speed limits are posted, and if no wake buoys are placed around the lake where needed, most folks will abide by the rules.....this is a fact that has been proven on many other lakes around the country.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Marine Police
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 11:56:33 PM
|
Marine Police Proposal
From what I have been told, by a fellow HOBO, the Marine Police are or have discussed the proposed regulation with numerous Alabama Lake Associations and others as the regulation will not only effect Lake Martin, but all Alabama waterways, including all Alabama Lakes, Rivers, etc.
Upon contacting the HOBOs regarding the proposed reg and we stated we would poll our members and obtain their feedback on the proposed reg. As we felt it was important for all members to have a say in such.
Upon conclusion of the survey, the overall poll results and all HOBO member feedback will be provided to them for their consideration.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Reg is Almost Verbatim
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 12:10:55 AM
|
.......... of the Georgia and numerous other State's reg.
Just a little more information as to how this reg was formulated and probably came about.
Just an FYI, do not shoot the messenger. - LOL
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 7:21:36 AM
|
It will be real easy for lunatic protestors to use this law in the future to shut down all watertraffic. Just anchor some small boats strategically and put some swmmers in the water all over. It will take you hours to get back to your house at idle speed.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Marine Police
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 7:43:34 AM
|
It may have been proposed by the MP, but I would bet my bottom dollar that is is due to pressure from somewhere (somebody). If we realize what a nightmare of enforcement it would be don't you think they do? Why would they be pushing something that would be sucha headache for them? Because the puppet master has harrassed them to death I am sure.
As someone has already posted, there is NO WAY you would ever have to pay a fine, because there is no way to prove you broke the 100ft rule unless you hit something.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 7:45:48 AM
|
At least this proposal is trying to limit the actions of operators rather than a boat, and thus makes far more sense. Those of us who respect our neighbors are doing that now, with the exception of pier launch/landings while skiing. I do understand the impetus of this, and it does make sense from a SAFETY standpoint, and no – it will do nothing about the wake issue. I think that most of us who swim have had boats cut too close to us while we were in the water, and dealt with people using the passage just North of Acapulco Rock at speeds above or far above what they should be. As far as distances, yes, it would be a nightmare to enforce, even if given a plus/minus 20’ variance, but measuring distances is a lead pipe cinch – use a laser. Of course you could analyze the patterns of boat traffic to determine the relative scope of the impact…. Magic 8 Ball says PWC will be the most ticketed.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
feb, if you think about it....
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 9:24:12 AM
|
( in response to your posts about the new idle speed proposal)human nature has not changed all that much,.... from the stories as told by western writers like Louis L'mour and the western movies that were made from those stories. You remember the story line............peaceful little town in the wild wild west with people living the good life, no problems, not many laws and no need for a marshall. Bad Boys come to town shooting up the stores, drinking up the liquor, roughing up the store keepers and leering at the ladies. Town leaders decide to elect a marshall to protect the citizens and their property, pass a few laws and turn the hard work over to the new marshall...........Bad Boys don't like this 'cause it will hinder them having fun like they always have, so they decide to challenge the new lawman. Lawman, usually with the help of only one or two trusted deputies chooses to first ask for compliance from the Bad Boys............but they will have none of that..........so the lawman is forced to shoot it up and run them out of town. This brings on a long protracted war between the Bad Boys and their friends, and the marshall and his few supporters usually wins at the end of the day............however , once this is cleaned up, the weak kneed town council gets to thinking the marshall went too far in the enforcement of their new rules, and now wants the lawman to back off and not be too harsh because it's hurting the gambling/bar business.............The story usually ends one of two ways........A) the marshall wins the pretty girl and stays around for the good life, or B) marshall cleans up the town, but, is disliked by everyone because he had to take extreme measures, so he resigns and moves on to another town and leaves the good citizens to deal with the next crisis when it comes along...................... :~}
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
feb, if you think about it....
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 9:33:47 AM
|
Thanks Rude, I should of read more westerns and looked at fewer Playboys. LOL
Sounds like a pretty good explanation.
|
| Name: |
DJ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
feb, if you think about it....
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 9:56:14 AM
|
Wonder how the folks at the marinas that sell gas to those guzzling monsters feel about them not being allowed on the lakes?
|
| Name: |
Pier Pressure
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 12:24:52 PM
|
What is the distance between bridge pilings on the Kowaliga bridge? If not more than 200 ft that means that everyone has to slow to idle speed just to go under the bridge. And the "Bridge to nowhere", and northern bridges also.
I agree with most items, but concrete bridge pilings that are in deep water? And the state is adding laws that are enforceable on Federal waters such as the Alabama River? See how many people slow down next to those bridges...
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My Best Guess Would Be
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 4:38:47 PM
|
Blatant violations would most likely be ticketed. - MAJOR SAFETY ISSUES / UNSAFE BOATING / POTENTIAL FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE (Irresponsible Boaters)
Not so blatant would be warned .
Everything beyond would be overlooked, unless somebody complains.
As not enough Marine Police on any of the Alabama Lakes or Rivers to enforce this reg or for that matter the other regs already on the books. But I do have to applaud them for the job they do with the limited resources they have available and fully support and appreciate their efforts.
I can tell you from speaking with several of the Marine Police, they really do not like giving out tickets and most are usually warned unless a major infraction (Safety Issue / Unsafe Boating -- a.k.a.. Irresponsible Boater). But they have clearly stated their position is ZERO TOLERANCE on BUI, no if ands or butts about it.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My Best Guess Would Be
|
|
Date:
|
4/22/2008 8:01:38 PM
|
As it should be Mav. And a reminder, if you have anyone under 14yo on the vessell when you get that BUI then all punishments are doubled.
|
| Name: |
FLgirl
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New Idle Speed Proposed Law
|
|
Date:
|
4/23/2008 10:48:11 AM
|
At first I thought the law would be a good idea until I read it. I think the distance from shorelines and docks just won't work on Lake Martin. My concern is that this law if passed could result in someone who is driving responsibly being ticketed. I would be more in favor of "No Wake" zones. From my experience most of the boaters are courteous of course there are always the exceptions. I don't want to have to add a 100' tape measure to my boating list.
|
| Name: |
Smitty
-
|
|
| Subject: |
feb
|
|
Date:
|
4/24/2008 9:24:54 AM
|
Feb - For what it's worth, I am totally in favor of the idle speed law.
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Hudson Topics Forum
Reply
»
Oklahoma Lakes
»
Lake Hudson
Login
|
Home
