# No Wake Rule - Under Bridges



## Beached (Oct 1, 2007)

What is the law? I'm mainly referring to large spans across the Intracoastal or bays. "No Wake" signs appear and disappear on them and I see some boats slow down and others not.

Thanks


----------



## xxxxxxkidsoncoffee (Apr 30, 2008)

I always slow down when going through the channel under a bridge. Hopefully, other people see me and will do the same. It's rediculous to go WOT through there, it just endangers you and other people. I too have seen the signs appear and disappear. Not sure what the actual ruling is, but I know what it should be.


----------



## SolarFlare (Oct 3, 2007)

There is no law in Flthat makes you slow to No Wake going under a bridge *unless it is posted*. Sometimes for special events like Blue Angels, a No Wake sign will be posted on Bob Sikes for obvious safety reasonsduring that event. It is to be removed the next week after the event. Sometimes the SRIA forgets and the sign just sits there for a while.

It could be just as dangerous for a boat to suddenly slow to no wake at a bridge in the channel area,if other boats are close behind, that correctly understand there is no law requiring them to do so,and assuming you understand that too.

As for a Jon Boat; IMO a Jon Boat has no business being in that area or any similar area;and any other boater that decides to anchor next to High Speed channel is not exercising good judgement.

Away from the channel under the bridge is different story and more caution should be exercised.


----------



## atlantacapt (Oct 2, 2007)

you are responsible for your wake, whether the sign is posted or not...

Thus, if you come crusing thorugh making a big wake and you toss another boat into the pilings - get ready for the bill to come your way.

I always slow down. It is just not worth it from a variety of perspectives...


----------



## 69Viking (Oct 30, 2008)

> *atlantacapt (3/12/2009)*you are responsible for your wake, whether the sign is posted or not...
> 
> Thus, if you come crusing thorugh making a big wake and you toss another boat into the pilings - get ready for the bill to come your way.
> 
> I always slow down. It is just not worth it from a variety of perspectives...


I don't know, this sounds like B.S. Your responsible for your wake? Jon boats are meant for ponds and small lakes, not for saltwater and high speed channels. You are responsible for ensuring your own boat doesn't get tossed into the pilings by a wave or wake. For the record I slow down near bridges but I have never heard of someone having to pay damages for wake.


----------



## joebuck (Oct 1, 2007)

Just curious, for those of you whosaid theycome off plane andslow down to no wake speed, do you do this at the larger bridges in the area such as I-10, Three Mile, Garcon Point,and Bob Sikes?


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

> *69Viking (3/13/2009)*
> 
> 
> > *atlantacapt (3/12/2009)*you are responsible for your wake, whether the sign is posted or not...
> ...


Here is the Florida Statute. Not to mention the person or property owner can sue you in civil court as well. Any officer on the water is going to write you a ticket based on the following statute if they see damage or injury caused by your wake. You can even be charged with vehicular manslaughter if your wake causes a death as well. *

327.32 Vessel declared dangerous instrumentality; civil liability.--All vessels, of whatever classification, shall be considered dangerous instrumentalities in this state, and any operator of a vessel shall, during any utilization of the vessel, exercise the highest degree of care in order to prevent injuries to others. Liability for reckless or careless operation of a vessel shall be confined to the operator in immediate charge of the vessel and not imposed upon the owner of the vessel, unless the owner is the operator or is present in the vessel when any injury or damage is occasioned by the reckless or careless operation of such vessel, whether such recklessness or carelessness consists of a violation of the provisions of the statutes of this state, or disregard in observing such care and such operation as the rules of the common law require. 

History.--s. 3, ch. 59-400; s. 1, ch. 65-361; s. 5, ch. 84-188; s. 11, ch. 85-81. 

Note.--Former s. 371.52. 

327.33 Reckless or careless operation of vessel.-- 

(1)It is unlawful to operate a vessel in a reckless manner. A person is guilty of reckless operation of a vessel who operates any vessel, or manipulates any water skis, aquaplane, or similar device, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property at a speed or in a manner as to endanger, or likely to endanger, life or limb, or damage the property of, or injure any person. Reckless operation of a vessel includes, but is not limited to, a violation of s. 327.331(6). Any person who violates a provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 

(2)Any person operating a vessel upon the waters of this state shall operate the vessel in a reasonable and prudent manner, having regard for other waterborne traffic, posted speed and wake restrictions, and all other attendant circumstances so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. The failure to operate a vessel in a manner described in this subsection constitutes careless operation. However, vessel wake and shoreline wash resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel shall, absent negligence, not constitute damage or endangerment to property. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a noncriminal violation as defined in s. 775.08. *


----------



## BananaTom (Feb 16, 2008)

*It sounds like the time is ripe for a PFF sponsored boater safety course. *

*You are responsible for your wake !!!*

*Always slow down at any bridge !!!*

*(Slow down slowly, so the vessel behind you does not run up on you, However it his responsibility to maintain a safe distance from you.)*


----------



## fishitall (Oct 22, 2007)

Good job Telum Piscus, So many people are clueless to their actions on the water. Banana Tom you're dead on, everyone one needs at least a little refresher from year to year. The boat traffic is picking up and it's time to pay attention to our own actions as well as others.


----------



## AUBuilder (Sep 27, 2007)

Reading that statute it basically says that you should operate your craft in a safe and prudent manner and obey posted wake restrictions and speed limits. However, the following bolded section from the statute above seems to read that if you are following the posted regulations regarding safe operation then you are _essentially_ held harmless. 

2)Any person operating a vessel upon the waters of this state shall operate the vessel in a reasonable and prudent manner, having regard for other waterborne traffic, posted speed and wake restrictions, and all other attendant circumstances so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. The failure to operate a vessel in a manner described in this subsection constitutes careless operation. *However, vessel wake and shoreline wash resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel shall, absent negligence, not constitute damage or endangerment to property.* Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a noncriminal violation as defined in s. 775.08. 

A civil court may tend to disagree, but it seems to me if you are observing safe operating practices and inadvertently affect a small craft (who it could be argued is not observing safe practices by being in a situation where a jon boat is inadequate) you are not at fault. Also I saw nothing in this statute that directly addressed what the regulation is regarding wake vs no wake under bridges other than it stating obey posted operating restrictions. I think the key word in the red highlighted section is "attendant circumstances". Basically I read that to say that if you are not paying attention you are in the wrong, but if there is something that occurs out of your control (like a jon boat hidden behind a bridge piling immediately adjacent to a channel that you cannot see) then you are not at fault. This is myinterpretation of the given statuteplease correct me if I am wrong.

**I feel that I should quantify as to not get crucifed. I tend to agree with www.fishing above. Slowing down in this situation is a good idea regardless of the law. Whether it is a good idea or not, there are folks who fish under the bridge in very small boats and weave in and out of pilings. Again,regardless of what the law states, I do not want to kill someone no matter who's at fault. I am just interpreting the posted statute as I read it.


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

AU,

That is talking about normal errosion of shorline due to water traffic. That is put in there so that a property owner can not have a leg to stand on to complain about errosion of beach front due to normal "Lawfull" operation of a boat.


----------



## AUBuilder (Sep 27, 2007)

This is going to sound like I'm arguing semantics, but heck, isn't that what law is?

I would tend to agree except forthe fact that it is written *vessel wake and shoreline wash.* To me this is quantifying vessel wake and shoreline wash as two separate things. If it had read shoreline wash due to vessel wake I would be inclined to agree, but the fact that they are listed as two separate things reads tome that you are not responsible for your vessel wake or shoreline wash resulting from that wake if you are operating in a safe and lawful manner.


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

> *AUBuilder (3/13/2009)*This is going to sound like I'm arguing semantics, but heck, isn't that what law is?
> 
> I would tend to agree except, the fact that it is written *vessel wake and shoreline wash.* To me this is quantifying vessel wake and shoreline wash as two separate things. If it had read shoreline wash due to vessel wake I would be inclined to agree, but the fact that they are listed as two separate things reads tome that you are not responsible for your vessel wake or shoreline wash resulting from that wake if you are operating in a safe and lawful manner.


Kind of agree to an extent. But the ambiguity of the statute leaves the "safe and lawful manner" to the enterpitation of the officer.And I have yet to hear an officer say or argue that if your wake causes harm or damage, they would not write you a ticket because there were no signs posted.


----------



## AUBuilder (Sep 27, 2007)

> *Telum Piscis (3/13/2009)*I Kind of agree to an extent. But the ambiguity of the statute leaves the "safe and lawful manner" to the interpretation of the officer.And I have yet to hear an officer say or argue that if your wake causes harm or damage, they would not write you a ticket because there were no signs posted.


I would definitely agree with your last statement. It would make for an interesting court case. I'm sure there is existing case law out there that sets precedent based on as many boaters as there are on the water today. I'd be interested to see that research.


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

i dont go to no wake speed unless there is someone in and around the bridge, but do slow down. keeping her on plane to reduce wake and maintain control. common sense is always the way to go. their is never a time or need for wide open unless your running from a storm or in a tournament.:letsdrink


----------



## sel1005 (Jan 10, 2008)

whether its law or not folks, lets all slow down approaching bridges and use common sense. 

A jon or other boat may or may not need to be out there, but there are lots of people that just don't watch out and guess what, you are liable for their mistakes too. Just a few years back a guy I know was going undera bridge and a family in a pontoon boat was running parallel to the bridge just on the other side. They collided, a mother and young baby lost their lives and several other people were injured. 

He will never be the same again, and it's not due to who was right or who was wrong. It's because of what happened. Slowing down and being safe is not too much to ask in return for your safetyas well asthe safety of others that may not be as skilled or observant as you are.

My .02 only...


----------



## 69Viking (Oct 30, 2008)

> *AUBuilder (3/13/2009)*This is going to sound like I'm arguing semantics, but heck, isn't that what law is?
> 
> I would tend to agree except forthe fact that it is written *vessel wake and shoreline wash.* To me this is quantifying vessel wake and shoreline wash as two separate things. If it had read shoreline wash due to vessel wake I would be inclined to agree, but the fact that they are listed as two separate things reads tome that you are not responsible for your vessel wake or shoreline wash resulting from that wake if you are operating in a safe and lawful manner.


That was the point I was trying to make. I don't see how you could be held responsible for somebody elses negligence of putting themselves in harms way of the wake from a boatyou are operating in a safe and lawful manner.Now if you are operating your boat in a negligent manner and your wake causes damage orharm to someone then you should be held responsible. I honestly believe this would have to be a judgement call based on the situation at hand.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

Am I missing something? I don't want to read between the lines, but a few of the above statements SEEM to be saying if a boat is too small for the (potential) conditions (who makes the call on THAT???), tough shit?? Sounds pretty harsh to me!!! I ALWAYS go out of my way to ensure safety of those around me....especially little boats (I've been there), law or no law. Just seems like the right thing to do. Same with not horning in too close to fish where others are. Guess I'm just not as "important" as some boat owners! What's the big rush anyway???? I go out to relax and unwind.A minute's worth of courtesy/good manners hasn't hurt me yet!!! If I misread, my apologies!

BTW, slowing down to about 10 knots or so (depending on the boat) does NOT reduce wakes....it can make them huge! It's often called "swamping speed".


----------



## 69Viking (Oct 30, 2008)

My last $.02 on this subject because this could debate could go on for ever. I always slow down and look all around when approaching bridges or any area where my view of an area of water is obstructed. In the Destin area the two bridges I travel under the most are a no wake zone and a minimal wake zone so if you're on plane you will most likely get pulled over and could get a ticket.


----------



## AUBuilder (Sep 27, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (3/13/2009)*Am I missing something? I don't want to read between the lines, but a few of the above statements SEEM to be saying if a boat is too small for the (potential) conditions (who makes the call on THAT???), tough shit?? Sounds pretty harsh to me!!! I ALWAYS go out of my way to ensure safety of those around me....especially little boats (I've been there), law or no law. Just seems like the right thing to do. Same with not horning in too close to fish where others are. Guess I'm just not as "important" as some boat owners! What's the big rush anyway???? I go out to relax and unwind.A minute's worth of courtesy/good manners hasn't hurt me yet!!! If I misread, my apologies!
> 
> BTW, slowing down to about 10 knots or so (depending on the boat) does NOT reduce wakes....it can make them huge! It's often called "swamping speed".


We (well at least I) are not debating what the so called "right" thing to do is.I am trying to clarify in my mind what the law is. I am not saying tough s**t to the small boat, I am saying the small boat operator needs to use some common sense. If a small boat is in a concealed position adjacent to a channel where _normal operating speed is legal_ and they get swamped, I believe they are at fault. Take for instance 3 mile bridge. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the channel under that bridge is designated normal operating speed. I have seen some extremely small boats up next to the channel in some choppy water. I have also seen a few boaters cut right across that channel going parellel with the bridge. I believe these individuals are extremely foolish and if they cause an accident with a boat in the channel they should be at fault. I do not care what the boat that has the right of way's wake does. Remember there are right of way laws on the water.Ideally I feel that all boaters need to use common sense and have at least some semblance of situational awareness and not put themselves in harms way, but as we've seen in the "idiot boater" thread, that day is a long way off.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

Ideally I feel that all boaters need to use common sense and have at least some semblance of situational awareness and not put themselves in harms way, but as we've seen in the "idiot boater" thread, that day is a long way off.[/quote]



I agree 110%!!! But that day will happen when monkeys fly out my butt!


----------



## tideline_two (Oct 8, 2007)

think what you want to. but YOU ARE RESPONCEABLE FOR YOUR WAKE. your boat wake is not a wind wave is wasn't caused by god, it was caused by your boat and what ever damage it causes you can be held libel for.


----------



## dbyrd2100 (Jun 21, 2008)

I have to say that I've been nearly swamped in my 21 footer when anchored near the pass. I choose to anchor there and don't feel that every boat going out the pass needs to slow down. It would be nice if some of the yachts throwing 4 - 6' waves would watch their wake but I don't really expect them to for me. If your in an area that is conducive to wakes coming your way, make sure your prepared for it. If you have a small boat (which I've had most of my life) stay in safe areas. With all that being said, I always slow for people fishing. "Unless it's some A-hole that just waked me while I was fishing."


----------



## C-monsters (Mar 28, 2008)

For all the "you are responsible for your wake" responses. I agree. You are responsible if you do something negligent, and your wake causes damages.And of course, anyone could try to make a case in civil court regardless of who is really at fault. But is going through a designated shipping channelunder a bridge on plane really negligent?

Telum--I know you dive and spearfish. And although you never would, what if you tried to dive in the main channel at 3-mile and shoot up some white trout appetizers? If you were hit by a boat while diving there, would the boat be responsible? The captain is responsible for his boat and wake after all. How is it any different if some yahoo decides to fish the inside of the channel along the pilings in a jonboat? Is my wake at fault for him getting swamped? 

I certainly try to practice safe boating, and would never purposefully swamp someone, but I respectfully disagree that proper boating etiquette requires idle speed under allbridges. And by the way, none of this would be worth typing out if I wasn't stuck in my house instead of fishing.


----------



## Dylan (Apr 15, 2008)

My brother, some buddies and I were fishing Sikes the other day when 2 Jet Skis came under the bridge..They each ran over a line...The guys they did it too were livid:banghead


----------



## Getsome (Sep 28, 2007)

> *nextstep (3/13/2009)*i dont go to no wake speed unless there is someone in and around the bridge, but do slow down. keeping her on plane to reduce wake and maintain control. common sense is always the way to go. their is never a time or need for wide open unless your running from a storm or in a tournament.:letsdrink




:withstupid


----------



## DreamWeaver21 (Oct 3, 2007)

To the original question, I don't believe there is a law about bridges being no wake zones in this area. I used to live in Jacksonvile, they did have a law about it.


----------

