Wrong. Read Rule 8 again and again and again.

(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

Did you read the above? How come it says 'by any of these rule'
instead of 'by Rule 9'? If it only applied to Rule 9 it would
have mentioned only Rule 9 but instead it says by any of
these Rules and 'any of these Rules' means any of these
rules.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

S.Simon




"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Total nonsense, as per usual. There is no evidence that the courts have done anything
less than an admirable job in interpreting the rules. Neal is just ranting, even though
no one has ever presented a suspcious court ruling here.

As for Neal's fantasy about applying "shall not impede" to situations beyond the scope of
rules 9 and 10, the IMO makes it fairly clear that that was not there intent. Their
comment on Rule 9:

"The Rule also forbids ships to cross a narrow channel or fairway "if such crossing
impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or
fairway." The meaning "not to impede" was classified by an amendment to Rule 8 in 1987. A
new paragraph (f) was added, stressing that a vessel which was required not to impede the
passage of another vessel should take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the
safe passage of the other vessel. Such vessel was obliged to fulfil this obligation also
when taking avoiding action in accordance with the steering and sailing rules when risk of
collision exists."







"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I think it is very clear to everone who reads this thread
how confusing things become when exceptions to Rules
that favor motorboats over those higher in the pecking
order are included in the Rules. It becomes even worse
when the courts replete with totally ignorant judges
become involved. The COLREGS are like the Constitution.

They are what they are and should not be *******ized
in the courts any more than the U.S. Constitution.

The shall not impede rule is easy to understand on its
own merits. One need not have a judge or lawyer
explaing what the word 'impede' means. All that
is needed is a dictionary. If a vessel can be impeded
in a narrow channel it can also be impeded on the
high seas. Even an idiot can grasp this basic concept.

Shall not impede as set forth in Rule 8 is clear and
consise and clearly covers situations not in narrow
channels.

8 (f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of another
vessel shall when required by the circumstances of
the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of
this obligation if approaching the other vessel so
as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking
action, have full regard to the action which may be
required by the rules of this part.

(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be
impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the
rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching
one another so as to involve risk of collision.

The language of this Rule makes it abundantly clear
that it is addressing broader situations than the
narrow channels specific rule.

S.Simon













"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...
One other thing to consider here, is that there are two situations you
are discussing which involve "shall not impede" ... a narrow channel and
a TSS.
There can be differences to both. In the case of the narrow channel,
there's a good chance that the ship is limited to to the confines of the
channel, for whatever maneuvers it can or may attempt.
However, this does not always apply to TSS's. In a TSS, there's a good
chance that the ship can maneuver fairly freely to avoid (which may and
can take them outside the TSS), so that if push comes to shove, they can
maneuver as in Rule 8 (which is why the writers of the rules have not
made the "stand on " condition, absolute, as Shen has stated).
If you take SF Bay, there are a number of TSS areas where some ships
could physically go outside the "channel" ..... I would not expect them
to and don't doubt that unless an emergency they won't, as VTS will have
a fit, but again the legal aspects would take over in case of collision.
I fully agree this is an area that is confusing. My opinion FWIW,
consider yourself (the small boater) as the one required to give way,
and ignore the possible legal stand on ramifications which would come up
in court.
The most important issue, is to avoid the collision.

otn

ps At one time when TSS areas where coming into being, this was a USCG
"gotcha" question. "You are in a TSS and see a small power driven vessel
crossing your bow from stbd to port on a collision course. Which vessel
is stand on and which must give way?"
The answers were set up so that it was obvious that even though the
small boat was not to impede your passage, you were still obligated to
maneuver, since you were the giveway vessel in a crossing situation.