Subject: Ferry Speeds
From: "Jonathan Ganz"
Date: 11/20/2003 23:38 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?


First off ..... what Jeff says.....I think the most important factor to keep in
mind, is that the stand on/ giveway condition doesn't change (legal point)
(sailboat meeting a ship, other than overtaking), however, due to the condition
(narrow channel) the sailboat is admonished to keep the condition in mind and
not push the issue and allow the ship "searoom" to maneuver, which in this case
would be to continue within the bounds of the channel.

Shen

This does not answer your question, but there are a number of issues involved.
The Rules, rarely give anyone "carte blanche" to stand on.

Jeff,

Great explanation. I'm going to use it if you don't mind.

Jonathan

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Well, (almost) no status is absolute because in (almost) any real life
situation there are
complexities not explicitly mentioned in the rules. For example, there is
no explicit
mention of three vessel situations in the rules.

However, the phrase "shall not impede" is a bit more vague than most of
the ColRegs. Most
casual commentators, writing simplified rules for novices, will say that
"shall not
impede" means the same as "keep out of the way off" that implies give-way
status.
However, this is not the intent of the wording. "Shall not impede the
safe passage" means
that a vessel which might ordinarily have stand-on status, must leave the
other vessel a
reasonable amount of room to pass. The stand-on/give-way relationship
still holds, but
now the stand-on vessel may be required to alter course to accommodate the
other vessel.

The meaning of this, in practice, depends a lot on the actual situation.
For instance,
Rule 9(b) says that a vessel under 20 meters or a sailboat shall not
impede a vessel that
can only navigate within a channel - but it doesn't say anything about
this vessel - it
may be smaller and less restricted than the sailboat. If the vessel is
actually more
maneuverable than the sailboat, it does not need a "protection" from 9(b).
However, if
the give-way vessel is an oil tanker, it may be on the only reasonable
course, and any
alteration would be impeding its safe passage. Thus, the master of the
sailboat has to
appreciate the handling characteristics of the other vessel.

Since its rather unlikely that the novice small boat operator will
understand the needs of
the large ship, for these boats, interpreting "shall not impede" as
meaning "give-way" is
appropriate. However, it doesn't mean that a smaller power vessel becomes
stand-on WRT a
sailboat because its in a fairway. Thus, the status of vessels implied by
the various
terms of Rules 9 and 10 are not as absolute as the "stand-on/give-way"
status of Rule 18.

There has been much confusion over the use of "impede;" the IMO tried to
clarify this in
Rule 8 with some added clauses - their comments on this make it clear that
"shall not
impede" is not as binding as "shall stay out of the way of," but the words
of Rule 8 often
sound like gibberish. Fortunately, professional mariners seems to
understand it.






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
You tweaked a memory. In SF Bay, there's at least one area which is an
RNA
and
small boats aren't allowed (around Pinole Shoal) and there may be
others,
but
generally, I believe you'll find that everyone's working under the
"shall
not
impede" rule. (I'd love to see some case history on this).
We are talking a legal point here that has room for confusion
regarding
"stand
on" status ..... it's a part of the "Shall Not Impede" rule that many
have
never liked.
I would like to say, you're correct, because the ship shall not be
impeded, he
has stand on status, but G that status is not absolute.

Shen

Use at your own risk! If you really want to get to the bottom of these issues, read
Farwell's. However, they deal almost entirely with large vessel interactions so you have
to use your judgment on how court rulings would apply to small boats.

One thing about SF Bay - the TSS zones that are outside are continued in as Restricted
Zones. Your local Coast Pilot has descriptions of the various TSS and restricted zones.
In addition, the port captain has rather broad authority to add addition safety zones as
needed.

http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/nsd/c...ed-v1-Ch02.pdf



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Jeff,

Great explanation. I'm going to use it if you don't mind.

Jonathan

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Well, (almost) no status is absolute because in (almost) any real life
situation there are
complexities not explicitly mentioned in the rules. For example, there is
no explicit
mention of three vessel situations in the rules.

However, the phrase "shall not impede" is a bit more vague than most of
the ColRegs. Most
casual commentators, writing simplified rules for novices, will say that
"shall not
impede" means the same as "keep out of the way off" that implies give-way
status.
However, this is not the intent of the wording. "Shall not impede the
safe passage" means
that a vessel which might ordinarily have stand-on status, must leave the
other vessel a
reasonable amount of room to pass. The stand-on/give-way relationship
still holds, but
now the stand-on vessel may be required to alter course to accommodate the
other vessel.

The meaning of this, in practice, depends a lot on the actual situation.
For instance,
Rule 9(b) says that a vessel under 20 meters or a sailboat shall not
impede a vessel that
can only navigate within a channel - but it doesn't say anything about
this vessel - it
may be smaller and less restricted than the sailboat. If the vessel is
actually more
maneuverable than the sailboat, it does not need a "protection" from 9(b).
However, if
the give-way vessel is an oil tanker, it may be on the only reasonable
course, and any
alteration would be impeding its safe passage. Thus, the master of the
sailboat has to
appreciate the handling characteristics of the other vessel.

Since its rather unlikely that the novice small boat operator will
understand the needs of
the large ship, for these boats, interpreting "shall not impede" as
meaning "give-way" is
appropriate. However, it doesn't mean that a smaller power vessel becomes
stand-on WRT a
sailboat because its in a fairway. Thus, the status of vessels implied by
the various
terms of Rules 9 and 10 are not as absolute as the "stand-on/give-way"
status of Rule 18.

There has been much confusion over the use of "impede;" the IMO tried to
clarify this in
Rule 8 with some added clauses - their comments on this make it clear that
"shall not
impede" is not as binding as "shall stay out of the way of," but the words
of Rule 8 often
sound like gibberish. Fortunately, professional mariners seems to
understand it.






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
You tweaked a memory. In SF Bay, there's at least one area which is an
RNA
and
small boats aren't allowed (around Pinole Shoal) and there may be
others,
but
generally, I believe you'll find that everyone's working under the
"shall
not
impede" rule. (I'd love to see some case history on this).
We are talking a legal point here that has room for confusion
regarding
"stand
on" status ..... it's a part of the "Shall Not Impede" rule that many
have
never liked.
I would like to say, you're correct, because the ship shall not be
impeded, he
has stand on status, but G that status is not absolute.

Shen

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.

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.

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.

Neal, have you ever been right about ANYTHING???

Bwahahaahahaha!

RB

Neal,
I think you are missing the point that the others are discussing.
It doesn't matter if the "ship" is in a narrow channel or a TSS, the
Rules are still holding them to the stand on/give way status under the
Steering and Sailing Rules.
However, because the vessel which must stay in the narrow channel or
TSS, is working under conditions which potentially limit it's ability to
comply with those rules, they have stated that the vessel which is not
restricted to those confines, shall not impede, even though it may be
the stand on vessel.
They have not relieved the ship of it's obligations, they have just put
the greater obligation onto the smaller vessel to understand those
conditions and give way, no matter what (stand on or give way).

otn

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.

Jonathan,
One thing Shen's memory didn't bring up, and you would need to check
Coast Pilot 7 to confirm this, is that the USCG has designated those TSS
areas in SF Bay, as narrow channels.
In essence, this restricts the ships to staying within the TSS, as well
as telling the small boater, the ship cannot maneuver outside of the TSS
and I don't doubt you can see how this can alter a vessel's actions
versus an at sea TSS.

otn