wrote in message
oups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even though, in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

OK, but commercial/pleasure doesn't matter. What does matter is
participation in a VTS,

**********

Please don't overlook the fact that only commercial vessels are
*required* to participate in VTS.

he was thinking something like that:

"Oh, I think if I showed off and cut a tight turn, zip along the jetty
my passengers would think I am cool. They would also see those cool
bald eagles and recommend me to their freinds. But what is that? A
pleasure craft is right where I want to drive... Eh, no biggie! He
will move when I approach with high speed"

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jun 2005 18:08:29 -0700, wrote:

He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.

Even more so then. I can only assume he wasn't keeping proper watch
because that is a pretty stupid thing to do.


I think the thing to do was call on Channel 16 and ask "the whale watch boat
that just cut across the channel and almost head on crashed into me, except
for my evasive manuevers, what were you thinking?" Now it is public info
and the CG has heard the discussion. And they may contact the Whale Watch
boat for a little palaver.

On 27 Jun 2005 18:12:50 -0700, wrote:

DEMOCRATS SUCK!!! REPUBLICANS RULE!!!

There, that should get things back on track.

ROFL!!!

well, how would the orignal sitiuation be asessed if one captn was
Democrat and the other republican? Who would then have the right of
way?

;)
It would go to the Supreme Court and only god knows how that would
come out.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:18:59 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even though, in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

Are you saying that the rules discussion was wrong?

Come on - admit it - you learned something didn't you? :)

wrote:
When he crossed and went on a collision course with my boat I had about
5-10 seconds to turn away or he would have mowed me down.


Hmm, yes, that is a bit too close for comfort; I'd say he broke the
rules. In fact that's a bit too close even if he had signalled his
intentions first.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Don't say there isn't a law - he clearly was in the wrong - we're not
suggesting anything other wise. We were just arguing some fine points
in the Collision Regulations that govern how these incidents are
investigated and in the assigning of blame.

You cannot directly place your vessel in direct harm to you or others
by abrupt changes of direction or speed.

Clearly, he either didn't see you, or he abused his status as the
larger vessel.

Or he's just a flaming bonehead. They're out there.


Fortunately, you did the right thing.

By the way, in this case, Rule 15, Crossing Situation applied to this
as I understand you which clearly places the burden on him.

If they were in a narrow channel, would it be a crossing situation? I
was thinking that the other boat could have just signalled a starboard
side (two whistle) pass... and of course, given a lot more sea room to
the oncoming vessel...

DSK

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:38:12 -0400, DSK wrote:

wrote:
When he crossed and went on a collision course with my boat I had about
5-10 seconds to turn away or he would have mowed me down.


Hmm, yes, that is a bit too close for comfort; I'd say he broke the
rules. In fact that's a bit too close even if he had signalled his
intentions first.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Don't say there isn't a law - he clearly was in the wrong - we're not
suggesting anything other wise. We were just arguing some fine points
in the Collision Regulations that govern how these incidents are
investigated and in the assigning of blame.

You cannot directly place your vessel in direct harm to you or others
by abrupt changes of direction or speed.

Clearly, he either didn't see you, or he abused his status as the
larger vessel.

Or he's just a flaming bonehead. They're out there.


Fortunately, you did the right thing.

By the way, in this case, Rule 15, Crossing Situation applied to this
as I understand you which clearly places the burden on him.

If they were in a narrow channel, would it be a crossing situation? I
was thinking that the other boat could have just signalled a starboard
side (two whistle) pass... and of course, given a lot more sea room to
the oncoming vessel...

True - late ron we found that the boat was head on and placed as such
in a deliberate manner.

You are right - bone heads are every where.

William Andersen wrote:
What does matter for example, constrained by
draft to operation in the channel.

You might want to be careful with this term. As it has no menaing
inside the US Colregs demarcation line. Many participants here will
never venture to a place where Constrained by Draft would apply.

Unless the vessel crossing the channel had dayshapes up for Not Under
Command. If she had perhaps a rudder casualty.

Granted the guy/gal was probably just a bone head. But nothing much has
een said about any dayshapses, lights or audible signals that were or
were not present.

On 28 Jun 2005 05:09:01 -0700, wrote:

Unless the vessel crossing the channel had dayshapes up for Not Under
Command. If she had perhaps a rudder casualty.

Granted the guy/gal was probably just a bone head. But nothing much has
een said about any dayshapses, lights or audible signals that were or
were not present.

I haven't seen a dayshape on any tug, fishing vessel or bouy tender in
years - like almost 25 or so and I travel through some of the most
heavily traveled areas in the world. :)

What Matt eventually detailed was a bone head maneuver on the part of
a tour boat operator who had pudding for brains.

On 28 Jun 2005 04:55:45 -0700, wrote:



William Andersen wrote:
What does matter for example, constrained by
draft to operation in the channel.

You might want to be careful with this term. As it has no menaing
inside the US Colregs demarcation line. Many participants here will
never venture to a place where Constrained by Draft would apply.

That's not true. Narragansett Bay is a prime example of CbD vessels
along with parts of Long Island Sound around New Haven, New London and
Bridgeport. Also in the Rules there are numerous mentions of vessels
doing this or that in relation to available depth of water.

This is a pretty big newsgroup with lots of people in the strangest
places. :)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:45:10 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 04:55:45 -0700, wrote:



William Andersen wrote:

What does matter for example, constrained by
draft to operation in the channel.


You might want to be careful with this term. As it has no menaing
inside the US Colregs demarcation line. Many participants here will
never venture to a place where Constrained by Draft would apply.


That's not true. Narragansett Bay is a prime example of CbD vessels
along with parts of Long Island Sound around New Haven, New London and
Bridgeport. Also in the Rules there are numerous mentions of vessels
doing this or that in relation to available depth of water.

This is a pretty big newsgroup with lots of people in the strangest
places. :)

And some of the strangest people in lots of places.

Or that.

The difference is that on Inland Waters a vessel that would be
Constrained by Draft, under International Rules. Becomes a Vessel
Restricted in Ability to Manuver.

Granted the guy/gal was probably just a bone head. But nothing much has
een said about any dayshapses, lights or audible signals that were or
were not present.


Making assumptions again... probably weren't any...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I haven't seen a dayshape on any tug, fishing vessel or bouy tender in
years - like almost 25 or so and I travel through some of the most
heavily traveled areas in the world. :)

Really? We travel the ICW from Baltimore south to Charleston several
times a year, and see day shapes all the time. They're not common on
private vessels, but all the bouy tenders & dredges show them... some of
the tugs use little tiny ones that you can't see unless you're already
'way 'way too close.



What Matt eventually detailed was a bone head maneuver on the part of
a tour boat operator who had pudding for brains.

Agreed... actually, it sounds like pudding would be an improvement over
what that tour boat operator has for brains...

DSK

On 28 Jun 2005 07:07:36 -0700, wrote:

The difference is that on Inland Waters a vessel that would be
Constrained by Draft, under International Rules. Becomes a Vessel
Restricted in Ability to Manuver.

Ok, I'm game - what is the difference?

It's my understanding that Constrained by Draft is for deep draft
vessels operating in channels or deep fairways - they can still stop
and maneuver, etc, but only within the confines of their draft.

Restricted Ability to Maneuver covers a whole variety of things from
WIGs to long/short tows, tows in constrained areas, operational
problems - in short the restricted ability to deviate from a course
for reasons other than draft.

If that's not correct, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

Yes this was an example of a bone headed maneuver. But I can think of
several slight variations on this event. That would have changed who
was stand on vs. give way. If the commercial vessel was RAM/CBD and
needed the other side of the marked channel for deepest water. etc.
Just because there are plenty of idiots at the helm of commercial
craft. Does not mean that commercial craft are always in the wrong.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I haven't seen a dayshape on any tug, fishing vessel or bouy tender in
years - like almost 25 or so and I travel through some of the most
heavily traveled areas in the world. :)


Interesting ..... My observation is that the above groups are the most
prolific users of "day shapes".

otn

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:



That's not true. Narragansett Bay is a prime example of CbD vessels
along with parts of Long Island Sound around New Haven, New London and
Bridgeport. Also in the Rules there are numerous mentions of vessels
doing this or that in relation to available depth of water.


A number of issues here are regarding specific wording within the Rules.
"Constrained by Draft" is only used in International rules, since it can
easily apply to an area which is totally unmarked as to a specific channel.
Although the term itself can easily be used to discuss vessels in a
narrow confined inland channel, for the purposes of a "Rules" discussion
and particularly a "Rules" test, this can lead to problems within the
discussion.
The same applies to "Right of way" and to VTS/TSS.
One other point ..... what may be a large open bay/channel to a small
boat, can easily be a narrow confined channel to a ship.

otn

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:32:42 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I haven't seen a dayshape on any tug, fishing vessel or bouy tender in
years - like almost 25 or so and I travel through some of the most
heavily traveled areas in the world. :)


Interesting ..... My observation is that the above groups are the most
prolific users of "day shapes".

Where would that be because they sure as hell don't up in the area I
run in.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:54:07 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:



That's not true. Narragansett Bay is a prime example of CbD vessels
along with parts of Long Island Sound around New Haven, New London and
Bridgeport. Also in the Rules there are numerous mentions of vessels
doing this or that in relation to available depth of water.


A number of issues here are regarding specific wording within the Rules.
"Constrained by Draft" is only used in International rules, since it can
easily apply to an area which is totally unmarked as to a specific channel.
Although the term itself can easily be used to discuss vessels in a
narrow confined inland channel, for the purposes of a "Rules" discussion
and particularly a "Rules" test, this can lead to problems within the
discussion.
The same applies to "Right of way" and to VTS/TSS.
One other point ..... what may be a large open bay/channel to a small
boat, can easily be a narrow confined channel to a ship.

That's my point and I can't find anywhere in the rules where CbD is
restricted to International rules.

In my opinion you clearly had the "right of way" by being on your side of
the channel, wide enough for two boats to pass safely, but according to
regulations, you also clearly had the responsibility of avoiding a collision
(by taking the evasive maneuver you did). Look at this site (and back up to
get to the beginning if you're interested.
LD
http://boat-ed.com/wa/course/p3-3_en...ringothers.htm

wrote in message
oups.com...
Folks,

I would like to ask for some opinions on this scenarios (happened to me
a while a go).

I am driving along with my pleasure craft on my side of a fairly narrow
channel.

A whale watcbing boat comes with high speed on his side of the channel

so far so good

But then, he cuts across the channel with pretty quick speed and goes
on a collision course with my craft. He did this so his passengers
could have a look at some bald eagles.

I steered out of his way as common sense commands.
But I wonder was that legal of him ? I know pleasure craft have to
yield to commercial crafts. so I have to yield but doesnt the means he
is on HIS side?

Would like to know whats the law in this case

Thanks,

Matt

P.S.
Please refrain from comments like " If you dont know you shouldnt be on
the water" and such

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:32:42 GMT, otnmbrd

Interesting ..... My observation is that the above groups are the most
prolific users of "day shapes".


Where would that be because they sure as hell don't up in the area I
run in.

Nowadays I'm generally restricted to So. Cal. However I "sailed" for
many years on the entire East, Gulf, and West Coast and rarely saw any
of the above NOT using day shapes ..... waddahey, things can change.

otn

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:54:07 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

A number of issues here are regarding specific wording within the Rules.
"Constrained by Draft" is only used in International rules, since it can
easily apply to an area which is totally unmarked as to a specific channel.
Although the term itself can easily be used to discuss vessels in a
narrow confined inland channel, for the purposes of a "Rules" discussion
and particularly a "Rules" test, this can lead to problems within the
discussion.
The same applies to "Right of way" and to VTS/TSS.
One other point ..... what may be a large open bay/channel to a small
boat, can easily be a narrow confined channel to a ship.


That's my point and I can't find anywhere in the rules where CbD is
restricted to International rules.

The term "constrained by draft" is only used in International Rule 18
and is not used in the US Inland Rule 18.
Basically the term can be said to apply, in reality, to narrow channels
where a vessel can only navigate within the channel, but for the
purposes of the "Rules" and a discussion, it's normally noted that CBD
is an International Rule not found in US Inland Rules .... i.e. aside
from the fact that it doesn't apply between ships (Inland), there would
be no signal for it.

otn

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:00:12 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:


wrote:

When he crossed and went on a collision course with my boat I had about
5-10 seconds to turn away or he would have mowed me down.

If there is no law against crossing channels and purposely going on
collision course at high speeds with other boats for no particular
reason, then it should be. And i am no one who wants laws more than
necessary.

Try Rule 2


I had the pleasure of participating in full Court of Inquiry for a
ship sinking in the mid-70's - it was basically sitting around and
waiting, but I got a chance to hear some of the testimony and talked
to some maritime attorneys involved - it was really interesting.

The one thing that most of the attorneys involved agreed with is that
the Col Regs is that the USCG can interpret them anyway they feel like
it.

Oh, and that most of the time, they will find ALL participants at
fault. :)


True:

They usually figure out a percentage and lay blame that way. I use to
follow boating accidents via several web sites. Just looking for what
was the most common causes and or contributing factors etc.

Most seem to be closed up, but I use to be able to find some pretty good
information.

Capt Jack R..

Jack Redington wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:



Oh, and that most of the time, they will find ALL participants at
fault. :)


True:

They usually figure out a percentage and lay blame that way. I use to
follow boating accidents via several web sites. Just looking for what
was the most common causes and or contributing factors etc.

Most seem to be closed up, but I use to be able to find some pretty good
information.

Capt Jack R..


When you get right down to it, if you look at the rules, IF you have a
collision, the odds on you having done everything correctly are in the
"slim to none" category, which leads to proportioned blame ..... BG
exceptions noted.

otn

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:12:05 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Jack Redington wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Oh, and that most of the time, they will find ALL participants at
fault. :)

True:

They usually figure out a percentage and lay blame that way. I use to
follow boating accidents via several web sites. Just looking for what
was the most common causes and or contributing factors etc.

Most seem to be closed up, but I use to be able to find some pretty good
information.

When you get right down to it, if you look at the rules, IF you have a
collision, the odds on you having done everything correctly are in the
"slim to none" category, which leads to proportioned blame ..... BG
exceptions noted.

OH - OH - let me write that down.

"proportioned blame"

Love it. :)

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:18:59 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but
the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even though,
in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the
other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

Are you saying that the rules discussion was wrong?

Come on - admit it - you learned something didn't you? :)

Perhaps, but after almost 60 replies to a simple question, most with
contradictory information, I have to wonder.

My bottom line? Invoke the rules of the road when they pertain.....invoke
common sense at all other times if it means keeping your boat in tact and
you/your crew/your guests safe.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:23:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:18:59 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but
the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even though,
in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the
other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

Are you saying that the rules discussion was wrong?

Come on - admit it - you learned something didn't you? :)

Perhaps, but after almost 60 replies to a simple question, most with
contradictory information, I have to wonder.

My bottom line? Invoke the rules of the road when they pertain.....invoke
common sense at all other times if it means keeping your boat in tact and
you/your crew/your guests safe.

Were you born sour and bitter or is this a recent thing?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:23:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:18:59 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
legroups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but
the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even
though,
in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the
other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

Are you saying that the rules discussion was wrong?

Come on - admit it - you learned something didn't you? :)

Perhaps, but after almost 60 replies to a simple question, most with
contradictory information, I have to wonder.

My bottom line? Invoke the rules of the road when they
pertain.....invoke
common sense at all other times if it means keeping your boat in tact and
you/your crew/your guests safe.

Were you born sour and bitter or is this a recent thing?

I don't know. But I guess I have to jump in when you get 50 different
replies on how to change a light bulb when the common sense answer is
staring you in the face.

Have you *ever* jaywalked Tom?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:12:05 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:


When you get right down to it, if you look at the rules, IF you have a
collision, the odds on you having done everything correctly are in the
"slim to none" category, which leads to proportioned blame ..... BG
exceptions noted.

OH - OH - let me write that down.

"proportioned blame"

Love it. :)


Can't remember if I got that from a "Perry Mason" or "Law and Order" show.

otn