On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:53:43 GMT, "otnmbrd"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Folks,


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?

There's too much missing info here to make a positive answer, but generally,
if he made that maneuver to get a better look at some
"eagles" and thusly created a dangerous condition for you ..... the maneuver
was NOT legal.
Second point: Pleasure craft are NOT required to yield to commercial craft,
simply because one is "pleasure" and one is "commercial".
It is the condition of meeting that dictates who must yield.

Hey guys, you got ta get rid of this "commercial" idea - there ain't
no such concept. A vessel may be performing an act pertaining to
business or commerce, but it isn't considered "commercial". The
proper way is defined as to the vessel's ability to maneuver - not by
the fact that it's a "commercial" vessel.

On the common sense -- But I look at it that if you are an idiot, rules and
common sense are thrown out the window. I can see why there are so many
boating accidents.
Here at one of the Lakes, Lake Castaic I believe, a 34' speed boat was doing
a pretty good speed, obviously well over the 35mph, (which we all go faster)
but this guy was moving. Down by the damn area alot of the boats just float
around. This guy ended up hitting one and killing 3 people. Idiot, no
common sense and no respect for other people in the area.
I will try and do anything I can to get out of the way of anything that
might be coming our way looking like its on a collision course, Rules or no
Rules.
Just a scaredy Cat....lol.....yea..i can swim also...

--
Bill & Debbie
93 Mariah 22'

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:22:59 GMT, "William Smith"
wrote:

My opinion -- I always say..BIGGER boats always have the right of way!!
Just
kidding. I think everyone should try and avoid any collision!!

That's a given - common sense and all that.

In fact, it wasn't but a few years ago - I want to say around ten or
thereabouts, where the rules were changed because some idiot on Long
Island Sound in a sail boat cut right across the bow of a tanker and
was sunk. It was even caught on video tape.

The idiot on the sail boat sued the tanker owners on right-of-way
issues and won - thus the rules change.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Nope - had this discussion once already years ago. Rule 3 specifies
the following: 3(o) "Inland Waters" means the navigable waters of the
United States shoreward ... (snip for brevity)

Hey back up a minute.

Did I say that these waters aren't covered by ColRegs?

No.

Did you say that they have a Traffic Seperation plan?

Yes.

Is Inland Rule 9 the same as a Traffic Seperation Plan, such as you find
in the approaches to major ports like New York, Norfolk, etc etc?

No.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good night

BTW I'd like to thank you and others for contributing to a genuine
boating related thread. There is a crying need for public discussion of
how to properly conduct a boat in the presence of other boats, and
ships, etc etc.

DSK

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:16:37 GMT, "William Smith"
wrote:

On the common sense -- But I look at it that if you are an idiot, rules and
common sense are thrown out the window. I can see why there are so many
boating accidents.
Here at one of the Lakes, Lake Castaic I believe, a 34' speed boat was doing
a pretty good speed, obviously well over the 35mph, (which we all go faster)
but this guy was moving. Down by the damn area alot of the boats just float
around. This guy ended up hitting one and killing 3 people. Idiot, no
common sense and no respect for other people in the area.
I will try and do anything I can to get out of the way of anything that
might be coming our way looking like its on a collision course, Rules or no
Rules.
Just a scaredy Cat....lol.....yea..i can swim also...

Sometimes you just want to reach down, pick up a 10 gauge shotgun
loaded with 00 buckshot and blast away.

Since the typical recreational boater can't tell the difference between
day shapes for "RAM", "Not Under Command", and "Mistress stay away the
wife is onboard". It is generally best for them to assume they are the
give way vessel. Particularly with regards to craft which are larger
and/or may have more difficulty in manuvering. It may be that this
particular Whale Watch boat was bending the rules. But if he had used
sound signal to indicate that he intended to leave you on his Starboard
Side. Would the OP have recognized it and known what to do. Would the
average recreational boater have known what to do?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:35:30 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Nope - had this discussion once already years ago. Rule 3 specifies
the following: 3(o) "Inland Waters" means the navigable waters of the
United States shoreward ... (snip for brevity)

Hey back up a minute.

Did I say that these waters aren't covered by ColRegs?

"Traffic separation schemes have the same legal force as ColRegs, but
they are usually for approaching busy ports, or transiting waters
thick with commercial traffic (like say, the English Channel
fr'instance). In a narrow inland channel, no such anny-mull."

No.

Yes.

Did you say that they have a Traffic Seperation plan?

Yes.

Is Inland Rule 9 the same as a Traffic Seperation Plan, such as you find
in the approaches to major ports like New York, Norfolk, etc etc?

No.

Yes it is. You are required, as much as is possible, to stay to the
starboard side of the channel either upbound or downbound. Paragraph
9 (a) (i) first sentence. That is separation of traffic anyway you
cut it.

For that matter, you can cruise in the middle of an narrow channel,
but you still have to stay to the right when you have oncoming
traffic.

Rules of the road - separation of traffic.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good night

Try the salad, but the fish is a little off.

ba-da-boom.

BTW I'd like to thank you and others for contributing to a genuine
boating related thread. There is a crying need for public discussion of
how to properly conduct a boat in the presence of other boats, and
ships, etc etc.

DEMOCRATS SUCK!!! REPUBLICANS RULE!!!

There, that should get things back on track.

"Traffic separation schemes have the same legal force as ColRegs, but
they are usually for approaching busy ports, or transiting waters
thick with commercial traffic (like say, the English Channel
fr'instance). In a narrow inland channel, no such anny-mull."

Ah, I see. I should have repeated the phrase "Traffic Seperation" just
to make sure that it was clear I meant that, not ColRegs.

There are ColRegs for everywhere.


Is Inland Rule 9 the same as a Traffic Seperation Plan, such as you find
in the approaches to major ports like New York, Norfolk, etc etc?

No.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Yes it is. You are required, as much as is possible, to stay to the
starboard side of the channel either upbound or downbound. Paragraph
9 (a) (i) first sentence. That is separation of traffic anyway you
cut it.


It may be "seperation of traffic" but it's not a Traffic Seperation
Plan, nor does it designate lanes. Look at a chart of Boston Harbor
approaches some time, you might find it interesting... there are very
definite lanes marked on the chart, and there is a designated Traffic
Seperation Plan which is called that by name (so as to distinguish it
from other things) and which has the force of ColRegs. And yes, the
harbor master and the USCG will give tickets for vessels who violate it.


For that matter, you can cruise in the middle of an narrow channel,
but you still have to stay to the right when you have oncoming
traffic.

That in no way forbids a boat from going to the left side of the
channel, nor does it obligate *all* vessels to *always* pass port-to-port.

There seems to be an idea among many boaters that the rules of the road
forbid another boat from being in their way, from inducing them to turn
or (God forbid!) to slow down. That ain't the case *at all*.

In the case mentioned by the original poster, a tourist boat coming over
to the left side of the channel to watch wildlife, is totally kosher
*if* the maneuver presented no imminent danger of collision.

Since the original poster did not mention such things as slamming into
reverse, putting the helm hard over, and narrowly avoiding collisions, I
assumed that none of these things took place and that he was upset
because another boat was on what he thought was 'his side.' Hence my
statement that the water doesn't have little yellow lines on it like a road.



DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!

At least one does, or did. Can't deny that.
Most don't though.

... REPUBLICANS RULE!!!

Also true, unfortunately. But are they doing it well? Facts on the
ground suggest not


There, that should get things back on track.

If only it were that easy!

DSK

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:06:46 -0400, DSK wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Since the original poster did not mention such things as slamming into
reverse, putting the helm hard over, and narrowly avoiding collisions, I
assumed that none of these things took place and that he was upset
because another boat was on what he thought was 'his side.' Hence my
statement that the water doesn't have little yellow lines on it like a road.

Ah - well, good points.

DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!

At least one does, or did. Can't deny that.
Most don't though.

You have never lived in Massachusetts or Connecticut have you?

... REPUBLICANS RULE!!!

Also true, unfortunately. But are they doing it well? Facts on the
ground suggest not

Also true. However, I are one, therefore they rule!!!

There, that should get things back on track.

If only it were that easy!

True.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:01 GMT, Red Cloud®
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:06:46 -0400, DSK wrote:

"Traffic separation schemes have the same legal force as ColRegs, but
they are usually for approaching busy ports, or transiting waters
thick with commercial traffic (like say, the English Channel
fr'instance). In a narrow inland channel, no such anny-mull."

Ah, I see. I should have repeated the phrase "Traffic Seperation" just
to make sure that it was clear I meant that, not ColRegs.

What's the difference between traffic separation, and traffic seperation? They
sound so similar.

Separation is down bound and seperation is up bound.

Damn - I thought everybody knew that.

amen
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:53:43 GMT, "otnmbrd"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
Folks,


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?

There's too much missing info here to make a positive answer, but
generally,
if he made that maneuver to get a better look at some
"eagles" and thusly created a dangerous condition for you ..... the
maneuver
was NOT legal.
Second point: Pleasure craft are NOT required to yield to commercial
craft,
simply because one is "pleasure" and one is "commercial".
It is the condition of meeting that dictates who must yield.

Hey guys, you got ta get rid of this "commercial" idea - there ain't
no such concept. A vessel may be performing an act pertaining to
business or commerce, but it isn't considered "commercial". The
proper way is defined as to the vessel's ability to maneuver - not by
the fact that it's a "commercial" vessel.