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.

I cant remember the exact speeds but i was probably going 15-25 miles.
The other boat was doing a good 30+ miles (so i estimate. They are
quick).

I was as much on the side of the channel (driving out to the sea from
the harbor) as you can be.

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.

Matt

On 27 Jun 2005 17:16:40 -0700, wrote:

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.

I cant remember the exact speeds but i was probably going 15-25 miles.
The other boat was doing a good 30+ miles (so i estimate. They are
quick).

I was as much on the side of the channel (driving out to the sea from
the harbor) as you can be.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

BG I'm going to assume your reply is meant to emphasize the same point
in a different manner.
BTW, VTS/TSS schemes are not limited to "International" waters.

otn

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:23:02 GMT, Red Cloud®
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:03:54 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

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.

I guess it's time for me to hit the books for a se/arious review!

Yes - and don't forget to use a dictionary.

Or a spell checker.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:45:36 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

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

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.

BG I'm going to assume your reply is meant to emphasize the same point
in a different manner.
BTW, VTS/TSS schemes are not limited to "International" waters.

Yep - we pretty discussed that one to death. :)

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

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?

;)

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.

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. :)