First, the only time the term right of way is used in the Navigation
Rules,
is in regards to a vessel coming down a river.
Pleasure craft don't have to yield to commercial craft.
Everyone has to avoid a collision.

************

That statement is so broad as to be misleading. It's almost as loose as
"sail always has the right of way over power."

Without looking up the exact number of the Col Reg, there's an
important one that says "no vessel under..... (about 65
feet....20meters?) and no vessel under sail......(regardless if it's a
150-footer)....shall impede any vessel following a VTS channel." As any
boat can follow the VTS if it so chooses, this reg "could" be stretched
to say that any vessel under sail must yield to any vessel under power
in the VTS- but it never is. In most situations where it could be an
issue, "pleasure boats" under 65 feet and all boats under sail
regardless of LOA must stay out of the way of commercial vessels.

You did the correct thing by backing off. No point being "dead right".

would this situation warrant a friendly reminder on Ch 16 that he may
want to open his eyes or study the regulations?

Chuck,
He said it was a narrow channel and the other boat cut across the channel,
on a collision course with him.
Clearly, the other boat was wrong.
Clearly, he did the right thing by avoiding a collision.
Calling him on Channel 16 would be appropriate, but only as an advisory, not
to be accusatory or start an argument . If the other boat never saw him, it
might be a wake up call. I wouldn't expect an answer to that call.

wrote in message
oups.com...
First, the only time the term right of way is used in the Navigation
Rules,
is in regards to a vessel coming down a river.
Pleasure craft don't have to yield to commercial craft.
Everyone has to avoid a collision.

************

That statement is so broad as to be misleading. It's almost as loose as
"sail always has the right of way over power."

Without looking up the exact number of the Col Reg, there's an
important one that says "no vessel under..... (about 65
feet....20meters?) and no vessel under sail......(regardless if it's a
150-footer)....shall impede any vessel following a VTS channel." As any
boat can follow the VTS if it so chooses, this reg "could" be stretched
to say that any vessel under sail must yield to any vessel under power
in the VTS- but it never is. In most situations where it could be an
issue, "pleasure boats" under 65 feet and all boats under sail
regardless of LOA must stay out of the way of commercial vessels.

You did the correct thing by backing off. No point being "dead right".

William Andersen wrote:
Chuck,
He said it was a narrow channel and the other boat cut across the channel,
on a collision course with him.
Clearly, the other boat was wrong.

Clearly, you need to go and *read* the rules. Channels do not have
little yellow lines painted down the middle, like a road.


Clearly, he did the right thing by avoiding a collision.

You're right here.

Calling him on Channel 16 would be appropriate

Calling him on Ch 9 would be more so.

.... but only as an advisory, not
to be accusatory or start an argument .

Really? Are you sure? Maybe the Coast Guard and the FCC would both think
you're doing them all a favor by cussing the guy out on Ch 16


...If the other boat never saw him, it
might be a wake up call. I wouldn't expect an answer to that call.


If that's true then the other boat's captain may need to requalify for
his master's ticket.

It souonds to me as though one or possibly both boats were operating at
an unsafe speed. It also sounds as though several people have no clue
whatever what the actual rules are. I strongly suggest buying... and
*reading* it... although flipping thru it casually looking at the
pictures is better than nothing.

DSK

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 06:57:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

William Andersen wrote:
Chuck,
He said it was a narrow channel and the other boat cut across the channel,
on a collision course with him.
Clearly, the other boat was wrong.

Clearly, you need to go and *read* the rules. Channels do not have
little yellow lines painted down the middle, like a road.

Not exactly.

Traffic Separation Schemes - usually purple lines though, I'll grant
you. :)

It souonds to me as though one or possibly both boats were operating at
an unsafe speed. It also sounds as though several people have no clue
whatever what the actual rules are. I strongly suggest buying... and
*reading* it... although flipping thru it casually looking at the
pictures is better than nothing.

Yeah - but I like the little pictures of lights and stuff. :)

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Traffic Separation Schemes - usually purple lines though, I'll grant
you. :)


Sure.

Traffic seperation 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.



It souonds to me as though one or possibly both boats were operating at
an unsafe speed. It also sounds as though several people have no clue
whatever what the actual rules are. I strongly suggest buying... and
*reading* it... although flipping thru it casually looking at the
pictures is better than nothing.


Yeah - but I like the little pictures of lights and stuff. :)

Me too.

It's a common misconception that boats have to stay on "their" side of
the channel. It's also a common misconception that other boats can't
"turn in front of" you. I guess people think driving a boat is like
driving a car.

It ain't.

Fair Skies
Doug King

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:17:07 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Traffic Separation Schemes - usually purple lines though, I'll grant
you. :)


Sure.

Traffic seperation 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.

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 of the navigational demarcation lines dividing
the high seas from harbors, rivers and other inland waters of the
United States and the waters of the Great Lakes on the United States
side of the International Boundary." 3(p) "Inland Rules" or "Rules"
mean the Inland Navigational Rules and annexes thereto which govern
the conduct of vessels and specify the lights/shapes/sound signals
that apply on Inland Waters..."

In short, any river, stream or tributary inland of the Demarcation
Line that can be transited by any vessel of any size or shape is
considered to be "inland", bound by the Rules and under the
jurisdiction of the USCG.

Which, oddly enough, brings up Rule 9 which governs Narrow Channels.

And so forth.

Now, ask me how I know this - you will be amazed.

It souonds to me as though one or possibly both boats were operating at
an unsafe speed. It also sounds as though several people have no clue
whatever what the actual rules are. I strongly suggest buying... and
*reading* it... although flipping thru it casually looking at the
pictures is better than nothing.

Yeah - but I like the little pictures of lights and stuff. :)

Me too.

It's a common misconception that boats have to stay on "their" side of
the channel. It's also a common misconception that other boats can't
"turn in front of" you. I guess people think driving a boat is like
driving a car.

It ain't.

Oh so true. And try to get some of these clowns to understand the
Right-of-Way rules is - well, it's like pounding your head into a wall
again and again and again.... :)

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

William Andersen Jun 27, 1:32 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: "William Andersen" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:32:29 -0700
Local: Mon,Jun 27 2005 1:32 am
Subject: Question: Right of way
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Chuck,
He said it was a narrow channel and the other boat cut across the
channel,
on a collision course with him.
Clearly, the other boat was wrong.
Clearly, he did the right thing by avoiding a collision.

*********

I agree with those points. My comments had to do with the breadth of
the comment implying that commercial vessels had no special rights of
way- when under a number of common and important circumstances they do.
There is almost no way to know whether any or all of those
circumstances may have applied in this case, but all boaters should be
aware that when encountering a vessel constricted in its ability to
manuever (as by draft, etc) or a power driven vessel following a VTS,
there will be many cases where the vessel ordinarily considered "stand
on" must indeed "give way".

OK, but commercial/pleasure doesn't matter. What does matter is
participation in a VTS, type of power, constrained by draft, etc. Although
commercial vessels are often constrained by draft and restricted to a
channel, etc, it isn't the fact that they are commercial vessels that make
them stand on, it's the fact that they are, for example, constrained by
draft to operation in the channel.


wrote in message
oups.com...
William Andersen Jun 27, 1:32 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: "William Andersen" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:32:29 -0700
Local: Mon,Jun 27 2005 1:32 am
Subject: Question: Right of way
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Chuck,
He said it was a narrow channel and the other boat cut across the
channel,
on a collision course with him.
Clearly, the other boat was wrong.
Clearly, he did the right thing by avoiding a collision.

*********

I agree with those points. My comments had to do with the breadth of
the comment implying that commercial vessels had no special rights of
way- when under a number of common and important circumstances they do.
There is almost no way to know whether any or all of those
circumstances may have applied in this case, but all boaters should be
aware that when encountering a vessel constricted in its ability to
manuever (as by draft, etc) or a power driven vessel following a VTS,
there will be many cases where the vessel ordinarily considered "stand
on" must indeed "give way".