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

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.

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.

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

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.

Matt


Try Rule 2

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. :)