| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Question: Right of way
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 |
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. So, you did the correct thing by taking action to avoid a collision, even though the collision would have been caused by the other boat turning into you. 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 |
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". |
are you sure? I read that commercial vessels always have the right of
way over pleasure crafts... i.e. a tanker wont stop to let a 19 ft boat from the right go by ;) Matt |
would this situation warrant a friendly reminder on Ch 16 that he may
want to open his eyes or study the regulations? ;) |
Commercial isn't the keyword. Many pleasure craft are larger than commercial
vessels; think about fishing boats. A tanker is more than a commercial vessel; it's big and may be constrained in it's ability to move: a small boat must stay clear. wrote in message oups.com... are you sure? I read that commercial vessels always have the right of way over pleasure crafts... i.e. a tanker wont stop to let a 19 ft boat from the right go by ;) Matt |
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 Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:39:14 -0700, "William Andersen"
wrote: 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. Not true. There is no distinction between "commercial" and pleasure. There is a distinction between fishing, size and/or maneuverability with respect to other vessels. We really don't have enough information on this because Matt didn't specify if he was upbound and downbound as specified in Inland Rule #14. Inland Rule 9(d) covers this, but it's kind of iffy based on Matt's information. Inland Rule 10 also might apply. If Matt was in a recognized Traffic Separation Scheme - your side, my side kind of thing- then the turn may have been entirely legal, but it appears to be unlikely. Everyone has to avoid a collision. International Rule 7 and 8 - exactly right. |
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. :) |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:01:48 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:39:14 -0700, "William Andersen" wrote: 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. Not true. There is no distinction between "commercial" and pleasure. There is a distinction between fishing, size and/or maneuverability with respect to other vessels. We really don't have enough information on this because Matt didn't specify if he was upbound and downbound as specified in Inland Rule #14. Inland Rule 9(d) covers this, but it's kind of iffy based on Matt's information. Inland Rule 10 also might apply. If Matt was in a recognized Traffic Separation Scheme - your side, my side kind of thing- then the turn may have been entirely legal, but it appears to be unlikely. Everyone has to avoid a collision. International Rule 7 and 8 - exactly right. Whoops - International/Inland rule 7 and 8. My bad. |
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". Agreed. Unfortunately the waterways are full of dick-heads who do not know the right-of-way rules or who just don't care. You have to look out for yourself and not let these knuckle-draggers spoil your boating fun. Although by god there are times I really wish I had some small torpedos on board! -- Peter Aitken |
|
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 |
My opinion -- I always say..BIGGER boats always have the right of way!! Just
kidding. I think everyone should try and avoid any collision!! -- Bill & Debbie 04 -- Yam TTR125 (Electric Start) 04 -- Honda XR400 04 -- Honda XR150 04 -- Honda CRF50 04 & 05 (Grandkids) "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:01:48 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:39:14 -0700, "William Andersen" wrote: 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. Not true. There is no distinction between "commercial" and pleasure. There is a distinction between fishing, size and/or maneuverability with respect to other vessels. We really don't have enough information on this because Matt didn't specify if he was upbound and downbound as specified in Inland Rule #14. Inland Rule 9(d) covers this, but it's kind of iffy based on Matt's information. Inland Rule 10 also might apply. If Matt was in a recognized Traffic Separation Scheme - your side, my side kind of thing- then the turn may have been entirely legal, but it appears to be unlikely. Everyone has to avoid a collision. International Rule 7 and 8 - exactly right. Whoops - International/Inland rule 7 and 8. My bad. |
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". |
wrote in message oups.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. otn |
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". |
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.... :) |
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. |
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. |
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 |
|
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 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. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com