Rules of the road on the Chesepeake Bay

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by StuM

It should be Point 1 in any course teaching "rules of the road" or whatever you want to call it.

I wish people would stop referring to them as "rules of the road"

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Pete7

By whom?



Pete

Pete:

COLREGS carriage is required for all vessels 12m and over operating on "Inland" waters of the US.

Not a rule you would be aware of unless you'd boated here or had something similar in the U.K.

Adelie

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

The courts disagree with you. The rules are pretty clear and the court findings I'm familiar with agree with the more deterministic interpretations in this thread. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of recreational and even commercial fisherman who don't understand them...............

It's pretty easy to say this or post it but without examples, it's just your opinion.

I call BS.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Pete7

I wish people would stop referring to them as "rules of the road"

Yea, you can wish whatever you want to but you will find that term used in boating safety classes all over the country. And of course the term "right of way" is also used.

I don't think you or a bunch of people on a boating forum are going to be able to change this.

The idea is to have people understand what they are trying to teach.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Pete:

COLREGS carriage is required for all vessels 12m and over operating on "Inland" waters of the US. .......

1) Not every boat is 12m and over.

2) Carrying a rule book and memorizing the contents are two very different things.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Good, because if he is using a pot hauler to lift a string of pots he isn't going anywhere fast and probably not keeping a good look out if he is on his own either. Since he can't move and lift pots at the same time surely he is therefore restricted in his ability to manoeuver, yes / no?

With respect to the rules, no.

(g) (continued) The term “vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver” shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

What is included is clear. While not limited it is apparent from context that a small boat with a pot hauler doesn't fit the definition.

Originally Posted by rwidman

It's pretty easy to say this or post it but without examples, it's just your opinion.

I call BS.

That's very nice for you. You are being argumentative without substance. It isn't worth arguing the point. Believe what you like. When you get in trouble some day the courts will set you straight, if your insurance company doesn't clarify matters for you first.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Pete:

COLREGS carriage is required for all vessels 12m and over operating on "Inland" waters of the US.

Not a rule you would be aware of unless you'd boated here or had something similar in the U.K.

Adelie

Ah, thanks, I was wondering having not heard of that before.

Pete

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by rwidman

1) 2) Carrying a rule book and memorizing the contents are two very different things.

Sounds like rules for canals in some parts of Europe, you shall carry a set of the Dutch rules written in, Dutch, whether you can read and speak Dutch or not, oh and an English translated version isn't available

Pete

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rwidman

It's pretty easy to say this or post it but without examples, it's just your opinion.

I call BS.

It's just his opinion, that courts follow the COLREGs in collision cases? Are you really saying that?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

With respect to the rules, no.

What is included is clear. While not limited it is apparent from context that a small boat with a pot hauler doesn't fit the definition.

. . .

Indeed. It's a fairly common misunderstanding, that RAM and CBD are some kind of general concepts which apply to any vessel which we might think or fantasize is "unmaneuverable", so justifying ignoring the order of maneuvering set out in the Rules.

In fact both of these statuses are quite narrow and specific, and apply only in specific cases, and -- N.B.! -- only when appropriate signals are displayed.

Now, that doesn't mean you don't take into consideration the practical situation -- a large vessel can't maneuver effectively at very short distances, and can't maneuver into water shallower than its draft. You are not required, and indeed not allowed, to stand-on in a situation where the give-way vessel does not have an effective maneuver.

And I think that also applies to fishing vessels handling pots. They are just like any other PDV under the Rules, but if you have reason to believe that they are not going to take up their role as the give-way vessel, then you should maneuver yourself. You MUST do it no later than when only your maneuver can save the situation, but you also must do it in a seamanlike way, which means not waiting until the last minute, for a maneuver you know is not going to come.

I've said it before -- standing-on is an obligation in front of the give-way vessel. If the give-way vessel is not going to take up the chance to maneuver, for whatever reason, then you have to do it yourself -- avoiding a collision is an obligation you have at all times.

This is why the concept of "right of way" is SO harmful and SO misleading -- it sounds like something the stand-on vessel can "waive" -- we heard it even in this very thread -- and even much worse than that, it sounds like it gives you the right to EXPECT the give-way vessel to maneuver. In fact, you have no right to waive the obligation to stand-on without a good reason, and you have no right whatsoever (!) to EXPECT the give-way vessel to maneuver.

If you understand this properly, then the busy fisherman is NO PROBLEM. It is NOT an imposition on you, that you will be doing the maneuvering, rather than him. His refusing or failing to maneuver does NOT add to your responsibility -- it merely gives you a free hand in determining how to cross with him. Just cheerfully go around him, and wish him a good catch.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

With respect to the rules, no.

What is included is clear. While not limited it is apparent from context that a small boat with a pot hauler doesn't fit the definition. .

Well, I am not a lawyer, but the way I read your quote sub para (G) is very clear "shall include but not be limited to"

Size of boat or the reason doesn't make any difference, "not be limited to" certainly does.

Happy to agree to disagree on this.

Pete

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Well, I am not a lawyer, but the way I read your quote sub para (G) is very clear "shall include but not be limited to"

Size of boat or the reason doesn't make any difference, "not be limited to" certainly does.

Happy to agree to disagree on this.

Pete

Hi Pete:

I appreciate how you're reading this, but Auspicious is actually right. This is what Cockcroft says:

"This is an enlarged version of the definition given in Rule 1 of the
1960 Rules. The important phrase ‘which restrict manaeuvrability’
has been added to make it clear that small vessels such as pleasure
craft fishing with a few short lines or other small gear which does not
appreciably affect their ability to manaeuvre are not entitled to the
degree of privilege allocated to vessels engaged in fishing by Rule 18
and must not show the lights and shapes prescribed in Rule 26."

And don't forget that the status doesn't exist without the signals.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Yea, you can wish whatever you want to but you will find that term used in boating safety classes all over the country. And of course the term "right of way" is also used.

And that is my point, half the world drives on the other side of the road, not a great analogy for students trying to learn something new.

Pete

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. It's a fairly common misunderstanding, that RAM and CBD are some kind of general concepts which apply to any vessel which we might think or fantasize is "unmaneuverable", so justifying ignoring the order of maneuvering set out in the Rules.

I agree with you in principle. Interestingly enough CBD is a concept absent from the US Inland Rules. Isn't that interesting?

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Now, that doesn't mean you don't take into consideration the practical situation -- a large vessel can't maneuver effectively at very short distances, and can't maneuver into water shallower than its draft. You are not required, and indeed not allowed, to stand-on in a situation where the give-way vessel does not have an effective maneuver.

I agree. I would go further to say that there is room on the water for polite behavior. I got a call from an oceangoing tug with a long tow at the mouth of the US Delaware Bay asking MY intentions. Okay, it was February and there weren't a lot of sailboats out there. *grin* I was stand-on (under sail and starboard vessel) and he was give-way. I said my intention was to ease my main sheet a bit (slow down) and come left about 10° (slow down and change COG) and take his stern. No real impact on me and lots less on him. Why not be polite. We communicated (as in the Rules) and agreed on a course of action (as in the Rules). Of course in the absence of communications the Rules as written prevail.

As I noted above I apply courtesy to working watermen until they prove they are not deserving of courtesy at which point I fall back on the word of the Rules, including everyone being responsible for avoiding collision.

Originally Posted by Pete7

Well, I am not a lawyer, but the way I read your quote sub para (G) is very clear "shall include but not be limited to"

As I said above Pete:

What is included is clear. While not limited it is apparent from context that a small boat with a pot hauler doesn't fit the definition.

Read the Rules, from which I extracted the relevant bits. Every example is big and seriously restricted in their ability to maneuver. If a court in any nation reads those examples it will be pretty clear that a waterman in a 9m boat hauling crab pots is no more restricted in their ability to maneuver than a shorthanded sailboat under spinnaker or a power boat towing a water skier. Can you really compare those craft to a ship laying cable or undergoing UNREP?

Again, there is room for civility afloat and I won't go out of my way to conflict with watermen, or even the drunken recreational fishing boat with planing boards out. I'll go out of my way to give them room, when I can, even though I don't have to.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Yea, you can wish whatever you want to but you will find that term used in boating safety classes all over the country. And of course the term "right of way" is also used.

First of course there are a lot of countries, which is why international agreement led to the COLREGS, even though the US have their own version in the Inland Rules.

Just because someone stands up in front of a classroom and uses the wrong terminology doesn't make it correct. On the water there is no "right of way." There is stand on and give-way. All that change more than twenty years ago I believe.