Why Port Side of Channel?

[Cavalier]

As always, single COLREGs should not be followed in isolation. If following COLREGs one ends up looking as though a collision is probable then the stand-on vessel should take all necessary measures to avoid collision as per Rule 17 which deals with the action of the stand-on vessel. it includes the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action.


Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GregoryK

"f you dig around, you find many threads with long debates as to the exact definition of who has right of way in various scenarios. The fact that we get right of way discussion fairly regualrly that go on for pages often with highly experienced captains at odds with each other, suggests they are not clearly written. If they were clearly written, we would get a response or two, everyone would agree and we would move on to the next topic."

The fact that there are discussions about who has "Right of Way" suggests that people don't understand the col-regs. Automobiles and other road vehicles have right of way and the one that does can maneuver pretty much as it desires. The col-regs specify the stand-on and give-way vessels. The stand on vessel must (with some exceptions) continue it's current course and speed, and the give way vessel should alter course and/or speed to avoid a collision. If you are the stand on vessel and were intending to make a turn, you can't.

Just as an example you are under sail and coming up on the inlet to your marina, and intending to make a turn to port to head in. Coming up from behind you is another boat and he moves to pass on your port side. You being the "stand on" vessel can't turn until he clears you. He being the give way vessel is required to maneuver around you. Neither of you has "right of way" to maneuver as you please.


There simple isn't a "right of way" on the water.

Never said people understand them. I said they were not clear...hence the debates over the meaning by well intentioned and experienced boaters.

I'm well aware that some lawyers got ahold of the language and eliminated "right of way". Of course for decades, people just used common sense and didn't intentionally hit other boats because they had "right of way" but suddenly the lawyers got involved and we needed clarification.

By the way, your analogy with a car fails as the vehicle code in most states has a similar clause that you must take all reasonable action to avoid a collision even if you have right of way (very similar to on the water).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

These rules are written more with lawyers in mind than sailors. When you write a rule that is unclear, you have a poorly writen rule. I'd rather a simple straight forward rule that gets very good compliance becuase it's easy to understand but it gives the lawyers fits as opposed to a rule, no one understands and causes many to disregard it but allows the lawyers a very simple and straight forward law suit.

Malarkey! The rules ain't perfect, but they are definitely understandable. You stated that you thought a rule was opposite - what rule were you talking about? Was it Rule 9? Did you think it said vessels should travel on the port side of a channel?

No, I said I knew the correct answer before reading the actual languge but in reading the gobbldy gook language, it had me thinking at first that it was the opposite. It took me a few times reading it thru and carefully considering each word to realize that it does match what I originally believed to be the correct answer. When you have to read something multiple times to get the meaning and you already knew the meaning, that's not clearly writen.

You are discussing a situation where practicability would dictate a departure from a strict interpretation - that's accounted for in the rule.
But if they don't have half a reason to be there, then it is against the colregs. And the "ordinary practice of seamen" and common sense can tell you if they have a reason to be on the port side.

But how do you know they didn't have a reason? If we want to play lawyer and we must follow the letter of the law, we must give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a good reason for being on the "wrong" side of the channel and that they are in compliance with the colregs until proven otherwise. Did you get a statement from them clarifying why they were on the "wrong" side of the channel?

Following the colregs put me on a collision course with at least one of these idiots (head-on situation); he put me in the position of needing to depart from the rules myself - and at that point I basically had to guess that he would not suddenly realize what he was supposed to do, but instead would persist in his stupidity.At least if he was on the correct side, he would be on the far side of the channel from me, and I'd have the room to bail out as 95% of the time, the preferred/standard/logical manoeuvre is a turn to stbd.

Nope the colregs cover this by requiring you to take all actions required to avoid a collision, so the "idiot" didn't force you to "depart from the rules". If he truely is an "idiot" nothing is to say he wouldn't be on the correct side of the channel and at the last minute decide to cut you off, so it's a false sense of security you have in following the rules.

I don't know that I've ever been on the water where I haven't been on a collisison course with someone at some point. Since you never know when they need to deviate from your expectations, you simply follow the rules and take appropriate action to avoid the collission. It's pretty unlikely that a collission will result. Simply being on the wrong side of the channel is hardly reason for major drama. I'm guessing your "idiot" must have been doing something else to get you up in arms?

[hellosailor]

"so why do so many boaters insist on running down the wrong side of the channel "

For the same reason they drive on the wrong side of the road, and walk on the wrong side of the sidewalk, and enter through the exit doors and vice versa.

They're just not smart enough to stay drunk enough to stay in one convenient spot on the floor. They don't know their left from their right ("The other left!") much lkess their [censored] from their elbow.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I'm well aware that some lawyers got ahold of the language and eliminated "right of way". Of course for decades, people just used common sense and didn't intentionally hit other boats because they had "right of way" but suddenly the lawyers got involved and we needed clarification.

You are talking utter bollocks. "Right of way" has not been in the colregs for at least a hundred years, if ever. An internationally agreed upon set of rules that set out the responsibilities and expectations for both parties when in a risk of collision was not created for the lawyers - it was necessary for international shipping, and has been responsible for saving the lives and livelihoods of countless mariners.

I have the distinct impression that you are a troll, so I think this will be my last response to you.

[cappy208]

From another point of view: The question "Why people inhabit the 'wrong side' of the channel" seems pretty simple to me.

We live in a society where we 'know' that since 'we' are the most important, self riteous persons out there, we drive in the fast lane (the left) whether we are actually passing others or not. It is seen to be useless to return to the right (on land or asea) since 'we are the superior occupants' of the area. And no one is going to 'tell us what to do'. It's MY boat, I am THE Capitan, and I will run it as I see fit, because I had enough money to buy the damned thing in the first place.

The rules have little to do with the reason why we have 'left handed navigators'. It is sheer ignorance and lack of concern for others safety.

Me First. I don't give a damned about anyone else. THAT is the reason.

[Lodesman]

Cappy, you are probably right. It's too bad no-one fessed up and explained why they do it.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by StuM

A lot depends on where those sailboats were coming from. In many situations, I'd prefer to tuck in close on the port side of a shipping channel rather than attempt to cross under the bow of a large ship to get onto the starboard side.

Exactly my point in one of my previous posts.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You are talking utter bollocks. "Right of way" has not been in the colregs for at least a hundred years, if ever. An internationally agreed upon set of rules that set out the responsibilities and expectations for both parties when in a risk of collision was not created for the lawyers - it was necessary for international shipping, and has been responsible for saving the lives and livelihoods of countless mariners.

No this is purely a lawyers distinction. Anyone with common sense recognizes that having the right of way doesn't mean to get to run over the kayak in front of you, simply because you have right of way. It was the lawyers that forced the issue because I'm sure someone tried to claim it was their right.

You still dodged the question of how you know the "idiot" didn't have a reason to be on the "wrong" side. Apparently, you don't want to go there, since you appear to just be making an assumption.

[cappy208]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

No this is purely a lawyers distinction. Anyone with common sense recognizes that having the right of way doesn't mean to get to run over the kayak in front of you, simply because you have right of way. It was the lawyers that forced the issue because I'm sure someone tried to claim it was their right.

Nope. It is completely derived from ignorance and blithe, wonton disregard for taking the time to educate oneself on the proper rules and concepts of safe vessel operation. Nothing else. Just pure laziness and stupidity.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You still dodged the question of how you know the "idiot" didn't have a reason to be on the "wrong" side. Apparently, you don't want to go there, since you appear to just be making an assumption.

I didn't "go there" because there are so many incidents to refer to. One I already referenced - exiting Charleston; the entrance channel is miles long, but the section that is of most importance to small sailboats is about 3 1/2 miles, much of it between two breakwaters. As I got onto the range at buoy "21" I could see two sailboats (one after the other) coming in at the end of the breakwater 1.5 - 2 miles away - one bare poles, the other with a sail up, but clearly motoring making 6 kts into a 5 kt headwind. They were in the centre of the channel (midway between buoys "18" and "17"), as was I. I was avoiding about 2 dozen sport-fishermen, mostly off-channel but spilling into the buoyed channel; all on the south side (so my stbd). I would normally be stbd of centre, but went dead centre (as verified by the range marks) to avoid the little boats. Once past the bulk of the fishing boats, I altered my course to stbd and went to the middle the south half of the buoyed channel. The channel is about 200 yards wide, so I aimed to pass the next buoy at 40-50 yards. The two opposing boats altered their courses to port and eventually passed between me and buoy "19" (I was just past the buoy by then).
There were no other vessels around.
While there were deep areas beyond the buoys, there are many shoal areas, particularly on the south side. If necessary to leave the channel, the north side was less skinny.
They would still be in the channel at least until Fort Sumter, nearly two miles up-channel.
By going that close to the port-side of the channel, they would end up passing very closely to those 2 dozen sport-boats.

So you tell me, what possible reason could they have to disregard rules 9 and 14, get closer to the more dangerous shoals, and closer to a mess of small boats?

Why don't you tell us - are you a perpetrator of this kind of stupidity or just an apologist for those who do?

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

No this is purely a lawyers distinction. Anyone with common sense recognizes that having the right of way doesn't mean to get to run over the kayak in front of you, simply because you have right of way. It was the lawyers that forced the issue because I'm sure someone tried to claim it was their right.

You still dodged the question of how you know the "idiot" didn't have a reason to be on the "wrong" side. Apparently, you don't want to go there, since you appear to just be making an assumption.

Please. >Let's at the very least get the terminology correct. There is no such concept as "right of way" in the colregs. No one on the water has a "right of way".

You may be the stand on vessel or you may be the give way vessel, but you can NEVER have a right of way.

this is an important distinction. landlubbers and those who have not studied and learned the colregs, consistently use the words and concept "right of way". It simply does not exist.

I doubt if it was the "lawyers who forced the issue", since the colregs are very specific in their wording, that when a vessel commander of a stand on vessel, becomes convinced that the give way vessel will not honor its obligation to give way, the stand on vessel is obligated to take all actions possible to avoid a collision.

So no way someone (unless unfamiliar with the colregs) would even try to make that claim.

Re: perhaps the "idiot" had a very good reason for being in the wrong side of the channel. Well, this is where the colregs specify a range of signals that can be used to advise other boats of the (valid) reasons for not obeying the regs.

Ship not under command
Ship restrained in its ability to maneuver
Ship restrained in its ability to maneuver because of its draft.

and others.

Perhaps the "idiot" had a valid reason for being there - but he was not flying the appropriate signals and therefore no one can know.


How many boats, f.eks. have a triangle on board? How many boats fly it when motoring with a sail up? Makes a hell of a difference as to how other boats will react to their maneuvers. One skipper might think he is approaching a motorboat, another that he is approaching a sailboat.

Let's be honest - few boaters have taken the time to truly learn the colregs, or the signals for that matter.

But don't use concepts that don't exist. It does not further communication.

carsten

[Sailor g]

Originally Posted by markpierce

I surely miss the sight of carriers in San Francisco Bay.

Not to mention, the other array of military boats, Navy Seals on low, fast dingies and the submarines coming & going while navy aircraft takeoff overhead.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by nautical62

I'm saying you framed your original question about how people operate their boats within the context of a single rule of the road. My point is there are other rules of the road to consider, which do not dictate the uniform traffic flow you referred to.

Certainly there are people who operate their vessels in obvious violation of all the rules and against common sense. My point is simply that because boats are not following a pattern or behavior consistent with one single rule, does not mean they are not obeying the overall rules. You need to consider the bigger picture, not just the single rule you chose to quote.

I cited several rules which clearly showed that the boating rules don't dictate that boats must always pass in a nice orderly port to port fashion we see on roadways.

It would be nice if they did, though. Much has to do with "Expectations" of the behavior of others.

The other day we were sailing back to my friend's slip on his 36 foot sloop, jib only, downwind. His engine had died. The entrance to his marina is a long narrow channel, running east, with a hard 90 degree turn to starboard to get into the marina fairway, also narrow, literally three or four boatlengths wide (say a 35-40 foot boat length).

Just as we came to the turning point, this 27 foot outboard powered sailboat comes puttering out, on the correct side of the dogleg channel out of the marina. However, as we started our turn to starboard, he cut the corner at the daybeacon point and cut us off. WTF?!? Completely unnecessary, and quite inconsiderate.

Of course, he didn't know we had no engine, but we were sailing and he was powering.

My shipmates were livid and yelling. I calmly mentioned to them that yelling at those idiots was not going to change anything, and that they probably had NO clue as to what they'd done.

They saw us, they had plenty of room, our course was clear to them and they still played buffoons.

The reality is we all, knowing the rules, have to figure the other jackasses don't, which creates its own set of dangerous conditions.

[Gemini Dreams]

Narrow dredged channel on ICW running N and S within a no wake zone. Small sailboat headed north at 5kts. Five Searays headed south at 10 knots. Outside channel is so shallow that the sea birds have dry legs standing on the shoals. The wind is blowing from the west at 15 knts.

Port to port = small sailboat on shoal hard aground.

Starboard to starboard = small sailboat continues north.