Courtesy when giving way

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

Lodesman is trying to use the Socrates method . . . .

but impede is actually defined

but let me point you to rule 8 F (i) . . . which I already quoted up thread . . .

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the
circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel. "

If you provide sufficient sea room for safe passage then you have not impeded.

this extra definition/description was added in in the 1987 rule edition when it was determined that there was some lack of clarity before without it.

You don't actually think that either Growley or Lodesman is unfamiliar with Rule 8(f)(i), do you? The Rule does not answer the question which Growley and Lodesman are arguing about. Their argument is getting right into the most Talmudic subtleties of the COLREGS. I think in fact that it's something that wise men might disagree about.

I think Lodesman is technically correct, but I prefer Growley's interpretation. It is often said that (and I think Growley cited Cockcroft on this) if you force another vessel to maneuver, you are impeding it. I think however that Lodesman is correct that the text of the Rule does not support that interpretation. But I still prefer it, personally, as much better fitting the spirit of the Rule. With greatest respect to both.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You don't actually think that either Growley or Lodesman is unfamiliar with Rule 8(f)(i), do you?

Growley said he could not find a definition - but it is right there.

if you force another vessel to maneuver, you are impeding it.

That is most definitely not what the plain language of that text says. And they had a certain opportunity to say that if that was their intent when they added the clause. . . . . but there is certainly room for 'interpretation' with 'sufficient' and 'safe'.


But I still prefer it, personally, as much better fitting the spirit of the Rule.

yea, all I can say to that from you . . . is LOL

............

[armand.seguin]

Originally Posted by tenchiki

As the CG is prone to remind all boaters (via VHF 16), that the entire S.F. Bay is subject to Rule 9. This can be especially dicey when tacking up the Alameda Estuary when a container ship is coming in...

Since there were several comments concerning the SF Bay waters, I thought I'd note that the Pinole Shoal Channel in San Pablo Bay is the only channel in the Bay that forbids all small boat traffic.

I have seen tugboats in the channel that are well under 1600 tons and some yachts of like 100 ft. Incorrect, but did not hear Marine Traffic make any comments.

Anyway pretty easy to avoid this channel for most of us recreational boaters.

Regards,

Armand Seguin
USCG Master
MV Delfini, Vallejo, CA

33 CFR § 165.1181 - San Francisco Bay Region, California ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu › cfr › text
(2) Pinole Shoal Channel RNA: (i) A vessel less than 1600 gross tons or a tug with a tow of less than 1600 gross tons is not permitted within this RNA.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by armand.seguin

Since there were several comments concerning the SF Bay waters,......

Armand Seguin
USCG Master
MV Delfini, Vallejo, CA

I would be curious if you have a moment . . . to hear practically speaking when in SF harbor you would blow 5 shorts, and/or VHF call a recreational vessel. Not the colreg definitions, but rather a more let's say gritty description about the boundary situation/conditions when you might do either.

[David Mathis]

It isn't just sailboats. The human powered kayaks and canoes create frequent problems in narrow channels and in waterways that limit the maneuverability of larger boats. The tugs pushing barges have little room to maneuver but the operators paddling their boats know with absolute certainty that everything on the water must yield to them. A commercial boat or a large pleasure boat traveling downstream with a relatively fast current comes around a corner and sees a dozen or so kayaks leisurely orbiting an imaginary point near mid channel. Five blasts, a dozen horn blasts, more? A couple may move away from the center of the channel but most stay mid channel. They know they have right of way and those pesky big boats will just have to wait until they've finished recreating. I realize that getting rule a change is almost as easy as moving Mt. Everest to the Sahara Desert but in this case it's just a matter of time until a major multiple death incident occurs. And all of the dead people will be right.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

...But I still prefer it, personally, as much better fitting the spirit of the Rule.

yea, all I can say to that from you . . . is LOL.........

I am a lawyer, trained in statutory interpretation. I have written laws which are in force in two different countries and have taught in law schools.

It is a basic principle of statutory interpretation that the plain language of the statute is what always comes first. That is because you must presume that the framers of it knew what they were saying. HOWEVER, the plain language of a statute is often not enough to know what the statute really means. That's where interpretation comes in. So you can LOL all you want, but the spirit of a law is always relevant in interpreting it -- the deeper intention of the framers, and so we are allowed to look at that, together with any record of discussions held by the framers, all as a guide to their intention and thus to what the statute really means.

Both Growley and Lodesman have absolutely coherent and defensible interpretations of the concept of "not impeding" in the COLREGS. This question has actually been written about quite a bit, and you will find good scholars on both sides of this question. Growley has Cockcroft on his side; in fact I corresponded with Cockcroft on this very question prior to his death. Llana and Wisnesky are also of this school:

"Vessels directed "not to impede" other vessels should take early action to keep clear by wide margins. The other vessel shouldn't become concerned enough to alter its course or speed, or otherwise feel obligated to act differently from the way it would if the would-be impeding vessel weren't there." Handbook of the Collision Avoidance Rules, 3rd ed., Llana & Wisnesky, 2009.

But others argue that this is reading slightly more into the text than you can actually find there, and agree with Lodesman that as long as there is enough sea room to pass safely, you are not impeding.

There is not a clear answer to this question and the LOL's are not appropriate.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I didn't ask how often the word occurs - I asked where it applies. Thank you for counting, but if you actually go back and look - "not impede" only applies to three rules. You've missed the link - so why don't you review the rules I mentioned and take another swing?

To the best of my memory, Rule 18, as well as 8, 9, and 10, the usual suspects. Not taking a swing. This isn't a competition. I would go back and look but supper is ready and I need to wrap up all my forums and email and stuff.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by edexter

Moreover, the huge new Panamax vessels need a 50-foot channel, and can't turn outside of them as they would go aground. The Colregs provide that a vessel that is limited in its ability to maneuver has the right of way, even over a sailboat.

Totally wrong on at least two counts.


1. Look up what is meant by "restricted in ability to maneuver" and contrast with "constrained by her draught".
2. There is no such concept in COLREG s as "right of way". Contrast with "give way" and "keep out of the way of"

The pilot I mentioned indicated that he would much rather have a quick call that clarified intentions than sit there wondering whether some captain was going to do something dumb, but that a clear course adjustment when he could see it was even better.

His final statement is the critical one.

[Cpt Pat]

Excellent advice for everyone on the spirit and letter of the law. Thanks Dockhead.


I suspected you were a lawyer...

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

To the best of my memory, Rule 18, as well as 8, 9, and 10, the usual suspects.

Good, but 8 just defines it - it's 9, 10 and a very specific portion of 18 where it has effect. Go on and work it out.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Growley has Cockcroft on his side; in fact I corresponded with Cockcroft on this very question prior to his death. Llana and Wisnesky are also of this school:

"Vessels directed "not to impede" other vessels should take early action to keep clear by wide margins. The other vessel shouldn't become concerned enough to alter its course or speed, or otherwise feel obligated to act differently from the way it would if the would-be impeding vessel weren't there." Handbook of the Collision Avoidance Rules, 3rd ed., Llana & Wisnesky, 2009.

But others argue that this is reading slightly more into the text than you can actually find there, and agree with Lodesman that as long as there is enough sea room to pass safely, you are not impeding.

I disagree that Cockcroft takes Growley's point of view. His book, let's say gives a somewhat enigmatic description of the 'not impede' requirements, but quite clearly says that the requirement to not impede is "complementary" to the other parts of the Steering and Sailing Rules. And he lays out how both regimes can work together.

I don't like Llana and Wisnesky's book - in many regards it is fine, but it has a few controversial takes. Their take on 'not impede' is simplistic. It should be noted that unlike Cockcroft, they did not participate in the Conventions, so have no real insight into the thoughts of the authors of this chunk of the Rules.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You don't actually think that either Growley or Lodesman is unfamiliar with Rule 8(f)(i), do you? The Rule does not answer the question which Growley and Lodesman are arguing about. Their argument is getting right into the most Talmudic subtleties of the COLREGS. I think in fact that it's something that wise men might disagree about.

I think Lodesman is technically correct, but I prefer Growley's interpretation. It is often said that (and I think Growley cited Cockcroft on this) if you force another vessel to maneuver, you are impeding it. I think however that Lodesman is correct that the text of the Rule does not support that interpretation. But I still prefer it, personally, as much better fitting the spirit of the Rule. With greatest respect to both.

LOL Talmudic subtleties!!! I guess that is what it is.



But I will state my view another way. If you are in the way, you are impeding. I don't get in the way. I have been on the other team just like many others here so I understand how much smoothly things go when sailboats do not get in the way in those aforementioned narrow channels. It is nearly always possible for a sailboat to run outside the bouys and cross only when the going is clear. But I will make peace now with all those who don't see why they shouldn't get in the way.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

But I will make peace now with all those who don't see why they shouldn't get in the way.

So you lied earlier. You can't be trying to evermore prudent, if you're not open to having your perceptions challenged.

There is a practical reality - and it relates directly to the OP's example. There are plenty of sailing grounds around the world, where interactions with large commercial vessels are a fact of life. If you were to turn tail at every possible crossing with a merchantman, you'd never make your destination.
If, as in the OP's situation, sea and wind conditions limited the range of safe course options, and say the bearing appeared to be decreasing, it could be reasonably surmised that he would have passed ahead of the tug, somewhere in the traffic lane. Offshore lanes are generally quite wide, often a mile or two across - so there would be more than enough room to manoeuvre to avoid a crossing vessel without exiting the lane. It would in that case be entirely seamanlike for the OP to maintain his course, and if the vagaries of sailing intervened and the tug needed to alter a few degrees to maintain a comfortable distance, then so be it; he is not impeded.

[Dennis.G]

Those handheld can air horns are hardly wimpy. In fact can cause hearing loss if your "friend" decides honking the thing close to your head is a funny joke.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

I don't get in the way. . . . . But I will make peace now with all those who don't see why they shouldn't get in the way.

You are a good guy . . . not getting in the way (whenever possible) is simply what a good man and a good seaman will do. It is courteous and shows respect.

But that is a different matter than the legal/technical interpretation of the impede rule.

The way the rule is written a legal/technical assessment of 'impeded' must start and finish with an evaluation of whether sufficient room was allowed.

The fact that a ship maneuvered is potential evidence that the bridge team felt sufficient room was not allowed. It will be a relevant finding in perhaps a reasonable percentage of real-world cases.

But, given the way the rule is written, it is neither necessary nor sufficient by itself to prove 'impeded'. A pair of hypothetical 'edge cases' can demonstrate that.

Case 1: narrow lane/ship can't exit side of lane: Let's postulate a tanker carrying refined gasoline down a narrowish lane which has been mine cleared but outside the lane there are still potentially ship mines which would vaporize the tanker (but not be triggered by a recreational vessel). This tanker is proceeding down close to one edge of the lane. They see a sailing vessel in the lane in front of them moving very slowly - will not get out of the lane in time and not enough distance to slow enough. The tanker is already right near the edge of the lane so it has no maneuver option. They proceed and are forced to pass the sailing vessel at an 'unsafe distance'. Despite the fact this ship did not maneuver, they are impeded, because they were not given sufficient safe room.

Case 2: extra-wide lane: let's postulate a commercial vessel proceeding down the center of a very wide lane, let's just exaggerate and say a 10nm wide lane. At some decent distance off (let's say 10nm) this vessel sees a sailboat near the center of the lane in extremely light air, making way very very slowly (let's say 1/10kt). This vessel can make a smallish course correction toward the side of the lane behind the sailboat, and can then pass with a minimum of 2nm clearance to the sailboat. Despite the fact this ship did maneuver, it is not impeded because it was allowed sufficient safe room.

These are edge cases. In most cases, practically speaking, being required to maneuver will usually be an indication of some concern about being impeded.

So the way to square this circle is that you are both right - in a very practical sense 'maneuver' is an observable/provable indication which will typically be linked to concern about being impeded. But purely technically/legally it is not proof in and of itself and there are possible edge cases where it is not relevant.