If one reads farwell, he's does not cite his comments that the USCG refer too in page 334. Furthermore Cockcroft makes no such similar claim and refers to sea room.
Farwell under narrow channels , does cite an British admiralty decision in regards a collision
between a shrimper that was fishing
in a narrow lane , the ship attempted to avoid the shrimper but the channel was such that a collision occurred , the shrimper was 25% blamed for the collision. (Note 25%) This seems to be the sum total of Farwells basis for the get out of the the way approach.
There has never been a case that I have come across , where merely causing a manoeuvre , which then occurred safely , resulted in a claim of impeding. Furthermore the COLREGS do not define impeding in any specific way.
Hence what's clear from both Farwell and Cockcroft I believe is the following
(A) you certainly have the right to sail or motor
in a TSS.
(b) by simply being there you are not in itself impeding
(C) you cannot use the privileged status to argue you were in the right
(D) where your manoeuvres cause a collision , you cannot seek solace that the steering
rules have precedence over the impeding ones. You are required to manoeuvre to ensure you do not endanger the safety
of navigation of the larger power vessel. You will be assigned blame in this regard.
Nowhere but no where in any citation or legal
case to my knowledge has it been established that merely causing a change of course or speed is AUTOMATICALLY a case of impeding. In my view we would need a admiralty law case where impeding was claimed , yet no danger
of collision or actual collision occurred to resolve the issue. To my reading , no such case has ever been taking. Hence the comment in farwell as quoted by the USCG has no basis in COLREGS law as interpretation by law.(IMHO)
For example , I am sailing or motoring along on the starboard side of a TSS and a ship approaching decides in its wisdom , that while it could pass me , it decides to change course to open the passing distance. There is no other traffic. I cannot see where any admiralty case law could ever back up a subsequent claim that I impeded that ship. In this regard it could be regarded the same way that single
handlers break the COLREGS. Ie it's only an issue if a collision occurs and even them it's only an apportionment of blame
If however a risk of collision exists and I continue to exert my privileges status under the steering rules then I am in a TSS not exonerated by such rules as it is clear that I should equally have manoeuvred to prevent the situation from occurring.
By the way a small vessel could easily find itself in a TSS. Often it's a long way to the ITZ , and due to weather
etc , you can only sail in certain directions.
Evans might is right in a busy TSS is more or less true , it behoves a small vessel in a TSS to act courteously and ensure it does not interfere with the safe operation of a TSS.