Rules of the road - entering a channel

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I despair when these studies come out and say something like "violation of the rules only account for such and such" then post a list like this with the "real" reasons. #1 is a violation of the law in most jurisdicitions. #s 2 and 3 are both violations of colregs

I don't agree.


The most common cause of boating fatalities in Minnesota is being drunk and falling off the boat into the water. The closely related categories, "being drunk and falling off the dock into the water" and "deliberately jumping into the water for an ill-advised swim while drunk" are ordinarily not considered boating fatalities. None of these things are unlawful.



Excessive speed is not a violation of the colregs except insofar as it poses a risk of collision.



Inattention when reported as a cause of an accident is usually unrelated to watchkeeping but rather describes loss of control accidents when the helm goes hard over to one side, or excessive throttle is inadvertently applied, or there is an allision with a previously identified obstruction


While watchkeeping is an important part of the colregs I think those accidents are of a different character than the comparatively much rarer accidents involving boats that are aware of each other's presence

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If you recall in his first post, he indicated that he had been "sternly rebuked" by the other boater, who was apparently ignorant of what the rules actually require. So my advice was specifically to avoid getting into an argument out on the water.

I don't think I suggested getting bothered or upset - in fact I think what I suggested is a productive method to avoid that. I hear what Jammer is saying, but I disagree entirely with his last line - at best it's defeatist, at worst it's negligent. If you saw a dangerous or drunk driver, you'd call the police - no? So why would you wilfully ignore a dangerous boat driver?

I agree that trying to educate people directly is rarely fruitful. I've tried it and they don't listen. I literally told one guy's passengers to not get back on his boat, because he would get them killed. That was right after he nearly got them killed.

I've never dealt with the USCG Aux, but it might be worthwhile for windracer to get in contact with the local branch and see what they can offer. He might be able to convince them to put a boat out there to monitor the chaos on the weekends and possibly dispense some much-needed education.

I HAVE dealt with the USCG Auxiliary, as my own Father was a member for decades. Maybe still is. My Dad, bless his heart, although he was a great sailor, had about as much understanding of the COLREGs as my dog. Typical cruising sailor. I learned an immense amount from him, particularly about anchoring, but about the Rules -- zero.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Jammer

The most common cause of boating fatalities in Minnesota is being drunk and falling off the boat into the water. The closely related categories, "being drunk and falling off the dock into the water" and "deliberately jumping into the water for an ill-advised swim while drunk" are ordinarily not considered boating fatalities. None of these things are unlawful.

What a curious argument!
In 2019 there were 10 boating fatalities in Minnesota, of which 2 have alcohol attributed as a factor. So what? In the same year there were 100 boating accidents total; only 11 involved falling overboard, but 27 involved collisions with other boats.

Excessive speed is not a violation of the colregs except insofar as it poses a risk of collision.

Rule 6

Inattention when reported as a cause of an accident is usually unrelated to watchkeeping but rather describes loss of control accidents when the helm goes hard over to one side, or excessive throttle is inadvertently applied, or there is an allision with a previously identified obstruction


While watchkeeping is an important part of the colregs I think those accidents are of a different character than the comparatively much rarer accidents involving boats that are aware of each other's presence

That line lumped inattention together with poor lookout - but both are obviously major factors by themselves - of 2508 accidents inattention cited 546 times and improper lookout 506 times - so infraction of rule 5 is obviously significant.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by requiem

There appears to be more recent precedent that in such cases, Rule 9 takes precedence over the crossing rule..



Also possibly relevant:



(Excerpts from Hirst, Harry. Collisions at Sea: Volume 1: Liability and the Collision Regulations)

Page 2 of 11

Plain old common sense, What more explanation is required.

Imagine a fairway buoy, not all channels have them. Most smaller ones don’t.
If there was a fairway buoy how would you pass it?

[Uricanejack]

Double post

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Bill_Giles

Crappy 208, “power always gives way to sail” is not true when the power boat is:
Fishing
Constrained by draft
Restricted in ability to manoeuvre
Not under command

At anchor
Aground
Constrained by local bylaws
Minesweeping
And when the sailboat is overtaking.

Nice list,
Are you sure they should all be on it.

I ha ma doubts about the 2nd one.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree! I think it's a public service to report violations, even if there are no consequences of it.

But going so far as to video crossings seems -- weird, to me, even kind of -- unseamanlike. The whole attitude seems wrong. If another vessel is not maneuvering in the required way then you simply take over and deal with it yourself. Cheerfully. With all focus on managing the crossing, no time for outrage.

And no way should you be PLANNING to get into a collision, such that you want a video record to prove whose fault it was. You won't prove anything -- if there was a collision -- except as you say in a case where there is a very large difference in speed -- then you are for sure at fault, it hardly matters who failed to maneuver when. So why video anything?

Not sir what you are agreeing with, your comment appears to disagree.

From a personal perspective I’ve Long since lost count of the no of reports I’ve made.

If I take action as a stand on vessel as required by rule 17, it gets reported.

No. I don’t expect a great deal of response to a report of a close encounter of the 3rd kind.
It is for the most part CYA, simplifies my paper work, rather than having to try and chase down what happened days, weeks or months later, when asked by CG or whoever.
I can just reply. Thank you your enquires sir, please refer to report no dated.
On the odd occasion where an actual identification could be made CG Or who ever do follow up.
As to what happens in the end, I presume it just gets filed and forgotten.

As to what difference it makes to the price of eggs? Who knows?

One which does make a difference. Much more quickly and effectively.
Call VTS ask if they know the name of the committee boat and club organizing the race.

An occasional protest to the committee boat, appears to get the point across.

As for cameras, A poor mans black box?

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

As for cameras, A poor mans black box?

Since I had made the original GoPro reference, that's exactly the purpose. I don't think it makes sense to be at the helm waving a camera about; that's going to be unnecessarily distracting. But, it can perform that black box role.

Looking at the other collision thread there's a decent amount of confusion that some sort of recorder could have easily sorted out. They've become popular for cars because they help keep people's stories straight. However much we might want to keep things a bit more civil at sea, the OP in this thread was essentially in the middle of town (even if on a waterway), and an objective record would likely be appreciated by him and his insurance if something did go pear-shaped.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by StuM

Correction: that's COLREGS 34(e)

And in some parts of world, it's common practice even fro recreational boaters.
32 (c) says:
The term “prolonged blast” means a blast of from four to six seconds’ duration.
Personally, I think that's a bit excessive for small vessels in this situation. I'm happy with 2-3 seconds

You may well be quite happy.
I on the other hand might be confused.
Wondering if you just had a rather heavy finger on a short blast intending to alter to starboard.
Or a light finger on a long blast.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is another case of confusion between Rule 9 and Rule 28.

"Constrained by draft" is Rule 28. Rule 28 DOES NOT APPLY TO SAILING VESSELS and does not necessarily have anything to do with narrow channels. Cylinder or three red lights. In my experience, this is a very rare nav status. Only seen it a couple times in my whole life, and both times it was heavily loaded ULLC's with some incredible draft, like 50 meters.

Rule 9 is "Narrow Channels". A vessel does NOT need to be constrained or limited by draft, for Rule 9 to apply. The standard is being able to "navigate safely only within a narrow channel or fairway" -- for any reason, not just draft.

There is NO SIGNAL for "can navigate safely only within a narrow channel or fairway".

Just to be pedantic,
It’s actually defined in Rule 3 para h.

I can’t recall exactly when the definition changed and ability to deviate from her course was added. It was after 84
This addition implies CBD doesn’t apply to open shallow water.

Though clearly what might be narrow to a CBD might not be other vessels not so constrained.

Rule 11 tells us when rule 12 through 18 apply.

Rule 28 is not about how or when CBD applies,
Rule 28 In addition to the lights required by rule 23 for a PDV. defines the lights or shape which may be shown.

May is an important word. Quite different from shall.
May being optional the lights and shape are optional rather than required.
(local regs ?)

This might not be the intent of your question.
The answer to the question about the signal For CBD. Would be I presume choosing to displaying the optional lights or shape in rule 28.

The purpose of these lights to inform. Or signal to the observer on another vessel. Your vessel is CBD.

Could a sailing vessel be CBD? depends on how the question is asked.
Yes provided it is showing the lights or shape required by rule 23.
Which means it is a PWD for application of the rules. So not a SV As defined by the rules. back to R3.

The question you may have intended to ask,
What sound signal would a vessel CBD make?

Underway, Making Way?

The clue is in R 11. Or what is not in R 28

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The only Rule which makes a channel special is Rule 9 -- if you are entering a channel and are crossing with a vessel which cannot navigate safely outside of the channel, and you are less than 20 meters long and/or are a sailing vessel, then you shall not impede the passage of the other vessel.



Otherwise, the normal Rules apply -- if you are under sail only and he is not, you stand on initially and he gives way (then you maneuver if necessary). Or if you are both under sail and you are on starboard tack, or if you are both motoring and you are to starboard of him, etc. etc. Without regard to who is in the channel and who is not. The channel does not make the situation special except to the extent that Rule 9 applies.


But keep in mind Rule 2, the most important Rule. It is also not right to unnecessarily interfere with navigation in channels, even if Rule 9 does not apply. If you are entering a channel from a marina, for example, it is good seamanship and common courtesy to time your exit from the marina to avoid making other vessels maneuver.

Rule 10?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

J
Rule 28 is not about how or when CBD applies,
Rule 28 In addition to the lights required by rule 23 for a PDV. defines the lights or shape which may be shown.

May is an important word. Quite different from shall.
May being optional the lights and shape are optional rather than required.
(local regs ?)

Rulle 18 IS about how or when CBD applies.

If the captain of a vessel which is constrained by draft chooses not to display the signals, then he has no special standing under Rule 18 d (i) but he is still governed by 18 (d) (ii)

(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draught shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think we've yet discussed the difference between giving way, and "not impeding". These are not the same things.

If the narrow channel rules are at play (OP couldn't navigate safely outside the narrow channel), then the power boat was obligated to maneuver far enough ahead that the risk of collision wouldn't arise in the first place -- that's what it means to "not impede", fulfilling the obligation under Rule 9.

But the obligation of the power boat to "not impede", does NOT cancel the obligation of the sailboat to give way, if the sailboat was otherwise give way (motoring, and power boat to starboard) to give way, once the risk of collision DOES arise. The obligation of the motorboat to "not impede" does NOT make the motorboat give-way. Read the Rules and you will see that this is clearly stated.

So even if Rule 9 were in effect, the sailboat, if it is otherwise give-way, must NOT stand on. Once the risk of collision arises, then the normal Steering & Sailing Rules come into effect, and the sailboat should give way

A+

To not impede, possibly the most confusing concept in the whole book of rules.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by StuM

Rulle 18 IS about how or when CBD applies.

If the captain of a vessel which is constrained by draft chooses not to display the signals, then he has no special standing under Rule 18 d (i) but he is still governed by 18 (d) (ii)

(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draught shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.

Ok.
It’s a small but important point. Rule 11 states when Rule 18 applies.
when vessels are in sight of each other.
Rule 18 does not apply when vessels are not in sight of each other.

Rule 9 on the other hand applies according to rule 4. To all vessels.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

Rule 10?

Rule 10 is similar to Rule 9, but applies to TSS's. What's the question?