Boating Under The Influence??

[sailorboy1]

so after reading 3 pages of posts to the orginal question the answer appears to be ............... no one really knows, but a lot of us think we do

all I can add is that you can GET a ticket for anything, it's whether you can get out of it

[boatman61]

LOL.... did a Pan Pan a few years back... 3 miles out of Beaufort Inlet when motor failed and I ran out of filters due to crap fuel... tide running fast and drifting me towards Lookout Point and no wind...
(Thats the problem with coming from a country where there's instant response... you grow to expect some answer with advice or help).
As NC sailors know there's a large CG station on the S point of the inlet and a big military base... no answer on CH16/14/12.... shortly after 3 big ribs came roaring toward the inlet so I flagged them down...
Military types with Chem warfare gear and armed to the teeth but would not come closer than hailing distance... they would not take a line.. but did say they'd send help.
1 hr later after I'd anchored in shallowing waters another rib appeared and wanted $300 for the tow back to Taylors Creek...
But thats another story...
Suffice it to say that from what I've seen of the CG, Homeland Security and LE on the waters.. so far its only been the Sheriff of Oriental telling me I'd overstayed on the Town Dock....

[SabreKai]

I'll go with Just Shoot me.

It all depends on where you are, what sort of boat you are in, the cops mood etc. Always remember a cop can do what ever he wants. Your only recourse is to go to court and prove he was wrong. How many of you can A) afford a lawyer, and B) want to waste time in court?) Any other course of action will likely get you arrested, beat on, tazed or otherwise messed up.

We are all sheep. Learn to say Bah. It helps.

Sabre

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

all I can add is that you can GET a ticket for anything, it's whether you can get out of it

Directly from friends in the business, yes. Best friend from high school made a carrer in LE. Told me that if he wanted or needed to he always could find some reason to write a ticket. Now this was on land but I imagine on the water the same would apply.

[smurphny]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Not sure where you do your boating but in south Florida you go out on a nice day on the weekend the ratio of private boaters to LE (yes that includes USCG, marine patrol, local sheriff, customs, DEA, and any other group) is more like a few hundred to one.

Of course there are not as many LE boats as cruising boats. Thought anyone reading this would get the general idea that maybe there are too many at this point.

I also passed by the U.N. when Obama was speaking but think it was two years ago, going from LI Sound to NY Harbor thru Hell Gate. T'was quite a hornet's nest of marine armament. The inflatables buzzing around with the mounted machine guns were pretty intimidating. Was glad to get the h out of there.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by smurphny

Of course there are not as many LE boats as cruising boats. Thought anyone reading this would get the general idea that maybe there are too many at this point.

Well I do see a few on occasion but really, other than the big scenes at the UN and Norfolk Navy base to see 2-3 cops on a 1000 mile cruise is not much. Guarantee I would have passed a lot more state troopers if I had made the same trip down I-95. Now there are areas where you would probably see 2-3 every mile, like Miami/Ft Lauderdale on the weekend.

Originally Posted by smurphny

I also passed by the U.N. when Obama was speaking but think it was two years ago, going from LI Sound to NY Harbor thru Hell Gate. T'was quite a hornet's nest of marine armament. The inflatables buzzing around with the mounted machine guns were pretty intimidating. Was glad to get the h out of there.

Actually guess it was more like two years ago when we went by the UN, late Sept 09 I think. We got up early to beat the tide through Hell Gate and were approaching the UN about 6:30 am when we saw enough LE cars, boats, planes and helicopters to start a small war. CG zoomed up to us in a big, red RIB and asked what we were doing, going south we said. We're closing this side of the river they said but you've got 15 minutes left so we will escort you through. Now he never pointed the bow mounted 50 cal at us but he kept both hands on the grips and was ready just in case we made any funny moves.

So what time did you go by? We were the last boat through the west channel until 7 pm.

[smurphny]

Don't remember exactly the time but I remember heading under the Throgs Neck about 0930 on the tide (which, as I remember was actually about 1/2 hr too early). Log is over in VT on boat so I'm guessing must have passed UN about 2 hrs later, maybe 1130 or 12. There were quite a few sailboats going through and the CG wasn't stopping anyone but I surely didn't want to make any sudden change of course!!! Just waved to the guys with the 50 cals (who waved back) and proceeded on my merry way. Think I made it all the way up the Hudson to Haverstraw that day. The day before, the sail down LI Sound was one of the best days ever sailing. Blue sky, wind about 15-20 all day out of the north, rail was in the water from Port Jeff to right in front of the Throgs, where I anchored and immediately had a cold beer. Oh no.... didn't really do that if it's illegal:-)

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

so after reading 3 pages of posts to the orginal question the answer appears to be ............... no one really knows, but a lot of us think we do

all I can add is that you can GET a ticket for anything, it's whether you can get out of it

more to the point, who cares.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

more to the point, who cares.

I cared, that's why I read the pages.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

Nope. Moored is "made fast to the ground", as in a mooring, pier, dock, etc. That's why there is specifically an "anchor watch" specified, but not a "dock watch" or "mooring watch".

The intent of the anchor watch is (and accurately so) because vessels slip anchor frequently enough, and often the anchoring is occurring in areas where other vessels transit for the sake of anchoring.

And in regards to it being "new mariners", you'll note that the official name is COLREGS 72. You guessed it, that's 1972. I'm not a COLREGS historian but I don't believe any of the laws we're talking about here have been changed sinced the original stuff 39 years ago.

In the context of this discussion, anchored or made fast to the ground is the same..."not underway"

from the rules... i/h) The word "underway" means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.

I'd still like to read the rule that requires an anchor watch. The rule about lookouts is under the steering and sailing rules section.

You are right about colregs...but definition they have little to do with achored vessels...you rerely see what anchored vessels are required to do except in lights and sounds to avoid being hit by underway vessels.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by John A

Colregs are not always legal and binding for boaters!

Look at a paper chart(gasp), just to the West of the Golden Gate Bridge is a line drawen acrossed the entrance to the Gate labeled "Colreg demarkation line". East of that line local law prevails. I'm sure that this is the case in other locals.

The colregs demarcation line marks where inland versus international rules count...but the colregs are for all us waters (and many other countries...not sure which may not be party to). The exceptions I believe are waters wholly contained within a paricular state.

The lines are called COLREGS Demarcation Lines and delineate those waters upon which mariners shall comply with the Inland and International Rules. COLREGS Demarcation lines are contained in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 80 (33 CFR 80), the Navigation Rules manual.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=intlinland

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by TACK OFF

here in Ontario Canada.........if you are anchored and have bathroom and cooking facilities, you can party on.

Hm. If only Canada weren't so cold....

Anyway, I have the solution.... Just ban alcohol. As you know, it's banned here in Kuwait, so noone ever gets drunk, so there's never any problems with DUI....

That was not entirely true. Although you can be charged with being intoxicated for absolutely anything, it rarely happens. Back in the stupid nineties, pretty much the whole country would drive home drunk. Including the police.

Ten years back, one mate fell asleep at a set of lights, he was so stoned. The nice policeman woke him up, told him to move over, and drove him home. Another guy rolled his car on a roundabout - the cops drove him home and told him to go back to the cop shop in the morning (when he had sobered up) to file his report.

Yet another guy spent a month in jail for snogging his girlfriend on the bonnet of a car. The reason he was arrested? Not 'cos he was drunk (that was just the charge, along with inappropriate behaviour)... but because he was rude to the policemen when they asked him to stop.

I suspect it might be the same the world over - the rules are there to protect us, and when we feel there is a good reason to enforce them we do so.... We don't always have to enforce them... (although I'm not sure if anyone ever told the cops that)!

[doug86]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

you'll note that the official name is COLREGS 72.

Their official name is: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and commonly abbreviated as COLREGS, or 72COLREGS, or COLREGS72, because they were adopted by the IMO in 1972. In fact, they were not ratified until 1977.

I'm not a COLREGS historian but I don't believe any of the laws we're talking about here have been changed sinced the original stuff 39 years ago.

You're right, none of the Rules in discussion in this thread have changed, but there have been changes.

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they have been amended several times since their first adoption. In 1981, rule 10 was amended with regard to dredging or surveying in traffic separation schemes. In 1987, amendments were made to several rules, including rule 1(e) for vessels of special construction; rule 3(h), vessels constrained by her draught and Rule 10(c), crossing traffic lanes. In 1989, rule 10 was altered to stop unnecessary use of the inshore traffic zones associated with TSS. In 1993, amendments were made concerning the positioning of lights on vessels. In 2001, new rules were added relating to wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) craft and in 2007 the text of Annex IV (Distress signals) was re-written.[1]

Certainly not huge changes, just sayin'. More important question: how can we calculate the speed and direction of this thread drift?

[cal40john]

Prohibition worked so well in the U.S. the first time, let's try it again. I don't drink anymore, personal choice, but I think it's fairly unrealistic to ban it in most countries of the world.

John

Originally Posted by Saucy Sailoress

Hm. If only Canada weren't so cold....

Anyway, I have the solution.... Just ban alcohol. As you know, it's banned here in Kuwait, so noone ever gets drunk, so there's never any problems with DUI....

That was not entirely true. Although you can be charged with being intoxicated for absolutely anything, it rarely happens. Back in the stupid nineties, pretty much the whole country would drive home drunk. Including the police.

Ten years back, one mate fell asleep at a set of lights, he was so stoned. The nice policeman woke him up, told him to move over, and drove him home. Another guy rolled his car on a roundabout - the cops drove him home and told him to go back to the cop shop in the morning (when he had sobered up) to file his report.

Yet another guy spent a month in jail for snogging his girlfriend on the bonnet of a car. The reason he was arrested? Not 'cos he was drunk (that was just the charge, along with inappropriate behaviour)... but because he was rude to the policemen when they asked him to stop.

I suspect it might be the same the world over - the rules are there to protect us, and when we feel there is a good reason to enforce them we do so.... We don't always have to enforce them... (although I'm not sure if anyone ever told the cops that)!

[Southern Star]

John, I don't think Saucy was seriously proposing international prohibition - I think she was just outlining the selective enforcement of laws regulating the use of alcohol, even where there is theoretically a complete ban.

Brad