COLREGS and vessels propelled by oars or paddles

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Montanan

COLREGs are country specific since they are adopted by legislative acts of each signatory country of the international convention. Ditto as to each country's amendments and modifications thereof.

..........

You are of course, correct and I should have made that distinction.

The thread title has not limited the discussion to any particular locality and considering the international membership of CF, there is only one version of the international source document.

So yes, CF members should reference the legislative acts of their own country.

[john61ct]

Or forget them and just develop some common sense and empathy for the no-nothings

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Could we all agree if you see this vessel that you should give way even if you were the stand on vessel?

Ahh...no.

It is possible the other captain knows his/her responsibilities and acts accordingly even though initial appearances suggest otherwise to you.

So you should stand on so the other captain can be certain of your course and speed and so he/she can take the necessary action to avoid a collision with you until such time you deem it unsafe to continue. At this time you should alter your course and speed to avoid a collision.

You have carried your responsibilities and every one is safe!

Then give them a friendly wave and wish them "a nice day on the water".

OK, taking my pedantic hat off now

Another possibility is to give way to them.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Wotname

If we are discussing COLREGS and this thread is, then there is only one version although it is available in three languages (English, French and Spanish). See COLREG

Of course if you are discussing other local maritime regulations, you may quote whatever version you wish. However I think you know this!

The link you provided above is only the IMO's summary of the COLREGs -- not that actual full text.


The full text (from the USCG) is here: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navR...B_20190212.pdf



And it includes the following:

§ 88.07 Public Safety Activities (a)Vessels engaged in government sanctioned public safety activities, and commercial vessels performing similar functions, may display an alternately flashing red and yellow light signal. This identification light signal must be located so that it does not interfere with the visibility of the vessel’s navigation lights. The identification light signal may be used only as an identification signal and conveys no special privilege. Vessels using the identification light signal during public safety activities must abide by the Inland Navigation Rules, and must not presume that the light or the exigency gives them precedence or right of way.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

It depends on which version you are looking at.



Actually, the phrase occurs twice in the Inland rules. Rules 9 and 14, both referring to the Great Lakes: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...lesAmalgamated

Inland Rules are NOT COLREGs

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

The link you provided above is only the IMO's summary of the COLREGs -- not that actual full text.


The full text (from the USCG) is here: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navR...B_20190212.pdf

That is NOT the full text of COLREGs, It is the text of the US combined COLREGs and Inland Navigation Rules.


The actual COLREGs are binding on all states which have ratified the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (which includes the US) are contained in the official English and French versions of the Regulations.



You can read a full copy of COLREGS here:
https://www.academia.edu/28451717/Ll...lisions_at_Sea

[Shrew]

I ha an incident a few years ago. There was a cluster of Kayakers. 3 decided to stop and wait for the stragglers in their party. They were sitting motionless, floating in the middle of a narrow channel.

I had a rock jetty to Stbd, and an unmarked sandbar to my port. I stopped, assuming they would move. They continued floating there. I gave them a single short blast (assuming they would understand car horn, rather than vessel signaling) and asked them to move.

It was at that point that they belligerently advised me that THEY had 'the right of way'.

I explained that while they had the right of way, they didn't have the right to block the channel and that I was constrained by depth. I was then given the finger.

I put the boat in gear and proceeded forward.......they eventually moved when they realized I was not stopping. (I didn't intend to run them down, simply pass by them very, very, very close. I received a litany of profanity from them.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Shrew

I ha an incident a few years ago. There was a cluster of Kayakers. 3 decided to stop and wait for the stragglers in their party. They were sitting motionless, floating in the middle of a narrow channel.

I had a rock jetty to Stbd, and an unmarked sandbar to my port. I stopped, assuming they would move. They continued floating there. I gave them a single short blast (assuming they would understand car horn, rather than vessel signaling) and asked them to move.

It was at that point that they belligerently advised me that THEY had 'the right of way'.

I explained that while they had the right of way, they didn't have the right to block the channel and that I was constrained by depth. I was then given the finger.

I put the boat in gear and proceeded forward.......they eventually moved when they realized I was not stopping. (I didn't intend to run them down, simply pass by them very, very, very close. I received a litany of profanity from them.

Thank you for sharing that. I would have handled it the same way. What else can you do? I would have ended up having difficulty enjoying the rest of the day.


I believe this is an example showing why it is important to seek clarity on the rules, and shared understanding with the paddling community. I'm confident that someone told them that they "have right of way" over power boats. I would guess they were just exercising their rights to shared use of the water as they perceive them, rather than being deliberately obtuse.

[Spot]

Shrew, I would have gladly back-paddled my kayak or SUP to get out of your way. Takes way less effort than chest-thumping and getting everyone in the channel upset...

[markpierce]

While cruising at six knots, a kayaker caught up and ended up riding my bow wave three feet from my hull, behind the helmsman position. Just think what could have happened if I needed to make a sudden turn. Here he is catching up:

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by Spot

Shrew, I would have gladly back-paddled my kayak or SUP to get out of your way. Takes way less effort than chest-thumping and getting everyone in the channel upset...

I would assume MOST would. What was so puzzling was they weren't more than 20 feet from the sandbar and the entire group appeared to be heading in that general direction anyway.

With the sun and the water clarity, you could clearly see that the sandbar was very close. It made no sense why they chose to sit in the only navigable water and insist that I float there waiting for them.

Also worth mentioning, the wind was pushing me toward the sandbar.

To me, it was like pedestrians standing in the middle of a cross walk having a conversation with a green light, while yelling that all the cars that they needed to stop and wait for them.

[zeehag]

i figger it is a darwin award issue..those hman propelled craft with operators too ignorant to stand by as a larger and faster boat will learn the hard way. i have watched a s uscg auxiliary in san diego bay speed within 2 feet of a kayaker in an area which is not a channel and the kayaks were between moorings and a beach.
as no one will look out for the human propelled craft, we must do it ourselves--use common sense if you have it or become a darwin award winner. wait out the passage of a crackpot or lawbreaker and just be safe. as for yoga on sup--more darwin award fodder. how can one be on watch when one is too preoccupied to be on watch....

[requiem]

Every once in a while I try to dig up further info on this topic. The only case law I've seen dates from 1889 and held that rowboats don't even count as a vessel, are easily moved to safety with a few strokes of the oars, and must not impede a steamer.

Obviously the first part is no longer true. In some areas local rules consider them to be equivalent to power vessels for the purposes of the rules (e.g. the Port of London on the Thames and I've heard the same elsewhere). I've also seen mention of local customs & courtesies differing for e.g. rowing shells vs kayaks. Traditional thought experiment: where does a full-sized trireme fit in?

A search of USCG ALJ decisions turned up only a few summaries, and nearly all cite failure to keep watch and so forth as the reason for collision. In 2017, the first case involving the Portland Spirit focused on Rule 8 and whether Rule 2 excused departing from it (it didn't). Unfortunately the second case, which involved rowing shells, wasn't contested and so there's no published decision. The CG press release did mention this:

The complaint stated the respondent was negligent while serving as master of the Portland Spirit in that he failed to take positive action to avoid a collision with two recreational rowers. As per navigation rules, the master had the responsibility to not only avoid a collision but also to alter the course or speed of the Portland Spirit in order to not impede the passage or safe passage of the rowers.

There was no collision in this case, the rowers instead altered course in time. As the rowers were to starboard, they would have been stand-on if following power rules. (edit: no decision, just the complaint.)

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by requiem

A search of USCG ALJ decisions turned up only a few summaries, and nearly all cite failure to keep watch and so forth as the reason for collision. In 2017, the first case involving the Portland Spirit focused on Rule 8 and whether Rule 2 excused departing from it (it didn't).

This is an example of the approach advocated upthread (i.e. proceed slowly and push the other vessels out of the way if necessary).



News reports indicate that the case is quite a mess. It's difficult to draw general conclusions:


1) The Portland Spirit apparently operates under the terms of a permit that prohibits her from turning around in the channel. It is possible that the channel is too narrow to permit a safe turn.


2) There were small craft blocking the entire channel. Water patrol had asked them to move an hour earlier, and they didn't.


3) The small craft had gathered to watch the Red Bull Flugtag, which had drawn a much larger crowd than the organizers said they expected, leading to the blockage.


4) It appears to me that the captain of the Portland Spirit had no good alternatives once the voyage was underway. It is unclear whether the captain knew, or should have known, that the channel was blocked


5) While the Portland Spirit was proceeding very slowly through the mass of boats, allowing most to get out of the way, it did collide with two kayakers. The imminent collision would not have been visible from the helm.


Plenty of blame to go around for everyone, and an example of the sort of job that is nearly impossible to perform safely 100% of the time.



Not a useful precedent for much of anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HihFYvEyGy4

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...in_suspen.html


https://katu.com/news/local/flugtag-...irit-suspended

Unfortunately the second case, which involved rowing shells, wasn't contested and so there's no published decision. The CG press release did mention this:

There was no collision in this case, the rowers instead altered course in time. As the rowers were to starboard, they would have been stand-on if following power rules. (edit: no decision, just the complaint.)

The news reports on the second one are mixed. Apparently the rowers were part of a sponsored race that required a permit. The permit set specific times and the incident occurred after the end time for the race.


The local sheriff said that commercial traffic generally has right-of-way. Hmm. This was a non-revenue trip (no passengers aboard) for the Portland Spirit. It's hard for me to get on the captain's side after looking at the video.



https://katu.com/news/local/portland...ll-with-rowers


https://www.kptv.com/news/portland-s...0d9bf209e.html


https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...nding_cap.html

[requiem]

The decision for the first case is worth a read; the main problem was not so much how the boat was handled when the risk of collision existed, but rather the decision to proceed in the first place and later. (I.e. he was aware of the congestion and that authorities were having trouble clearing a path.)

link: https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/Headq...-26-100204-767