COLREGS and vessels propelled by oars or paddles

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Shrew

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 would have given them a more accurate response: "No one has 'right of way'. Ever. There is no such thing on the water!"

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by StuM

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

Good references. Thanks. As far as I can tell (I haven't done a word-for-word comparison) these are exactly the same as the USCG document - minus the Inland Rules. If that's true, then it is incorrect to claim the USCG version is: "NOT the full text of COLREGs." It's the COLREGs plus the US- specific Inland Rules. Just ignore the Inland Rules, and you have the International COLREGs. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by 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

Agreed the conditions were not safe for transiting the river due to the congestion across the channel. The cruise boat could simply had chosen to not head upstream, in which case there would have been no close approach. One should not just barge their way through a cluster of boats and swimmers who had priority of presence and were anchored and rafting. Sure the anchoring and rafting was inappropriate in the channel but two wrongs never make a right.

I would also fault the USCG for simply not closing the navigable waterway until the congestion was resolved, since it was readily apparent that the USCG despite their best efforts were unsuccessful in clearing the channel from the inappropriately anchored and rafting vessels and swimmers.
For certain you don't allow a vastly larger vessel to attempt to maneuver through a cluster of anchored vessels. Geez, I could just imagine that vessel trying to barge through a congested mooring field, truly indefensible.

GetThereItis almost always a bad mental illness, incapacitating towards sound decision making.

Fortunately no one was injured and the damage limited to a bit of scratched paint.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by 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

Thanks, I read through it. It is as you say.



I wonder whether any of the boats that had anchored in the channel received any sanctions.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Thanks, I read through it. It is as you say.



I wonder whether any of the boats that had anchored in the channel received any sanctions.

Probably not, they would have to start with many, many BUI’s to start with.

[a64pilot]

I’ve had rental pontoon boats full of drunks pass within 5’ of my bow with me under sail at Panama City, they had no idea at all that they were in danger. Smiling and waving, in complete oblivion.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Good references. Thanks. As far as I can tell (I haven't done a word-for-word comparison) these are exactly the same as the USCG document - minus the Inland Rules. If that's true, then it is incorrect to claim the USCG version is: "NOT the full text of COLREGs." It's the COLREGs plus the US- specific Inland Rules. Just ignore the Inland Rules, and you have the International COLREGs. Correct me if I'm wrong...

The problem is that people do not ignore the Inland Navigation Rules, they incorrectly conflate the two.



This is exemplified by your post #34. You said (and apparently believed) that you were quoting COLREGs when in fact you were quoting the US specific Inland Navigation Rules:


"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 (..."

To have any meaningful discussion about COLREGs, you need to actually refer to COLREGs, not to the "non-COLREG" part of a document which is a compilation of both COLREG and non-COLREG text.

[markpierce]

I avoid collision with all vessels. Even if stand-on status, will take avoidance action before imminent collisions with another vessel.

Haven't experienced channel-blockage by kayakers, yet. Nevertheless, I'd give a long (and loud) toot and slow to steerage speed when approaching. If unsatisfactory reaction by kayakers, I'd use the bow thruster to spin around like a top, constantly sounding horn and radioing USCG. (My horn is loud and would be a major annoyance.) Companion would take photos.

[bobnlesley]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

...maneuvering through a crowded harbor and 300 rental SUPs and kayaker who have no idea of ColRegs, no idea of the limited maneuverability of larger boats and they aren’t looking anyway...

When on the ICW north of Miami we saw a bunch of paddle-boarders not only choose to use the deep water/ICW channel under a bridge span, but to do so just as the bridge was being raised for the high vessels - fortunately we were northbound/up-tide and had agreed to let the southbound vessels go first so we were not directly involved, just had a front row seat.
A few shouts/boat horns rang out the moment that the paddle-boarders cut in ahead of the waiting fleet of sail and fly-bridged power-boats who were holding against the stern tide waiting for the lifting bridge, but they reached epic proportions when a few moments later, one of the paddle-boarders - pretty much mid-channel and right up to the almost fully raised bridge - received a phone call; she simply shipped her paddle, dug the phone out of her fanny-pack and stood there drifting and chatting, by now right under the lifted span! When for a few seconds the cacophany abated, we clearly heard the lady call out to the southbound boats "Keep it down FFS, can't you see that I'm on a call here."

[JC Reefer]

This is a fun one,

“Man-powered beats sail beats motorboat beats seaplane. Human-powered boats (canoes and rowboats) have the right of way over sailboats, which in turn have the right of way over powerboats, and even they have the right of way over seaplanes. I think of this in terms of increasing technological sophistication: the fancier your equipment, the fewer rights you have (sort of a class reversal).

This is an important one for sailors, of course, but note that there are a number of situations listed above where sailors must still give way.”

And if man-power takes on sailboat, motorboat, seaplane or ship then they are dead.

Stay safe y’all.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

This is a fun one,

“Man-powered beats sail beats motorboat beats seaplane. Human-powered boats (canoes and rowboats) have the right of way over sailboats

I see your quote and raise you this:

"The Navigation Law clearly states that a kayak is not a vessel," Mausert said. (source; note that this is NY State law and so largely useless for anyone else, but it did get the charges dropped for the powerboater.)

That said, I challenge you to find a significant jurisdiction that gives human-powered boats blanket priority.

[GeneM]

I used to teach COLREGS at a Maritime Academy and started the first lecture describing the Rule of Gross Tonnage or "the biggest guy goes first".

Of course that's not a real rule, but I've seen many situations where size matters! It's good to realize that and keep diligent.

A kayak is small and should mostly be in shallow water. If someone is kayaking in a ship channel or even in a well trafficked boat channel, they should pay attention to the danger of getting run over.

If I was a judge presiding over an injury case in a kayak-boat collision, I would think mostly of the need to not impede a vessel in a channel!

In a wide bay, it's easy to avoid a kayak while in a boat unless there is someone not watching. Again, as judge, I'd be looking for who was asleep at the wheel.

[requiem]

Also relevant, this bit from an older issue of Latitude 38:

According to the Coast Guard, two principles come into play when situations aren't specifically covered by the rules of the road: Relative Maneuverability and Negligent Operation. Under the principle of Relative Maneuverability, whichever vessel can best avoid a collision under the circumstances is generally required to keep clear. Under the principle of Negligent Operation, one can't operate a vessel in violation of common sense or without using reasonable precautions.

[Sojourner]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Having crewed competitively for over a decade, I recognize a paradox in that specific category.

Rowing eights can of course accelerate faster than most boat types, and also stop pretty sharply when necessary.

Their only purpose out there is to go as straight and fast as possible for 2000m.

Rarely are such courses laid out where they interfere with other traffic.

When simply training, to develop endurance, I would hope they'd be considerate?

Hahaha try palermo harbor.... they scull and row up and down right along the fairways all dam day They seem to get out of the way of anyone coming or going, as it is practice not races, so it's all good.

In general, the reason I think colregs do NOT apply to rowers and kayakers is simple: no kayaker or rower (unless of course they also boat) knows anything about colregs. The guy renting the kayak from the club med and paddling around ain't gonna have a clue who has to do what. Even proper sailors mess it up half the time. I give them way as much as I can, especially as I'm likely to encounter them motoring close to shores, but also most of them instinctively know to get out of the way of the big boat steaming at them.....wouldn't you?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by markpierce

I avoid collision with all vessels. Even if stand-on status, will take avoidance action before imminent collisions with another vessel.

Which is exactly what you should do under COLRGEs Rule 17 (a) (ii) and must do under Rule 17 b