COLREGS and vessels propelled by oars or paddles

[KJThomas]

Yes. I am quotingthe international Colregs, which is the subject of the discussion. What Inner Tallamazoo, does, has buggerral to do with it

Originally Posted by StuM

Are you sure about that?


It's not how the power gets to the water, its where the power originates.



"Mechanically propelled vessel, means every description of vessel propelled wholly or in part by electricity steam or other mechanical power. [National Waterway Safety of Navigation and Shipping Regulation, 2002, R. 2(L)]"


1[(1) “ mechanically propelled vessel “ means every des*cription of vessel ordinarily plying on inland watersand propelled wholly or in part by steam, electricity or other mechanical power [The Inland Mechanically Propelled Vessels Act, 1917


And the USCG:

[StuM]

Originally Posted by KJThomas

Yes. I am quotingthe international Colregs, which is the subject of the discussion. What Inner Tallamazoo, does, has buggerral to do with it

Reference please?


It must be pre-1960 since the 1960 COLREGs used the current wording.

[dfelsent]

So there I was today, going about four knots, in Boston harbor, headed for the mother ship. And a 26’ Bayliner was crossing me from my port to my starboard side. She was going about 5 knots.
I was clearly the stand on vessel. Under some theory I’m not really interested in.
What I did was drop my oars in the water, stop, wave the Bayliner across, and take his stern.
No resentment, no harm, no foul. The skipper saw me and was not sure what to do. I made it clear for him and an easy situation.
Under sail or power I call big ships on the radio when on a collision course to let them know my intentions. I duck them. Once the Queen Mary 2 changed course for me after I let them know my plan. Lol. All easy and good.
And some people understand colregs and inland rules and seamanship.
And some people are unaware.
Understanding and unaware are not the same thing as seamanlike and being a jerk.
Situational awareness and courtesy go a long way.

[svbeausoleil]

The way I see it: Sailing vessels get special consideration because they can't go into the wind without tacking.


Oar powered vessels have no such problems so they should give way to vessels under sail.



If a sailing vessel is under sail and has the engine ticking over, it should be considered a motor vessel.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by dfelsent

So there I was today, going about four knots, in Boston harbor, headed for the mother ship. And a 26’ Bayliner was crossing me from my port to my starboard side. She was going about 5 knots.
I was clearly the stand on vessel. Under some theory I’m not really interested in.
What I did was drop my oars in the water, stop, wave the Bayliner across, and take his stern.
No resentment, no harm, no foul. The skipper saw me and was not sure what to do. I made it clear for him and an easy situation.

Which is a great way to handle it.


The real problem at the root of the premise of this thread is vessels, paddled or rowed, that believe they "have the right of way" under unlimited or nearly unlimited circumstances, in many if not most cases because that is what they were told or taught.

[CaptBobR]

I was pushing two barges loaded with rock drawing 10 feet and came around a corner at night. There was a bunch of kayakers in the channel and I came to full astern and used the horn. They told me they had the right of way.

I am for mandatory licensing

[requiem]

Originally Posted by CaptBobR

They told me they had the right of way.

This is, I think, the main reason the rules should be clarified. A few weeks ago I did a quick search for combinations of terms like "kayak" or "paddle", and "rules" or "right of way", and found that a surprising number of results (whether forum posts or websites/blogs) make the claim that human-powered craft have the right of way. Some temper it with cautions to not be "dead right", but this is a recipe for trouble, particularly when the general public starts piling into a hobby and assumes everything works the same as on land.

Simpler than updating the COLREGS might be (for the US) to have NASBLA and the USCG agree on some guidelines that can be published as a simple infographic; it could then be pushed out via tour operators, rental outfits, and outdoor shops. The key educational elements would be the importance of always keeping watch, having a means to signal, not blocking access in narrow channels or fairways, and discarding the concept of "right of way" in favor of relative maneuverability.

[wguterbock]

Our rowing club in Anacortes, WA teaches that a rowboat is considered a power boat for navigation rules. Obviously the rules quoted in other responses about avoiding collision and exercising prudence apply.

[Lance]

So can I even come to a lower denominator in regard to these questions wether a stand up paddler with his PROPELLOR must give way to persons on surf boards who have no propellor and only their arms .(layabouts) thats me .

Also who is responsible when the propelled sup hits a swimmer especially if the sup is riding with the aid of a dam big foiling blade .
BTW I am witnessing the swimmer scenario possiblity and the foiler as I write this .

[Jammer]

Swimmers aren't covered by the COLREGs but problems are likely to increase along with a resurgence of what is now called "wild swimming." Opportunity for conflict is increased by local regulations that forbid swimming outside designated swimming areas, in smaller bodies of water that are most suitable for it, so that people swim in navigable waters that are outside local jurisdiction.


Most swimmers out in areas where boats are likely to encounter them are serious about safety. They are aware of their surroundings and usually tow a high-visibility float unless they are close to shore or a vessel.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by requiem

This is, I think, the main reason the rules should be clarified. A few weeks ago I did a quick search for combinations of terms like "kayak" or "paddle", and "rules" or "right of way", and found that a surprising number of results (whether forum posts or websites/blogs) make the claim that human-powered craft have the right of way. Some temper it with cautions to not be "dead right", but this is a recipe for trouble, particularly when the general public starts piling into a hobby and assumes everything works the same as on land.

Simpler than updating the COLREGS might be (for the US) to have NASBLA and the USCG agree on some guidelines that can be published as a simple infographic; it could then be pushed out via tour operators, rental outfits, and outdoor shops. The key educational elements would be the importance of always keeping watch, having a means to signal, not blocking access in narrow channels or fairways, and discarding the concept of "right of way" in favor of relative maneuverability.

I agree with everything you wrote.


A complicating factor is that there do exist state and local rules for those waters that are not under federal jurisdiction. As noted upthread, these laws are highly variable and are not necessarily consistent with the Inland Rules which themselves are not consistent with the COLREGs. Making matters even more difficult, there are many waters where it has never been determined whether they are navigable and therefore under federal jurisdiction, since such determination is made by the courts when a case is brought. The ACOE publishes a list of navigable waters, but it is not exhaustive.


I remember once watching an activist individual walking the crosswalks repeatedly in a square pattern around a busy intersection without regard to the traffic lights while loudly chanting "pedestrian has right of way" or something to that effect. Cars stopped, because you don't hit people. Jaywalking, however, is an offense, albeit a petty misdemeanor. I didn't wait around to see if a cop showed up.


On the water, law enforcement is mainly concerned with drunk operators, paperwork violations, and equipment violations (lifejackets, flares, fire extinguishers, etc). While I am tempted to wish for a greater focus on COLREGs and their federal/state/local equivalents, I have learned to be careful what I wish for.

[jmorrison146]

The crap some people come up with never ceases to amaze me.

[Sojourner]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Which is a great way to handle it.


The real problem at the root of the premise of this thread is vessels, paddled or rowed, that believe they "have the right of way" under unlimited or nearly unlimited circumstances, in many if not most cases because that is what they were told or taught.

Absolutely. I do this in the mothership as well...it's my home with all my belongings and cats, I don't need to test the seamanship of the 60 foot powerboat coming at me. I make a clear move to cross astern if there is any doubt.

BUT I restate: I don't think the average paddler or kayaker around here has any idea COLREGS even exist, let alone the nuances, so I treat them accordingly. Up to and including yelling "GET THE F$#& OUT OF THE CHANNEL" Most paddlers see my bow steaming at them and also act accordingly.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by StuM

Are you sure about that?


It's not how the power gets to the water, its where the power originates.



"Mechanically propelled vessel, means every description of vessel propelled wholly or in part by electricity steam or other mechanical power. [National Waterway Safety of Navigation and Shipping Regulation, 2002, R. 2(L)]"


1[(1) “ mechanically propelled vessel “ means every des*cription of vessel ordinarily plying on inland watersand propelled wholly or in part by steam, electricity or other mechanical power [The Inland Mechanically Propelled Vessels Act, 1917


And the USCG:

Is that figure attached an attempt at legal definition of what is "mechancial power" or was that simply used as an easy to understand division of boat types with no intent to clarify the colregs.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Is that figure attached an attempt at legal definition of what is "mechancial power" or was that simply used as an easy to understand division of boat types with no intent to clarify the colregs.

It was just one of several examples showing that the common meaning and various legal definitions of "mechanical power" is "non-person power" contrary to the claim that it used to be in COLREGS and included "person power".

I'm still waiting for any evidence that it ever was in COLREGS, or any cite of that being a valid interpretation of the term anywhere.