wrote in message
oups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even though, in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

OK, but commercial/pleasure doesn't matter. What does matter is
participation in a VTS,

**********

Please don't overlook the fact that only commercial vessels are
*required* to participate in VTS.

he was thinking something like that:

"Oh, I think if I showed off and cut a tight turn, zip along the jetty
my passengers would think I am cool. They would also see those cool
bald eagles and recommend me to their freinds. But what is that? A
pleasure craft is right where I want to drive... Eh, no biggie! He
will move when I approach with high speed"

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jun 2005 18:08:29 -0700, wrote:

He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.

Even more so then. I can only assume he wasn't keeping proper watch
because that is a pretty stupid thing to do.


I think the thing to do was call on Channel 16 and ask "the whale watch boat
that just cut across the channel and almost head on crashed into me, except
for my evasive manuevers, what were you thinking?" Now it is public info
and the CG has heard the discussion. And they may contact the Whale Watch
boat for a little palaver.

On 27 Jun 2005 18:12:50 -0700, wrote:

DEMOCRATS SUCK!!! REPUBLICANS RULE!!!

There, that should get things back on track.

ROFL!!!

well, how would the orignal sitiuation be asessed if one captn was
Democrat and the other republican? Who would then have the right of
way?


It would go to the Supreme Court and only god knows how that would
come out.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:18:59 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
He didnt leave me on any side. He went HEAD ON.


You did the right thing.

Now folks will try to cut your scenario into a bunch of "what if's" but the
bottom line is that you did the right thing ...no one was hurt and no
property was damaged.

Common sense trumps all the ColRegs and USCG rules at times, even though, in
this case, I think you were not only right but within the law.

So go to sleep happy knowing you did the right thing.....take all the other
stuff with a grain of salt. ;-)

Are you saying that the rules discussion was wrong?

Come on - admit it - you learned something didn't you? :)

wrote:
When he crossed and went on a collision course with my boat I had about
5-10 seconds to turn away or he would have mowed me down.


Hmm, yes, that is a bit too close for comfort; I'd say he broke the
rules. In fact that's a bit too close even if he had signalled his
intentions first.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Don't say there isn't a law - he clearly was in the wrong - we're not
suggesting anything other wise. We were just arguing some fine points
in the Collision Regulations that govern how these incidents are
investigated and in the assigning of blame.

You cannot directly place your vessel in direct harm to you or others
by abrupt changes of direction or speed.

Clearly, he either didn't see you, or he abused his status as the
larger vessel.

Or he's just a flaming bonehead. They're out there.


Fortunately, you did the right thing.

By the way, in this case, Rule 15, Crossing Situation applied to this
as I understand you which clearly places the burden on him.

If they were in a narrow channel, would it be a crossing situation? I
was thinking that the other boat could have just signalled a starboard
side (two whistle) pass... and of course, given a lot more sea room to
the oncoming vessel...

DSK

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:38:12 -0400, DSK wrote:

wrote:
When he crossed and went on a collision course with my boat I had about
5-10 seconds to turn away or he would have mowed me down.


Hmm, yes, that is a bit too close for comfort; I'd say he broke the
rules. In fact that's a bit too close even if he had signalled his
intentions first.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Don't say there isn't a law - he clearly was in the wrong - we're not
suggesting anything other wise. We were just arguing some fine points
in the Collision Regulations that govern how these incidents are
investigated and in the assigning of blame.

You cannot directly place your vessel in direct harm to you or others
by abrupt changes of direction or speed.

Clearly, he either didn't see you, or he abused his status as the
larger vessel.

Or he's just a flaming bonehead. They're out there.


Fortunately, you did the right thing.

By the way, in this case, Rule 15, Crossing Situation applied to this
as I understand you which clearly places the burden on him.

If they were in a narrow channel, would it be a crossing situation? I
was thinking that the other boat could have just signalled a starboard
side (two whistle) pass... and of course, given a lot more sea room to
the oncoming vessel...

True - late ron we found that the boat was head on and placed as such
in a deliberate manner.

You are right - bone heads are every where.

William Andersen wrote:
What does matter for example, constrained by
draft to operation in the channel.

You might want to be careful with this term. As it has no menaing
inside the US Colregs demarcation line. Many participants here will
never venture to a place where Constrained by Draft would apply.

Unless the vessel crossing the channel had dayshapes up for Not Under
Command. If she had perhaps a rudder casualty.

Granted the guy/gal was probably just a bone head. But nothing much has
een said about any dayshapses, lights or audible signals that were or
were not present.