Rules of the Road Ruling Needed

If this is too long just ignore... but I'd like some advice.

Let me describe the situation. South Florida, northbound on the ICW approaching a drawbridge with a 35' height and 90' width, big bridge. I'm operating a 52' MY and require 21' clearance so I don't need an opening. I'm in a slow zone with a mild current at my stern. I'm going only fast enough to maintain control of the boat, which is slightly above idle speed. I'm monitoring Ch 16 only. I see on the other side of the bridge a roughly 30' monohull sailboat with no sails and under power about 100 yds north of the bridge, facing west, which was into the wind and broadside to the bridge, but in a wide area. He was fine where he was. When I'm about 75 yds south of the bridge, heading north, it begins to open, presumably for the sailboat. However the sailboat does not begin to turn south and remains facing west until the bridge is fully opened. Seeing that, I continue north, hugging the right (east) side of the channel which would allow ample room for both of us to pass and as I am clearing the bridge he turns and begins south from about 100 yds away. We pass port to port about 75 yds north of the bridge and then the bridgetender hails me on 16 and tells me that this is a no wake zone, that I should be monitoring Ch 9 (the bridgetender channel in Florida) and that the sailboat has the right-of way. I reply that the sailboat had not even begun his approach when I passed under the bridge and that I had done nothing wrong. He advised that the USCG monitors this channel and that I could take it up with them. I followed this up with a phone call to the bridgetender when I was back in port. He maintained he was right, that I'm required to monitor Ch 9 when in the ICW and that once the sailboat received an opening they had the right-of-way.

So, my questions are:

1) Am I required to monitor Ch9 in the ICW in Florida. I understand that I hail the bridgetender on 9 but I did not need an opening.

2) I know that a sailboat under power is a powerboat but does a boat actually get special privilege because they have an opening? There was more than enough width for us to both pass safely under the bridge. I'm a good operator and in spite of having the current astern I was way over to my side, leaving more than 2/3 of the width for the sailboat.

3) Lastly, I was operating at the minimum speed required to maintain control of the boat, passing under a bridge. Regardless of the wake I left, which was minimal was I wrong? There were no marinas or docks near the bridge.

Thoughts? Opinions? Advice?

I want to be a good operator, and I believe I am. I received my 50 ton USCG License and ran Dive Charter boats here for about 5 years in the late 80's, early 90's and have had a boat in this area ever since. I'm not a novice but I'm beginning to wonder if I was in the right or in the wrong. I honestly wouldn't do anything differently, other than possibly monitoring Ch 9 when I approached the bridge, and that's a maybe.

Having not been on site... Several items in your post I'll not take a stand on. However, will say [agree with you] that sail boat under power is then considered to receive/have same water/navigation rights as a power boat under power.

Looking forward to other's posts.

The will be an over generalization but it has been my experience that a lot of bridge tenders will go to great lengths to increase their feelings of self worth and importance. They make you wait when there is no traffic, they act difficult when there is no need, and will never miss an opportunity to belittle someone.

Their sole purpose in life is to open a bridge, and when you give them the chance to do their job, they act like you are asking for an audience with the pope.

You can all jump on me for stereotyping people and you will be 100% correct. I know I am doing it. I know its wrong. I know my best self would not make such judgements. I am not that enlightened yet. There are still a few occupations that if I met you at a party and you said "Hi....I'm a ( insert job title here )" I would just walk away. Bridge tender tops that list.

Benthic2 said:

...
Their sole purpose in life is to open a bridge, and when you give them the chance to do their job, they act like you are asking for an audience with the pope....

Click to expand...

Never had that experience at the Mare Island bridge.

https://www.cityofvallejo.net/city_...ntenance_division/mare_island_causeway_bridge

Without sails it's a power boat.

You should have dual monitored 16 and 9 coming to the bridge. It's not a law. When you saw the sailboat and or the bridge openings, you definitely should have monitored 9.

I don't know for sure but believe a bridge tender has authority over traffic going through his OPEN span. This would be similar to a lock master.

You are atleast partly at fault for not coming to a passing agreement with the sailboat in a restricted waterway. He is also at fault unless given sole authority to transit the open span.

Ted

That he used the term "right of way" shows he's wrong right out of the gate. There's no such thing as "right of way" when it comes to being on the water. There's stand on and give way. I'm of the opinion the only factor that could differentiate in that situation, with both vessels being powered, would be the bridge clearance and depths needed by the sailboat (and possibly currents). That touching on a vessel being constrained by navigational limits. But it doesn't sound like that was at issue there. Sounds like the bridgetender got it wrong.

Question is how much noise do you want to make to see that corrected? Life's complicated enough without overzealous employees hassling people for no good reason. Rain on his parade a bit, file a complaint. Might do nothing, but might be the one that tips the balance and gets him replaced.

If he actually used the term "right of way" he was automatically wrong. There is no such thing as "right of way" except with a power driven vessel (which you both were) downbound with a following current on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary (of Homeland Security.) Which you were not. All you were required to do was hold to the right side of the channel and pass port to port, which you did. As for monitoring Ch 9, maybe a good idea, but I don't think required. Ch 9 is designated by the FCC as an OPTIONAL recreational hailing channel. Sure the bridge tender would have preferred you to be on 9, but if he really wanted to talk to you he could have tried 16. His bad. As far as I know if you don't need the bridge opened you don't need to talk to it. I never have. But then I usually have my radio scanning 9, 16, and any others used by bridges, locks, or commercial vessels in the area. My commercial vessels have all had two radios one on 16 the other on 13 as required in my area of operation.

The bridge tender went to MSU, "Make Stuff Up".


Monitor Ch 9 required? No. Prudent, Yes.

"Right of Way" term has been gone for decades.

CG Monitoring Ch 9? No.

Sailboat under power is a powerboat even if sails are up.

And in FL, the bridge tenders tell the requesting vessel to stay outside the fenders until the bridge reaches full up. At least they did in 2020.

Let it go. It seems the only person that had any issue was the bridge tender based on his own bad training.

High Wire said:

The bridge tender went to MSU, "Make Stuff Up".


Monitor Ch 9 required? No. Prudent, Yes.

"Right of Way" term has been gone for decades.

CG Monitoring Ch 9? No.

Sailboat under power is a powerboat even if sails are up.

Let it go.

Click to expand...

Back when I was volunteering with the USCGAux, they didn't even have ch 9 available. Didn't even have real marine radios, they were custom built Motorola's with only 16, 22, 23, 81, 83 and a "secret" channel at ten times the cost. Your Government at work. May be different now though, that was 20 years ago.

Concur with the above. I have never heard of a mandate to monitor Channel 09, but when operating in the ICW, especially around other traffic, and especially around a drawbridge, it's good practice. In congested waterways, especially on weekends, Channel 16 long ago became a hopeless cacophony. Best practice is to scan 09, 13 and 16, but I have to admit that in congested waters, I tune-out most of what I probably ought to be monitoring on 16.

Scrupulously correct VHF practice or not, it sounds as though your maneuvers were early and unambiguous enough to avoid misunderstanding or conflict. That bridgetender must have been having a slow / bad day.

Right of way can be a local navigational rule. Other places besides western rivers use the term and for all I know it could be under that bridge too.

While I understand people who say it's not a term in the Navrules (which it is used), but I would be careful of those posts and read coast pilots for every new transit. There is no constrained by draft in Inland waters of the US.

I have never heard that you must monitor the bridge working channel, but it is bad seamanship not to. Lots of boats with no radios go through all the time.

The bridgetender I don't think has the same authority as a lock master, but again, local navrules may assign some authority to assign traffic flow.

If you weren't creating a wake, don't worry about it......as no one can prove you were unless video shows it or a LEO observes it.

Rule 2 would probably be more important here than the one saying a sailboat under power is just another powerboat.

Rule 2 discusses good seamanship and lack of or inapplicable rules for the situation. Good seamanship is dependent on the situation and without being there to see the bridge opening and sailboat placement....almost impossible for an internet guess. Doesn't matter what you thought, if the sailboat and the bridgetender thought the sailboat needed the center to clear and you made that uncomfortable.

Did you break a law? I don't think so and the bridgetender can't really be a judge either (heck they are always saying that they aren't the captain and can't give out nav advice).

PS....if that was the north bridge near Jupiter Inlet, Fl....there was a couple years ago a real walker of a bridge tender. He claimed he was going to get the USCG to fine me $25,000 for requesting an uneeded opening. He claimed I could make it easy though the middle, but when I said there was oncoming traffic under the bridge, could he assure me the middle....well of course you know that tuned into a passing contest. The south bromide just opened no questions asked and this guy obviously heard that radio exchange. Thus I agree about some bridgetenders with a power complex.

I actually didn't interpret the tenders statement that sail had priority over power. But rather the vessel that requested an opening had priority. Sounds like the tender was cranky yjst day.

BTW - for Western Rivers, the vessel headed downstream has right of way, a term that is indeed used in the nav rules. Doesn't apply here, but as Psneeld states, RoW is not as much of an anachronism as I thought. .


https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=rightOfWay

Peter

mild current at my stern
Heading downstream? If there is a consideration for right of way, a boat going with the current should have priority.

If you had a mild current at your stern then you were heading downstream and you had the right of way. Apparently the sailboat agreed as he waited for you to pass through.

I have my handheld set to scan 9/13. If there's too much chatter I turn the volume way down, up as I approach a bridge.

If there is a white buoy marked No Wake then it is no wake. No wake is whatever a law enforcement officer decides it is. Bridge tender is not LEO. Ignore him. (A Hatteras si going to leave a huge wake while drifting

PAllen529 said:

If this is too long just ignore... but I'd like some advice.

Let me describe the situation. South Florida, northbound on the ICW approaching a drawbridge with a 35' height and 90' width, big bridge. I'm operating a 52' MY and require 21' clearance so I don't need an opening. I'm in a slow zone with a mild current at my stern. I'm going only fast enough to maintain control of the boat, which is slightly above idle speed. I'm monitoring Ch 16 only. I see on the other side of the bridge a roughly 30' monohull sailboat with no sails and under power about 100 yds north of the bridge, facing west, which was into the wind and broadside to the bridge, but in a wide area. He was fine where he was. When I'm about 75 yds south of the bridge, heading north, it begins to open, presumably for the sailboat. However the sailboat does not begin to turn south and remains facing west until the bridge is fully opened. Seeing that, I continue north, hugging the right (east) side of the channel which would allow ample room for both of us to pass and as I am clearing the bridge he turns and begins south from about 100 yds away. We pass port to port about 75 yds north of the bridge and then the bridgetender hails me on 16 and tells me that this is a no wake zone, that I should be monitoring Ch 9 (the bridgetender channel in Florida) and that the sailboat has the right-of way. I reply that the sailboat had not even begun his approach when I passed under the bridge and that I had done nothing wrong. He advised that the USCG monitors this channel and that I could take it up with them. I followed this up with a phone call to the bridgetender when I was back in port. He maintained he was right, that I'm required to monitor Ch 9 when in the ICW and that once the sailboat received an opening they had the right-of-way.

So, my questions are:

1) Am I required to monitor Ch9 in the ICW in Florida. I understand that I hail the bridgetender on 9 but I did not need an opening.

2) I know that a sailboat under power is a powerboat but does a boat actually get special privilege because they have an opening? There was more than enough width for us to both pass safely under the bridge. I'm a good operator and in spite of having the current astern I was way over to my side, leaving more than 2/3 of the width for the sailboat.

3) Lastly, I was operating at the minimum speed required to maintain control of the boat, passing under a bridge. Regardless of the wake I left, which was minimal was I wrong? There were no marinas or docks near the bridge.

Thoughts? Opinions? Advice?

I want to be a good operator, and I believe I am. I received my 50 ton USCG License and ran Dive Charter boats here for about 5 years in the late 80's, early 90's and have had a boat in this area ever since. I'm not a novice but I'm beginning to wonder if I was in the right or in the wrong. I honestly wouldn't do anything differently, other than possibly monitoring Ch 9 when I approached the bridge, and that's a maybe.

Click to expand...

1. Not required to even have a VHF. However, it's definitely good practice to monitor all channels used by bridge tenders and lockmasters wherever you are and you should have monitored Channel 9 as a matter of good practice, not law or rule.

2. The fact it was a sailboat had no importance although could have played a role in limited maneuverability even under power. The issue was a bridge opening for the sailboat. You didn't need the bridge opened, but they did. The bridge tenders are under pressure to minimize opening times and so providing free clearance to those needing it makes sense. You should have yielded to the sailboat needing the opening as you could pass with the bridge down.

3. I can't judge your wake and don't know the zone you were in as we have both "no wake" which is minimum speed to maintain control as you described and "slow speed, minimum wake" in Florida. As I believe you were making your best effort, I can't imagine your wake was a problem except to the Bridge Tender who was mad at you for other reasons.

So, were you wrong in anything, not really, but can you improve with monitoring channel 9 and monitoring other key channels in other locations, yes. We needed a map to monitor correctly the channels on the River Thames as it changed along the way and maps they publish make it clear-almost. Different systems in the US have different practices but anywhere there's a bridge or lock, there's likely a channel. Add marinas monitoring specific channels.

As to bridge tenders, let's mention lockmasters first. We've been amazed at the tolerance of lockmasters when we've seen boaters who really didn't deserve to be treated so nicely. On the whole, an A+ in being nice. We haven't seen the same overall from Bridge Tenders. The majority are cordial but some are just bitter sounding. I think part of it is they are given (in their minds) a hard time by road drivers and boaters. They show the stress. They also seem to show fear of their superiors whether they should or not. However, in South Florida, they're really sticklers for the timing and only open when scheduled and sticklers for opening if height doesn't require it and they try to judge from a distance. We know them well by now and they're decent always to us but we hear them with others. We've only had one incident and it was one tried to give a female captain a hard time and he regretted that after she was through with him.

So, I think you can improve but nothing you did to deserve chastising, just perhaps a little education on Channel 9 and clearance procedures which could have been done nicely.

You said you cleared the bridge before the sailboat even made his approach, so it doesn't sound like you in anyway inhibited the sail boat. Not that it matters, because I don't know of anything that would give him priority over you anyway. If anything, good seamanship would give you priority if required since you are running down current.


The only thing I would suggest reading up on is the coast pilot for the area and the bridge to see if there are any location-specific rules.


As for Ch 9, I agree with others that there are no requirements, but good seamanship says to monitor so you are aware of what other bridge traffic is doing.

Unless the tide was ripping, without a meeting agreement between vessels reached or confirmation by a bridgetender, thinking you have a following current can be deceiving.

I have been in situations where current back eddie's or near points where the tide is changing direction can cause vessels going in different directions to "assume" they have the following current. I know that sounds a bit unreasonable...but it has happened to me on more than one occasion.

Thus alway good to know who is going first with any special requirements. More than a few bridges I have been through the bridgetender does assign priority to one set of boats or the other.....which makes sense to me.

Wow. Sounds like I should take a lawn chair, cigar and a scotch and watch the show!

Based on other comment, sounds like you did it correctly.

There is a bridge entering Gloucester harbor and a local rule that the boats entering the harbor go first and the boats exiting the harbor go after. I am not sure who's authority created the rule or who would administer discipline for violating it, but everyone seems to understand it and act appropriately.

Perhaps there was a similar local rule that the OP was unaware of ??

It seems like a "Please monitor Ch 9" sign would do everyone some good at this bridge.

We could have a new Y-Tube channel, Drawbridge Wars!

ok this will be a long response but the sailboat was operating under power which makes it null and void. Also you had the current on your stern and were 52 ft compared to his 31 feet. You had the right of way and by the sounds of it the pass was made outside of the the bridge so the bridge tender cant tell you how to make your pass. Also you are not required to monitor any VHF channel unless your a commercial vessel. If your air draft was sufficient to fit under the bridge in the closed position your not required call bridge tender to pass under it. Here is where it is gonna get long this is copied directly from he colregs.
Rule 7 - Risk of Collision

(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account: (i) Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change.
(ii) Such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.
Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision

(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with Rules 4-19 and shall if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.

(f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by Rules 4-19.

(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with Rules 4-19 when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

Rule 9 - Narrow Channels (a) ‹‹(i)›› A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.
Inland (ii) Notwithstanding Rule 9(a)(i) and Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel operating in narrow channel or fairway on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner and place of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate. The vessel proceeding upbound against the current shall hold as necessary to permit safe passing. (b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel ‹ which › ‹‹ that ›› can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.
(c) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.
(d) A vessel ‹ shall › ‹‹ must ›› not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within that channel or fairway. The latter vessel ‹ may › ‹‹ must ›› use the signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel.

International Inland (e)(i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking can take place only if the vessel to be overtaken has to take action to permit safe passing, the vessel intending to overtake shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(i). The vessel to be overtaken shall, if in agreement, sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(ii) and take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she may sound the signals prescribed in Rule 34(d). (e)(i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking, the power-driven vessel intending to overtake another power-driven vessel shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c) and take steps to permit safe passing. The power-driven vessel being overtaken, if in agreement, shall sound the same signal and may, if specifically agreed to, take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she shall sound the signal prescribed in Rule 34(d).
(e)(ii) This rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation under Rule 13.

(f) A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a narrow channel or fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening obstruction shall navigate with particular alertness and caution and shall sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(e).
(g) Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel.


As far as I am concerned as a licensed captain and merchant mariner you did the right thing. the only thing you could have done better would have been to monitor 9 as well as 16. Commercial vessels typically monitor 13 and 16. Who knows if the bridge tender had a bad day or not. Sounds like guy on sailboat didn't have a problem.

How did the OP automatically have the right of way? Unless there was a local rule concerning current and right of way. Otherwise it is only a courtesy and a weak one at that unless it's easy to tell who has the fair/ foul current.

Size is meaningless and by rule 2 my gut says the bridge opening was for the sailboat, therefore he should have priority. We are all concerned that opening become more restrictive every year and prolonging an opening is just bad form. So bogarting the passage ( because not everyone is comfy with passing a large vessel under bridges) to me could easily fall under rule 2... and this might be why the tender sad "hey, you should let the sailboat go first". It's all conjecture for those of us that weren't there...but I don't think there really was a right of way issue as much as if boats are waiting for the opening, give them the courtesy of the first move so the closing is expedited.

Not obvious to me why two small motoring boats can't pass within a 90-foot-wide passage at the same time.

If a sail boat is under power it is no longer a sail boat.
The bridge masters rules are to be obeyed at all times.
You should have been running two VHFs one on 16 and one on 9.
It is your responsibility to AVOID collision at all times no mater who has the right of way.

If the OP was 75 yards beyond the bridge when passing the sailboat, I don’t think the OP prolonged the opening. The sailboat wasn’t anywhere near it yet. Because the bridge opened for the sailboat, I don’t see how that gives it any priority either. Why should the OP wait around for the sailboat to pass before proceeding because the bridge was open and he did not require it to be. For all we know, the sailboat might have seen the OP and was waiting for him to pass first.

I can understand a bridge instructing boats not to proceed until the bridge is fully up. But I have not found any regulation as yet, that says that bridge tenders have any authority over the navigation of vessels. I’ve looked at CFR, CG and Fl regulations and haven’t seen it. More often than not, I’ve heard tenders on VHF tell boaters that it’s not the tender’s responsibility, it’s up to the boaters to decide. We have often discussed with tugs who is to go first and we always defer to them. Sometimes they want us through first, sometimes they want to proceed first. It depends on the traffic, the tug’s load, the conditions and the nature of the waterway. I doubt tenders understand that nuance or necessity.

I read on the Florida bridge tender contractor site that tenders get 2-3 days of training how to operate bridges. And all of the sudden they have acquire the skills to be VTS controllers?

Question: Where does it say the the vessel that has the bridge opened for has the right of way? And who is to say that both boats couldn't pass under the bridge at the same time? And, if so, would it take precedence over the boat with the trailing current? (Thinking of Manasquan Inlet).



I believe the size of boats were talking about can easily share a passage under most bridges at the same time.

Seevee said:

Question: Where does it say the the vessel that has the bridge opened for has the right of way? And who is to say that both boats couldn't pass under the bridge at the same time? And, if so, would it take precedence over the boat with the trailing current? (Thinking of Manasquan Inlet).



I believe the size of boats were talking about can easily share a passage under most bridges at the same time.

Click to expand...

At one time, I thought I had read there was a local navigational rule that did give right of way to fair current vessels in Manasquan inlet. I have been in and out of that inlet off and on for over 55 years...both recreational and commercially. But I am danged if I can find a reference to that anymore.

Many posts here I believe to be correct when they say there is no right of way, the bridge tender has no authority and there should be plenty of room to pass in a 90 foot span.

There are always going to be other viewpoints. Like those of the sailboater and bridgetender. Doest make them right, but that is still their frame of mind.

For those not familiar with many large powerboats inches area of Florida...heck I don't like boating anywhere near them, let alone under a bridge with them, especially if I felt like I needed clearance on a cantilevered draw for mast clearance. Not being there in this case, I can see both sides. But is funny how many posts on TF discuss the lack of courtesy, and wake threads on how everyone is in a hurry.... and my perspective on this issue is really in line with that.

I have no idea what authority the tenders actually have or not. I know after decades of trying (but just a little) to find that out, and never knowing of any while I was in the USCG....I have had a few tenders direct which side of the bridge vessels should go through first. Also on another bridge near the one in the OP I got chastised for going through a closing bridge when I had not requested an opening....I didn't need one and was just flowing with traffic. Not sure if they feel that is a safety thing or what.

My point is...bridges open for boats that need them too. Bridges are under pressure in many areas to not open at all. So being able to communicate with the tender and waiting vessels to make that whole operation safe and quick may require everyone to agree, even if it means impeding my passage. Rule, law or opinion? Sure just my opinion.

I’ve been last in line at Gilmerton and have told the tender not to wait for me to close because I don’t need the clearance. At Alligator River southbound, I’ve told the tender I’m turning right to get fried chicken at (formerly) Miss Wanda’s and won’t need the opening. I’ve always been told to use the west opening, I assume so the tender can see the boats going through.

In Florida, I heard a boater berating a bridge tender to hold for them an additional 15 minutes. The tender said he couldn’t because there was six lanes of rush hour traffic. The boater screamed that he didn’t care.

At Gilmerton Bridge, an approaching boat behind a long line of us harangued the bridge tender wanting to know how long Bridge 7 RR bridge would be closed and when it would open. The tender repeated over and over she had no control over the RR bridge, only the road bridge. Yet that boater would not stop his demands.

It goes on but, I’m still surprised at the self-absorbed entitlement of some boaters and wouldn’t blame bridge tenders if they want to stereotype boaters as some boaters stereotype them.

I'm sure that some of us can appreciate the bridge opening schedules and the thrust to keep the closed as much as possible, especially during rush hour.


My "favorite" bridge in Madeira Beach, FL has that problem, and I use both the top and bottom of it a lot, however, I don't need an opening. I bike over the top 3 or 4 times a week, right at rush hour and an opening will have traffic backed up brutally and take 15 to 20 minutes to move thru. So, they changed the opening from on the 20 to on the hour and half hour which is fine.


We have one sail boat training captain that constantly takes his students under the bridge and will do it several times in an afternoon and takes his sweet time. Absolutely no reason for this, and he's probably the reason they changed things.


Most of the boaters that require an opening do it quite well without issue or delay. But, there's always a few jerks.


Just for fun, one day, I radioed the bridge tender from my windsurfer and asked when the next opening was....he had no sense of humor.

I've searched through the CFR and come up empty handed on responsibilities for navigating through drawbridges, I found one that was location specific and most likely superseded (outdated) instructions for signaling responsibilities at a drawbridge in Texas but didn't find any universal regulations.

It is apparent to me that boaters are not on the same page when it comes to not making a wake, I believe most "captains" are honestly oblivious. I have no way of knowing but if the OP was leaving a 1" or 1' wake but the later could send a sailboat under power rocking violently back and forth and potentially snagging a stay on the bridge or the superstructure of passing boat, that would be worth a discussion with the offender.