What do you think?

Rebel112r said:

How does the right of way, work in that situation?

Click to expand...

It doesnt.

While paddler should realize they are crossing a narrow channel in front a vessel requiring the channel..... the vessel in the channel should realize the possibility that this situation might arise and be prepared.

So while close calls are inevitable, collisions shouldn't be.

Rebel112r said:

How does the right of way, work in that situation?

Click to expand...

I would defer to psneed in this, but it seems to me that while generally a powered vessel is the give way vessel to a man powered vessel, in this case the powered vessel is constrained by draft so would be the stand-on vessel.

The problem of course is that the paddlers have no clue about COLREGs, nor understand that the powered vessel is not only constrained by draft but also has limited maneuverability due to current. That means that it is up to us to try and avoid the paddlers.

dhays said:

.....
The problem of course is that the paddlers have no clue about COLREGs, nor understand that the powered vessel is not only constrained by draft but also has limited maneuverability due to current. That means that it is up to us to try and avoid the paddlers.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Now, having had time to think about it. Here's what the OP may have done.

First I'll assume the OP is making about 7 kts as the SUP starts across from stbd to port. I'll note that there is very little wind. I'll also note that the wake of the speedy that just passed him doesn't show any cross current. Assuming the OP's boat is twins, 400 - 600 total HP with bow thruster. If I'm wrong about any of this then what I propose "could" have been done doesn't apply.

As the SUP starts across drop to idle. When it becomes clear the SUP will continue and it will be a close call back her hard till she's dead in the water. Then for the few seconds it takes the SUP to cross use opposed engines and bow thruster to 'walk' her as need be to keep her out of the mud. Maybe even a little walk to stbd to give the SUP a bit more room. Based on the posted video I don't see a need to motor ahead into a close quarters situation.

My $0.02, in hind sight, without knowing the OP's boat or the on site conditions.....

Let’s say you are a 1920’s boat. Let’s say you have no transmission and you have to switch your valves and start your engine backwards to reverse. Lets say the channel is only as wide as your boat. Let’s say the SUP made an unexpected 90 degree course change, you react by shutting off the power your crew switch the valves and you start the engine backwards but it’s too late and your momentum carries you into contact with the SUP. Now you have a case for claiming rights as a boat ristricted in its ability to maneuver

Jaysus guys!

The question wasn't "what should I have done."

It was "was she stupid or drunk."

She was clueless, probably drives her car the same way, enjoy the view.

Isn't it like on the street, pedestrian first?

L

Why does the OP need to be a constrained vessel? Surely the problem is the SUP altering course to cross in front of the OP, who is navigating his way through a narrow area at reasonable speed in a normal manner, is the primary cause of the close encounter. True, he could have come to a stop to see what the SUP might do, but that`s being wise after the event using 20/20 hindsight. And boats stopped have impaired steerage.

BruceK said:

Why does the OP need to be a constrained vessel? Surely the problem is the SUP altering course to cross in front of the OP, who is navigating his way through a narrow area at reasonable speed in a normal manner, is the primary cause of the close encounter. True, he could have come to a stop to see what the SUP might do, but that`s being wise after the event using 20/20 hindsight. And boats stopped have impaired steerage.

Click to expand...

SUP has starboard right away. It is up to the other boat to prove that it was entitled to an exception to the starboard right of way rule. Don’t over think this, if there were a collision the coast guard would have handed out blame to every one.

One could discuss several rules here that come into play, if one assumes the situation was a narrow channel, rule 9 would supercede the starboard situation of the SUP....and there are others.

Thats why courts decide the fault in situations like this.

Just reading and applying the rules in a vacuum is not reality. Understanding how the rules all fit together and how they should be applied takes experience.

As pointed out before, a large number of recreational operators really have either no real clue of the rules or are like the even more dangerous newbie sailboater that thinks they always have the "right of way".

So the experienced mariner, in order to be free of or nearly free of fault in a collision with the inexperienced, has to take extraordinary care to avoid them at any length.

Which I think is BS, but what the heck?

tiltrider1 said:

Let’s say you are a 1920’s boat. Let’s say you have no transmission and you have to switch your valves and start your engine backwards to reverse. Lets say the channel is only as wide as your boat. Let’s say the SUP made an unexpected 90 degree course change, you react by shutting off the power your crew switch the valves and you start the engine backwards but it’s too late and your momentum carries you into contact with the SUP. Now you have a case for claiming rights as a boat ristricted in its ability to maneuver

Click to expand...

Not RAM. Restricted means ‘by some unusual circumstance’. If (and I think you are making a scenario) you had a vessel with this type of controls she would not be Restricted, but that is the ordinary method of control and you as the operator should make allowances for this operation in your usual maneuvering. If you have a pig of a boat that has terrible handling characteristics this must be part of ‘normal’ operations. Wishing these parameters to ‘excuse’ you from having to maneuver would be folly.

To make another example of folly. I was anchored 3 miles off Galveston two weeks ago. This is what showed up. (Reminding of DHS 75 yard security zones for commercial vessels not withstanding) . Not only did these five intrepid adventurers find us 3 miles offshore, they hung around for about 3 hours then headed back to shore. What they didn’t know..... this is what we caught about 2 hours prior to their arrival. . A 5 1/2’ black tip shark.
But what do I know. It would seem accurate that some people are blissfully unaware. Size, channel, maneuverability, intelligence.

cappy208 said:

Not RAM. Restricted means ‘by some unusual circumstance’. If (and I think you are making a scenario) you had a vessel with this type of controls she would not be Restricted, but that is the ordinary method of control and you as the operator should make allowances for this operation in your usual maneuvering. If you have a pig of a boat that has terrible handling characteristics this must be part of ‘normal’ operations. Wishing these parameters to ‘excuse’ you from having to maneuver would be folly.

Click to expand...

That was my exact point. I had a whole lot of if’s and then I ended it with you had a case, not that you were in the right.

What your big hurry? Why didn't you just pull it into nuetral an let her go by. If there had been an accident you would have been up S creek! Technically she has the right away.

Tingum said:

What your big hurry? Why didn't you just pull it into nuetral an let her go by. If there had been an accident you would have been up S creek! Technically she has the right away.

Click to expand...

that can be debated.... rule 9, rule 2.....

Hey, gang, the word "danger" has been officially removed from the five or more short blasts a vessel sounds when in doubt about the intentions of another vessel. Since it is in the Maneuvering and warning signal section, I suppose you could call it a warning signal.

She seemed to make a mistake and I would argue that she's unable to manuver to the level you can(reverse,slight right/slight left, etc).

As to jokingly running her down.. I get the joke but I do know some people who genuinely hate kayaks and paddleboarders enough to at least wake them.. They have every right to the water even the ICW.

Reality is reality and leaning on a maritime rule or law wont mean a lick to 12 people on a jury.