Vicious Wake, 1 man down.

[Mule]

Even had I seen him, no way I could have turned into his wake w/o doing a 180 then cutting back 20 -30 degrees into the incoming. Ridiculous! He overtook me, the correct decision for me was to put my stern to him and ride it out. Other choice was to block him...dangerous but fully legal.

The better option was for him to slow down to minimum wake insofar as there were few out, going to minimum wake every 10 minutes does not seem like such an imposition. I do not do people as he did me, on the highway, on the waterways or in life overall.

 

[BandB]

One thing that gets overlooked in all these discussions is that fast boats also get waked by slow boats. In discussions, the topic is always a fast boat passing a slow boat. As fast boats, we deal with the wakes of every slower boat out there. It's part of boating. Fast boats have to dodge and maneuver around slower boats more as well. If we're passing you in our Riva, you definitely prefer 35 knots over 15 knots. Now, we'll give as much room as possible and swing as wide as possible. We'll also call you on the radio if it's going to be at all a close situation.

I'm very sorry when someone gets injured as the OP did. I wasn't there to judge the degrees of right and wrong and not going to try. Being right or wrong doesn't change his pain and suffering at all. Now, for the future, he has no control over what other boats do, so he has to take action on his own boat to minimize risk, injury, and damage.

We can each only control our own actions and there will be other boats on the water that either don't follow the rules as they actually are and/or don't follow what we might wish the rules were. It's a shared waterway of very different boats and boaters. It has pleasure boaters and commercial boaters, big and small, fast and slow. We were waked on the Illinois and Mississippi by dozens of tows with barges. They had no choice even if they'd wanted to not wake us. In some situations they were close to us because the channel was narrow.

Again, I'm sorry for the injury and I'm sorry if the other boat did something it should not have.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Other choice was to block him...dangerous but fully legal.

Not necessarily. As the stand on vessel you are required to maintain course and speed.

 

[BruceK]

Blaming the Victim

I would argue that in this case, with one boat being what, 35 or 40 feet in length, being passed by a boat that was probably the same size or 10' longer...

What is he supposed to do, not pass???

If the OP was doing 7 knots and the passing boat was doing 15 knots the wave would have been probably twice the size as the reported 30 knot passing speed.

Sorry... but in this case as it was originally described by the OP in post #1 of this thread I do not see anybody doing anything wrong...

Except the OP for not paying attention.

Poor Mule. Mugged on the water by an overtaking boat, now mugged on thread.
It matters not if the overtaking boat was doing 15 or 30 knots. Except as a schoolboy debating point put down. The speed and or closeness of the pass was unsafe, it was foreseeable it would cause damage, and it did.

Now let`s take your question. The one which needed 3 question marks.
Question: "What is he supposed to do, not pass???"
Answer: Correct, he should not pass, unless he can do so safely.

Claiming the incident was entirely Mule`s fault because he did not see a fast overtaking vessel and alter course is just plain wrong. It must have been obvious to the overtaking vessel the course Mule was taking, whether or not it involved any change, whether or not that might have helped. Mule`s course did not change, but the overtaking vessel continued on, regardless.
You contend Mule not taking avoiding action relieved the overtaking vessel of all responsibility and makes the fault all his. How could that possibly be when Mule is there, in full vision of the overtaking vessel, which overtakes in full knowledge of Mule`s position speed and course, and has the last opportunity to avoid causing danger. Your contention is plainly wrong. And, there is no suggestion the overtaking vessel made any prior attempt to negotiate a safe pass,a serious omission on its part.
From what I see, Ksanders has the advantage of Mule when it comes to debating. I`ve had differences with Mule, but I think he is being treated poorly. A subsequent (paraphrased) "Sorry you got hurt but it`s your own fault" doesn`t excuse what`s been said, to an innocent victim quietly travelling at modest speed.
The amount of heat rather than light I`m seeing here is hard to understand. And concerning. Whatever the position, it is not pretty to watch.

 

[CPseudonym]

Well stated as always Bruce

 

[SoWhat]

Not necessarily. As the stand on vessel you are required to maintain course and speed.

I agree. No need to bring road rage habits out onto the water.
I've been waked often enough to learn to look behind. Some still catch me by surprise.
I don't bother to turn into them unless I see a 5 or 6 footer barreling in.
If my wife is below I'll yell out "hang on, wake"
Waves can be much bigger offshore. It is an ocean we're bobbing around in.

 

[Peter B]

Worth reminding folk on here, that if being waked from behind, and no time to do what is effectively a full 180 degree turn to get bow into it, then if there is room sea room, a quick bear away without slowing, so as to present the stern quarter or even full stern to the wave is often the best, then it's no different from when in a nasty following sea.

 

[Lou_tribal]

What the speed was at the moment, what OP or the other bozo was drinking, what his wife was watching on tv or what were the stars at the moment is irrelevant. Speed does not matter, boat size does not matter. If you are someone concerned with being civilized you check your wake, whatever your speed is. A well educated person should care about other, wether it is kayakers, boaters or divers. A well educated person should care about security. A well educated person should ask him(her)self am I doing it right. Even if you are going at 7 knots in a narrow channel and you see any situation you can be a treat to someone else you should slow down, whoever you are, whatever your boat is. If not you are not a well educated person, you are not civilized you are just another morron.
Sorry if this can shock anybody or be a revelation, this is just about behaviour between us, not about being legal, not about anything else than being respectful.

 

[ksanders]

Now let`s take your question. The one which needed 3 question marks.
Question: "What is he supposed to do, not pass???"
Answer: Correct, he should not pass, unless he can do so safely.

Ok Bruce I completely agree with what I qouted you for above.

lets talk this situation through...

You are traveling down a channel, and you see a boat ahead of you. You are in a boat like the OP described a 40-50' Sport fish style boat. Ahead of you you see a boat like the OP's a 38' full displacement trawler style boat.

From the standpoint of the overtaking boats captain, what would make you think passing the other boat, which is in your same size class, and probably being of heavier displacement unsafe in any way? Very little.

In my opinion, a reasonable captain would look at the situation that is unfolding before him and make as wide a berth as can be safely acomplished. A reasonable captain would also, if time and manuvering safety allowed call out on the radio to inform the boat being overtaken of his intentions.

In my opinion a reasonable captain would not be able to forsee that his actions would be in any way unsafe, given everything he would be able to know at the time.

The only way a reasonable captain could forsee that passing would be unsafe, would be to assume that the captain of the boat being passed was not paying attention, not keeping a sharp lookout, and therefore was unprepared to be passed. You would in effect have to assume that the captain of the boat being passed was derelict in his duties as a captain in order to foresee passing as being unsafe.

The fact that the OP was injured does not in and of itself prove the argument that passing was unsafe. You are assuming that because the OP was injured that the boat passing must be at fault. We both know that to make that assumption involves circular reasoning.

If the situation were different... If for example the OP's boat was very small, or If the OP had raised a claim that the boat passing him did so closer than necessary to safely overtake and pass then I would of course feel differently. But that is not the case here. In my opinion, given what was originally posted the only fault the boat passing has is not calling on the radio. To me, this leaves the rest of the fault on the boat being passed for not keeping a sharp lookout, and not manuvering his vessle to minimize the effect of the wake.

I say this as a guy that gets passed all the time, in similar circumstances. In my area charter boats in the 50' class, and bigger tour boats zoom by me constantly while I am cruising in narrow channels at displacement speeds. Minimizing the effects of the wakes is easy... Just turn into them. It doesnt take all that much effort. All it takes is paying attention.

My opinion has zero to do with who the OP is. I have nothing against him personally, and to the best of my knowledge have never had a disagreement with him. It is solely based on reading his original post, and analyzing the situation as he described it.

 

[BandB]

In my opinion, a reasonable captain would look at the situation that is unfolding before him and make as wide a berth as can be safely acomplished. A reasonable captain would also, if time and manuvering safety allowed call out on the radio to inform the boat being overtaken of his intentions.

In my opinion a reasonable captain would not be able to forsee that his actions would be in any way unsafe, given everything he would be able to know at the time.

.

One point I'd make, Kevin, as I agree with much of what you wrote. That point is that we don't know the proximity of the boats, the width of the channel, what effort was made to swing wide. I wonder, since the OP didn't see him before the wake, if perhaps he accelerated about that time and the wake was a reflection of coming on plane, so not a 30 knot wake but a 15 knot wake. The OP only saw the aftermath. To have waked him badly at 30 knots I would think he had to be exceptionally close but then I don't know the wake pattern of the boat in question. I could pass in a 44' Riva at 35 knots with a reasonable swing and he wouldn't have had more than ripples. If we're talking 4' measured peak to trough as waves are measured, then I'm both surprised the boat at that speed created 4' and surprised they caused that much problem.

Ultimately, we only know the aftermath of what took place, but not the details of what happened. I'm sure, as always, there are two sides, two opinions in regard to the event. I doubt seriously that the boat passing has any idea of the injury caused or that they could have caused it.

I wasn't there. I can't say whether a reasonable captain would have considered it unsafe to pass as he did. I can say someone got injured. I would also say that taking wake of most passing boats on the beam is likely to be uncomfortable in a non-stabilized boat.

As an aside, we live in an area with a mix of wake and no-wake zones. While the non wake zones are nice and the wake areas not bad, the acceleration and deceleration zones are rough.

Adding one other comment. A poorly designed SF could make more wake than one would expect too under speed. Normally thought it wouldn't be that much more for a wide area, just narrow.

 

[psneeld]

Mugged, not mugged, right or wrong, legal or not legal...... if this went to an official hearing...guess what? Many of the same points would be brought up. And most of the time, both skippers bear some fault. A public forum usually acts like a court of sorts, so unless deemed mean....comments really are just that.

First, Mule has Navrules 34(c)(i) going for him in that the overtaking vessel never arranged which side to pass on as required.

What is also reality is the "always responoble for yor wake" mentality.....it's not always exactly the same. Federally, it has to be proven as negligent operation. At the state level it is usually more clear that any wake at any time is closer to the no wake laws. I don't know the state laws or local laws that might apply, but any court is kalso going to pay pretty close to the general seamanship rule. That the definition of good seamanship requires watching your wake as well as being ready for them.... to a point.

As a delivery captain...it is frustrating to slow down every 10 minutes, certainly way more at times. But there are narrow stretches that there isn't much choice. However, there are plenty of stretches that at least if talking to each other, a high speed pass can be arranged and both boats hardly notice. I do it for thousands of miles every year in my 6.3 knot trawler and the sportier are amazed that I prefer it to slow passes.

Close aboard fast passes are an issue and unfortunately to many skippers are ignorant to how badly trawlers and sailboats roll in a wake...or they are to arrogant to care.

To the ignorant...not much can be done without huge legislative changes.

To the arrogant, may they all sink in cold water without a lifejacket.

 

[BandB]

Close aboard fast passes are an issue and unfortunately to many skippers are ignorant to how badly trawlers and sailboats roll in a wake...or they are to arrogant to care.

A high level of ignorance on the subject as trawlers and trawler type boats look big and sturdy and many other boaters do not recognize how poorly many handle beam waves. When I first was around them, it surprised me. Boats that can take bow waves with great ability often handle beam waves lousy.

I believe there are far more ignorant, inexperienced, lacking in knowledge boaters than arrogant. Many have little knowledge of their own boats much less others. A Trawler Forum is made up mostly of experienced boaters, far more experienced than the average cross section of boaters.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

"From the standpoint of the overtaking boats captain, what would make you think passing the other boat, which is in your same size class, and probably being of heavier displacement unsafe in any way? Very little."

Actually everything would make me think what I was about to do potentially unsafe if I was operating the passing vessel.

I'm passing a slower vessel while throwing a large wake.

I'm passing close to that vessel.

The vessel being passed is towing.

I've made no contact with that vessel so no one on board that vessel has have time to prepare for the consequences of my wake.

Etc.

 

[BandB]

I've made no contact with that vessel so no one on board that vessel has have time to prepare for the consequences of my wake.

Etc.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

To our knowledge the overtaking vessel made no attempt to contact the one being overtaken.

The overtaken vessel wasn't paying adequate attention to know without communication that it was being overtaken and didn't communicate with the overtaking vessel.

 

[rwidman]

Worth reminding folk on here, that if being waked from behind, and no time to do what is effectively a full 180 degree turn to get bow into it, then if there is room sea room, a quick bear away without slowing, so as to present the stern quarter or even full stern to the wave is often the best, then it's no different from when in a nasty following sea.

In some cases, this will put you out of the channel, aground or into another boat.

You need to be aware of your surroundings at all times and that includes other boats.

 

[ksanders]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

To our knowledge the overtaking vessel made no attempt to contact the one being overtaken.

The overtaken vessel wasn't paying adequate attention to know without communication that it was being overtaken and didn't communicate with the overtaking vessel.

That is it in a nutshell.

The boat overtaking failed to communicate his intentions.
The boat being overtaken failed to keep a sharp lookout.

No other issues were raised by the OP, except that he was suprised.

 

[dhays]

This thread sure has continued on for a long time.

While most of us seem to acknowledge that situations like Mule's come about when both parties have failed in some way, there seem to be two general camps which place a higher emphasis on one of the following.

1) Anyone out on the water needs to be prepared for any and all conditions including large wakes of passing boats. It is the responsibility of the captain to be prepared for all wakes and not the responsibility of the boat causing the wake.

2) Boats on the water are responsible for their actions and how they effect others, including the effect of their wake. A captain is legally and morally responsible for the effects of their wake and failing to take the wake into account is negligent operation. I tend to fall into this camp.

For those that would lean towards Camp #1, do you feel that boaters have any responsibility for the effects of their wakes? Under what circumstances would a boater have responsibility for the effect of their wake? If there is a responsibility, what actions would be appropriate to avoid what you might consider negligent operation?

If there is no responsibility for your wake, then is running at any legal speed at any time in proximity to any boat OK?

If there is some responsibility, is it just a matter of warning a fellow boat "Florita Ann, Florita Ann, Florita Ann this is MV Lisa's Way. We are passing you on your Port side, prepare for our wake". What about just giving two short blasts and then passing at will? Does it matter if you are passing within a 1/4 mile or passing within 10 meters?

Since there is obviously some disagreement on this issue simply having me say I disagree with Camp #1 doesn't inform me at all. I am honestly curious to hear what those from Camp #1 think.

 

[Ski in NC]

Item 1., absolutely. Gots to be prepared to handle what could be out there, including wakes.

Item 2., no. Boats make wakes. An absurd analogy I use is that if I stack a pyramid of fine china on a paddle board, and a jonboat goes by at five knots, it's wake could cause $20k worth of damage. Absurd indeed, but goes back to Item 1.

Boats out there need to be prepared for wakes.

Once I had a nice ripe avocado on a paper plate on the counter. Got waked and the dang thing jumped off and went SPLAT on the deck. Who's fault was that??

All that being said, I try to be polite with my wake, probably well better than average in that regard. But I have been flipped off. Just because someone flips me off, it does not mean my wake was inappropriate.

 

[rwidman]

...............1) Anyone out on the water needs to be prepared for any and all conditions including large wakes of passing boats. It is the responsibility of the captain to be prepared for all wakes and not the responsibility of the boat causing the wake.

2) Boats on the water are responsible for their actions and how they effect others, including the effect of their wake. A captain is legally and morally responsible for the effects of their wake and failing to take the wake into account is negligent operation. I tend to fall into this camp.
.............

One of the biggest wakes I ever encountered was on the Savannah (GA) River. It was from a freighter going upriver as I was going downriver. I got as far to starboard as I could and turned into the wake but it still came over the bow of my boat and splashed me on the flybridge.

As far as I know, the freighter was doing the legal speed on the river at that point but these ships just naturally make a large wake, especially in the confines of a river.

It never occurred to me to complain or try to claim damages, I figured this was normal operation on his part.

Am I wrong? Should he have slowed down to no-wake speed? Was he really negligent in operation?

 

[BandB]

This thread sure has continued on for a long time.

While most of us seem to acknowledge that situations like Mule's come about when both parties have failed in some way, there seem to be two general camps which place a higher emphasis on one of the following.

1) Anyone out on the water needs to be prepared for any and all conditions including large wakes of passing boats. It is the responsibility of the captain to be prepared for all wakes and not the responsibility of the boat causing the wake.

2) Boats on the water are responsible for their actions and how they effect others, including the effect of their wake. A captain is legally and morally responsible for the effects of their wake and failing to take the wake into account is negligent operation. I tend to fall into this camp.

Dave, you worded them to support #2. Reword them like this:

1) Anyone out on the water needs to be prepared for any and all conditions including large wakes of passing boats. It is the responsibility of the captain to be prepared for all wakes

2) Boats on the water are responsible for their actions and how they effect others, including the effect of their wake.

Then it is possible to be part of both camps. I believe a prudent boater falls into camp #1 and a courteous boater attempts to follow #2.

 

[BandB]

One of the biggest wakes I ever encountered was on the Savannah (GA) River. It was from a freighter going upriver as I was going downriver. I got as far to starboard as I could and turned into the wake but it still came over the bow of my boat and splashed me on the flybridge.

As far as I know, the freighter was doing the legal speed on the river at that point but these ships just naturally make a large wake, especially in the confines of a river.

It never occurred to me to complain or try to claim damages, I figured this was normal operation on his part.

Am I wrong? Should he have slowed down to no-wake speed? Was he really negligent in operation?

Both of you did what was appropriate for the two of you under the conditions. You got a little wet, but to my knowledge you weren't hurt.

 

[dhays]

Dave, you worded them to support #2. Reword them like this:

1) Anyone out on the water needs to be prepared for any and all conditions including large wakes of passing boats. It is the responsibility of the captain to be prepared for all wakes

2) Boats on the water are responsible for their actions and how they effect others, including the effect of their wake.

Then it is possible to be part of both camps. I believe a prudent boater falls into camp #1 and a courteous boater attempts to follow #2.

Yeah, I tried to be neutral in my wording but felt I still needed to state my own bias in case I didn't. I do understand that it is a continuum and not simply a binary selection. However I still want to get an idea about the answers to the questions. While not stated directly, one point if view expressed in the thread seems to be "it is not my job to consider how my wake affects you, that is your responsibility". Now, I am certain that those that have been posting here still try to be courteous with their wake even if they don't think it is their responsibility.

 

[BandB]

Wifey B: One thing that hits me about all of this argument is that you have far more wakes and far less complaining about them on inland lakes. You just don't have expectations of no wake on Lake Norman in NC or Lake Lanier in GA or Grapevine Lake in TX. There are no wake zones around marinas and everything else is wake wake everywhere, from all directions at once. There were no expectations of no wakes. We even had wake boats. Yes, it really works, they make some great wakes for jumping and boarding and when they go by you get them. The average size boat is 20-25' with many smaller than that and a few larger. If you had docks you knew they would get waked. You tied and protected your boat based on that. A summer Sunday afternoon or holiday was a mob scene of boats and wakes, and jet skis can rival cruisers in making them. This was the only rule:

§ 75A-14.1. Lake Norman No-Wake Zone.
It is unlawful to operate a vessel at greater than no-wake speed within 50 yards of a vessel launching area, bridge, dock, pier, marina, vessel storage structure, or vessel service area on the waters of Lake Norman.​

150' and that was it. And nothing about distance from other vessels. We tried to not wake others but when you're cruising up the lake and people are on both sides and crossing as well, then that's impossible.

I'm not suggesting the coastal cruising areas should be as chaotic as lake boating, but I also don't get the expectation many seem to have of boating in a wake free world.

I try to be as considerate as reasonable of others. I try to minimize the impact of my wake by both my speed and my proximity. I also try to notify of intent to pass where I think it's not just obvious to all. When i do so by radio I only get acknowledgement by perhaps 25% of the pleasure boats, probably 90% of commercial vessels.

I accept there are many slower boats than me on the water and try to do my best to look out for them. Again, commercial generally accept there are faster boats, but there are some slow boaters who seem upset that anyone wants to go at a speed other than 7 knots. They are no different than the sailors who resent all powerboats. Some of the trawlers going 7-10 knots make a lot of wake too and when we pass them we expect it. We choose to cross it at the best angle we can.

To the OP's incident, I'm not judging. Maybe the other boat was bad and screwed up royally and was an inconsiderate #$%#^@. If so, I don't excuse it. However, on the water you better be prepared for it.

I also occasionally drive a car on a road where other people do stupid things and I have to be alert and prepared to avoid accidents when they do so.

I think a thread like this should serve as a reminder to be aware of our wakes and the damage they might cause, but also a reminder to be aware that there will be wakes on the water and be prepared for them. It's not one or the other, it's both.

I was tendering around in a 14' Rib this morning, just playing and exploring. I got waked by the proverbial Sea Ray everyone likes to blame for all the world's problems, but the worst wake all morning was a KK that must have been WOT and then slowed and when it did so all sorts of wash came from him. I was like "omg, I didn't know he could make so much wake", but in both cases I crossed the wakes bow first and just enjoyed it.

An injury takes the pleasure out of boating. But don't lose the pleasure by obsessing over every other boat that does something you don't like. And don't rob others of the pleasure by ignoring courtesy to them.

 

[ksanders]

This thread sure has continued on for a long time.

While most of us seem to acknowledge that situations like Mule's come about when both parties have failed in some way, there seem to be two general camps which place a higher emphasis on one of the following.

1) Anyone out on the water needs to be prepared for any and all conditions including large wakes of passing boats. It is the responsibility of the captain to be prepared for all wakes and not the responsibility of the boat causing the wake.

2) Boats on the water are responsible for their actions and how they effect others, including the effect of their wake. A captain is legally and morally responsible for the effects of their wake and failing to take the wake into account is negligent operation. I tend to fall into this camp.

For those that would lean towards Camp #1, do you feel that boaters have any responsibility for the effects of their wakes? Under what circumstances would a boater have responsibility for the effect of their wake? If there is a responsibility, what actions would be appropriate to avoid what you might consider negligent operation?

If there is no responsibility for your wake, then is running at any legal speed at any time in proximity to any boat OK?

If there is some responsibility, is it just a matter of warning a fellow boat "Florita Ann, Florita Ann, Florita Ann this is MV Lisa's Way. We are passing you on your Port side, prepare for our wake". What about just giving two short blasts and then passing at will? Does it matter if you are passing within a 1/4 mile or passing within 10 meters?

Since there is obviously some disagreement on this issue simply having me say I disagree with Camp #1 doesn't inform me at all. I am honestly curious to hear what those from Camp #1 think.

OK, to answer your questions...

In a no wake zone, if you produce a wake, and if that wake causes damage then of course you should be held financially and possibly criminally responsible.

When not in a no wake zone, with few exceptions no you should not be held financially of criminally responsible.

Those exceptions would generally be situations where you should have known better. Normally Passing someone in a narrow channel does not qualify in my book. Possibly passing while intentionally coming very close to another boat would qualify. Running up on plane through a crowded anchorage might, if the layout of the anchorage was such that the anchorage was not normally exposed to wakes.

It all comes down to reasonable expectations. It is a reasonable expectation that in a no wake zone that wakes will not exist to any extent. Because of that expectation a boat and its crew would generally not be prepared for wakes.

Outside of a no wake zone, it is reasonable to expect wakes. With that expectation a boat and its crew should be prepared for them.

I 100% do not buy into the premise that just because someone bought a boat that will only go 7 knots, or if you prefer to run at 7 knots, that you get to define the speed of a particular waterway. I also 100% do not buy into the premise that just because someone passes you that they are bad or ignorant, or any less a boater than anyone else.

All that sid, I rarely pass anyone. We generally travel at 8-9 knots. When we travel faster we...

1. try to give as wide a berth to others as safely possible.
2. Try to contact boats that we are going to pass close to on the radio. Practice has found this to be very successful with commercial boats, and very marginal with pleasure boats.
3. We always broadcast our position, speed, etc... via AIS.

 

[rwidman]

Both of you did what was appropriate for the two of you under the conditions. You got a little wet, but to my knowledge you weren't hurt.

Yes, but what if I had been hurt or there was damage to something on the boat?

I was pretty much pointing out that the post I replied to had some unrealistic expectations.

 

[BruceK]

....

...In my opinion, a reasonable captain would look at the situation that is unfolding before him and make as wide a berth as can be safely acomplished. A reasonable captain would also, if time and manuvering safety allowed call out on the radio to inform the boat being overtaken of his intentions.

In my opinion a reasonable captain would not be able to forsee that his actions would be in any way unsafe, given everything he would be able to know at the time.

The only way a reasonable captain could forsee that passing would be unsafe, would be to assume that the captain of the boat being passed was not paying attention, not keeping a sharp lookout, and therefore was unprepared to be passed. You would in effect have to assume that the captain of the boat being passed was derelict in his duties as a captain in order to foresee passing as being unsafe.

The fact that the OP was injured does not in and of itself prove the argument that passing was unsafe. You are assuming that because the OP was injured that the boat passing must be at fault. We both know that to make that assumption involves circular reasoning....
.

On the available information the pass, controlled by the overtaking boat, caused damage. Damage, be it personal injury or property damage, is an ingredient of negligence.

The overtaking vessel needs to use the available information. I reject the contention responsibility shifts from the overtaking boat to the overtaken, just because the overtaken knows, or ought to know he is about to be overtaken, or at all. If the overtaking boat cannot establish, for whatever reason, that it is safe to overtake as planned, it should not. The overtaking boat should make a continuous conservative safety assessment of the situation, including the possibility the overtaken boat may be completely unprepared for or even unaware of the impending pass.

The primary responsibility for the overtaking rests on the overtaker, which is about to unilaterally alter the natural prevailing sea conditions in which the overtaken is operating.

It would be an error to adopt the reality defying premise " I say the overtaken ought to be taking avoiding action, therefore I will treat him as having done so and proceed as if he has, even if he has not, and even if I can see he has not". From what you say, you may be making that error.

It is unsafe to assume that all overtaking dangers created by the overtaker can be avoided or reduced to a safe situation by the actions of the overtaken. In many cases that would not be so.

 

[dhays]

Thanks for giving me your feedback.

I 100% do not buy into the premise that just because someone bought a boat that will only go 7 knots, or if you prefer to run at 7 knots, that you get to define the speed of a particular waterway. I also 100% do not buy into the premise that just because someone passes you that they are bad or ignorant, or any less a boater than anyone else.

Long thread but I don't think that anyone was suggesting either of those things.

All that sid, I rarely pass anyone. We generally travel at 8-9 knots. When we travel faster we...

1. try to give as wide a berth to others as safely possible.
2. Try to contact boats that we are going to pass close to on the radio. Practice has found this to be very successful with commercial boats, and very marginal with pleasure boats.
3. We always broadcast our position, speed, etc... via AIS.

Examples of what I mentioned to BandB in a post earlier. I think that most of us here do what we can to be considerate to others we encounter on the water.

The other thing to note is that I'm completely unfamiliar with the types of waterways that those on the East Coast use all the time. I'm used to large bodies of water where there is plenty of room to give other boats a wide birth. Hence my frustration when in a channel that is a couple miles wide with no depth issues at all, a boat throwing a huge wake feels they need to pass within a couple boat lengths of me. It is astounding that this happens all the time. I don't necessarily think they are trying to be obnoxious, but more that that never look behind them to see the effect of their wake.

 

[BandB]

The other thing to note is that I'm completely unfamiliar with the types of waterways that those on the East Coast use all the time. I'm used to large bodies of water where there is plenty of room to give other boats a wide birth. Hence my frustration when in a channel that is a couple miles wide with no depth issues at all, a boat throwing a huge wake feels they need to pass within a couple boat lengths of me. It is astounding that this happens all the time. I don't necessarily think they are trying to be obnoxious, but more that that never look behind them to see the effect of their wake.

There is a reason the ICW is often referred to as the ditch.

This is also a reason we prefer to travel outside, traffic combined with water depth and shoals.

 

[SoWhat]

The other thing to note is that I'm completely unfamiliar with the types of waterways that those on the East Coast use all the time. I'm used to large bodies of water where there is plenty of room to give other boats a wide birth. Hence my frustration when in a channel that is a couple miles wide with no depth issues at all, a boat throwing a huge wake feels they need to pass within a couple boat lengths of me. It is astounding that this happens all the time.

Everyone is heading for the same waypoint

In Boston inner harbor, no wake zone, no problems.
In Boston outer harbor, 2" past the no wake buoy, throttle to the firewall.
You will get waked by ferries, fast ferries, tugs, whalewatches, cruise ships, sport fishermen, codzilla, even the the CG. Just hang on and you'll eventually reach open water. It is impossible to navigate looking astern so just grin and bear it. Once offshore your boat then becomes a moving waypoint.

In Cape Cod Canal, you MUST complete the transit within 2 1/2 hours against a 6 knot head current or they will send a tug to assist you at your expense. The minimum transit time for the 6 mile canal with a fair current is 30 min. In other words every sport fisherman is flat out and you will get seriously waked frequently. You can hug the sides of the canal, there's a little less current there, but the wakes rebound off the riprap and hit you again.
(And a really really big wake from a party boat can throw you into the riprap. Thats another story.)

The CCC channel going out to Cleveland Ledge Light is full of tugs with tows and fishing boats. Stay out of their way. They don't stop or turn.

Coming into Newport past Brenton Point you will be passed by numerous megayachts trying to make it to their dinner reservations. Make sure all liquids below are secured. It's a 3D experience.

I don't understand the fuss. It's a boat. The boat is floating on the ocean. The ocean moves. A skipper should be able to handle waves and wakes.

 

[Northern Spy]

Everyone is heading for the same waypoint

In Boston inner harbor, no wake zone, no problems.
In Boston outer harbor, 2" past the no wake buoy, throttle to the firewall.
You will get waked by ferries, fast ferries, tugs, whalewatches, cruise ships, sport fishermen, codzilla, even the the CG. Just hang on and you'll eventually reach open water. It is impossible to navigate looking astern so just grin and bear it. Once offshore your boat then becomes a moving waypoint.

In Cape Cod Canal, you MUST complete the transit within 2 1/2 hours against a 6 knot head current or they will send a tug to assist you at your expense. The minimum transit time for the 6 mile canal with a fair current is 30 min. In other words every sport fisherman is flat out and you will get seriously waked frequently. You can hug the sides of the canal, there's a little less current there, but the wakes rebound off the riprap and hit you again.
(And a really really big wake from a party boat can throw you into the riprap. Thats another story.)

The CCC channel going out to Cleveland Ledge Light is full of tugs with tows and fishing boats. Stay out of their way. They don't stop or turn.

Coming into Newport past Brenton Point you will be passed by numerous megayachts trying to make it to their dinner reservations. Make sure all liquids below are secured. It's a 3D experience.

I don't understand the fuss. It's a boat. The boat is floating on the ocean. The ocean moves. A skipper should be able to handle waves and wakes.

That describes where the Merrimack meets the Atlantic in Newburyport as well. I was amazed at the small boats in the channel taking massive wakes while fishing. They just wave.