Safe distance from kayaks, rowers?

[vanhanbr]

I had a difference of opinion with a row team captain last night. I was wondering if anyone else run into these issues. I'm in Wisconsin, so maybe the answer varies from state to state, I couldn't find anything on the USCG website (not that it would apply as this is in inland water.)

Here's the issue: I live on a section of the Fox river roughly 4 miles between locks and the river averages 12' deep and 600' wide but has lots of downed trees and unmarked rocks near shore. I was taking my 2 year twins and wife for a boat ride in our 97 Sport Nautique. We had zero ballast and going around 28 mph. We approached a 4 person row team followed by a coach in a powered canoe traveling towards us in the center of the river. I seen them early enough so I increased my speed to 32 and moved over to give them around 200' of clearance (and putting me much closer to the shore than I would like.) The never adjusted course, but I passed them not thinking there was an issue, eventually turned around at the end of the river and approached them again (from behind). I noticed the captain in the canoe was waving her middle finger at me and then pointing a camera at my boat, so I slowed down to no-wake speeds to talk to her. I told her I would drive up closer if she wanted a picture of my registration as I did nothing illegal. She asked why I didn't slow down and I tried to tell her that the boat makes a bigger wake at slower speeds but she insisted speed creates a bigger wake. I asked why they didn't paddle closer to shore as they have about a 6" draft and she said boats go by them faster then (and create bigger wakes.)

Our state regulations doesn't list specific distances to stay away from boats, only 100' from shore and 100' from a swimmer and 200' when driving in a repeated circle. Skiers are required to stay 100' from other boats.

It does have two ambiguous statements:
1) It is illegal to operate a vessel at a distance from other vessels or at a speed that exceeds safe and reasonable limits given the waterway traffic, marked speed limits, weather and other boating conditions
2) Or operating a vessel in a manner that creates hazardous wave or wake conditions while approaching or passing another vessel.

What would you have done in this situation? What do you consider a safe distance when wakeboarding/wakesurfing with the ballast full? Should I have just dropped to no-wake speeds when I saw them? What if I was pulling a skier?

[DLafont]

I think you did the best you could given the circumstances. I don't think that there's any clear cut rule, but the farther the better. In a boat like yours, going this fast without ballast the wake you generate is much smaller than if you'd been driving a 32' cruiser at 10 mph... The one finger wave was a little excessive on the captain's part, especially since you diverted your course and they did nothing (though as a human powered vessel they were in their right no to). All in all, seems like a lose-lose situation in this case considering the options you had.

[vanhanbr]

(though as a human powered vessel they were in their right no to).

I did a little more digging, and according to the US Coast Guard (Colregs) they don't have automatic stand-on (right-of-way) privileges. I found this conversation on a paddling.net forum."

	Rule 18 Posted by: NateHanson on Apr-20-10 9:13 PM (EST)
So, to be clear, I'm sure that as a ticketed captain, you've got more nav creds than I do. I'm just asking questions here to clarify my understanding, and other peoples. Rule 18 (can be reviewed here: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule18.htm ) says who gives way to who. It basically sets the hierarchy as follows: 1. a vessel not under command; 2. a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; 3. a vessel engaged in fishing; 4. a sailing vessel. 5. power-driven vessel underway It seems to me that it's unclear where kayaks fit. Are you saying that Colregs considers a Kayak a "power-driven vessel"?

Essentially yes,.. just another vessel Posted by: salty on Apr-20-10 9:22 PM (EST)

-- Last Updated: Apr-20-10 9:25 PM EST -- They don't differentiate between a kayak and a slow trawler for example. Kayakers may not like that, but it's the current law. Local CG folk fight this all the time where I live. I know that goes against what many are taught to believe but NO, you do not have any special pecking order rights due to a "restriction". A sailing vessel under limited power (engine) is likewise just another vessel with no rights and it aint much faster than your kayak. Under sail it is much more limited and thus has stand-on status ONLY over other "unrestricted vessels". BTW, a lot of sailors wrongfully believe they always have stand on rights! ONLY when rags are up and engine is OFF. Think of yourself as a small sail boat under power. This is a TOUGH thing to educate kayakers about because they just don't want to believe it, and as Bowrudder exemplifies, even when some finally get it, they want to re-write the Colregs!

[core-rider]

I have to deal with a local college rowing team during the weekends on one part of my river. I always slow to idle/near idle when passing them. Regardless of what vessel should give way I always make a little wake as possible because if my wake were to cause harm or injury to the row team I would be liable. A boater is ALWAYS liable for their wake regardless of what boat they are navigating.

You wake at 28 or 32 MPH would likely have been tall enough to go over the gunnel of a typical row team boat if they are similar to the boats I pass. Idea wake speed is the only way to be certain not to cause a problem. Either that or turn and go in the opposite direction. It sucks if that is the only smooth water to ride on, but better than swapping the row boat and paying for any loss/damages or worse yet injuring someone.

On a positive note... Some of the female row team members aren't bad to look at as I pass them slowly!

[Kenv]

Tough call here....I personally probably would have slowed to idle if I was in my Nautique. Only takes a second to go by them. But you are 100 % correct on the fast boat wake vs. slow boat wake. We deal with kayaks and small boats in our channel when leaving to go offshore. My dad has a 35 foot center console with Triple 300 Verados. Technically we do not have to slow to other boats as we pass them in the channel going in or out. Most of the time it is better to keep our boat on plane and moving fast and pass the kayaks as it leaves a much smaller wake then just slowing to give them the courtesy pass. Wakes are MUCH smaller moving with the 35 than going slow. It Texas, I believe our safe pass distance is only 50 feet.

[vanhanbr]

Thanks for all the comments, I appreciate them. Looking back on a situation, it always seems better to make the "safe" call. Problem is, doing what you think is best doesn't always create the best outcome. In this case, the others boaters most likely thought I was an *ss for not slowing down, but they didn't capsize. Had I merely slowed down, to say 10 mph, I defiantly would have created a worse situation. Had I turned around upon approaching them I most likely would have thrown a massive wake in there direction (not sure if it would have dissipated before it reached them. (As a side not, when picking up a downed rider, I always idle back to avoid making a "power wave.") Had I slowed to no wake speeds, but not early enough, I might have also sent a bigger wave in there direction. In an ideal situation, they would have been more considerate to other boaters (my opinion) and paddled closer to shore, I would have done the same thing I did (we would have been 400'+ apart) and this would never have been an issue. Thinking more about what core-rider has said about liability and doing a little research I most likely will just slow down next time (probably creating a bigger wave) but giving me a good defense against negligence.

[Kenv]

I don't believe your last sentence made sense..at least not pertaining to responsibility. No matter WHAT size wave YOU make...you are responsible for what the wake/wave does to a dock or to another boat. If you slow down...making a BIGGER wake...it doesn't give you a good defense against negligence....the negligence would still be there on your part if they tipped over or got hurt and decided to pursue you for fault. My last sentence would have said...I will just go by FAST...creating a smaller wake..but giving me a BETTER defense against negligence. Bottom line....if your wave is small or large...and it directly causes someone harm....they have a right to come at you...especially in this McDonalds Hot Coffee spill world. Hope that made sense. You just kind of tripped me up on your last comment. If you decide to slow down...you should BE AT IDLE....not making a bigger wave...giving you the best defense against negligence.

[wakebrd21]

Where we used to ride was in a canal on the east coast of Florida (only decent fresh water in the area). It was long and straight with hills on each side which made it glassy most of the time. This attracted rowing teams all the time, not only for practice but big tournaments as well. We've battled with them many times as they thought they owned the place despite it being public water. They would completely block up the boat ramps and on numerous occasions we had to get a police escort while launching my boat. Anyways we would always go past them very slowly at no wake speeds until we were past them and then we would just go to a separate part of the canal. Even despite going slow and being very respectful we would still get the middle finger thrown at us and yelled at. Some people you just can't please no matter what you do.

[Gwozhog]

My home river is only 200ft wide and 5 miles long and is loaded mainly with wakeboarders, wakesurfers, and skiers. If a kayaker does not know to hug the shoreline when they are out they learn very quick. Everyonce in a while a kayaker or canoe will get pissed off but usually we never see them again on the river. Patrol has never written tickets to anyone in our club. Then again this is Texas. Cops are very relaxed here compared to the northern states.

[vanhanbr]

wakebrd21 - You hit the nail right on the head. I am still irked by this thing days later. Technically, according to Colregs, they have NO special privileges just because they are human-powered. But they act like they own the place. The section of river by me is 4 miles long and they start on one end and paddle to the other; making it virtually impossible to avoid them.

Kenv- I started searching the internet for articles on "boat wake liability" and came up with a few. An apparently well known article printed in Seaworthy magazine says this:

"Here's an interesting point: Nowhere in the Inland Rules of Navigation will you find any mention of a duty for recreational vessels to control their wakes. Still, our two hypothetical vessels are not saved by the lack of an explicit rule.

Courts applying the General Maritime Law are entitled to interpret the rules of the road to reflect their understanding of the norms of maritime navigation. That means the rules are not necessarily what they say, but what courts think they mean. Courts have used at least two of the navigational rules to hold operators liable for the damage caused by their wakes.

First, courts have ruled that when a vessel's wake collides with another vessel and causes damage, Rule (6) of the Inland Rules applies. This rule provides that each vessel "shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision." The courts read the word "collision" to include both a collision with a vessel's hull and a collision with its wake. Applied to our motor yacht and sportfish, both failed to proceed at a safe enough speed to prevent their wake from colliding with the jon boat, so they are presumed negligent. The only defense available is for the operators to prove conclusively that their wakes did not cause the injuries to the jon boat passengers, an impossible burden.

Second, courts have used the catch-all rule, Rule 2(b) of the Inland rules, to hold operators liable for their wake. Rule 2(b) provides that "due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances ... which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger." As courts read this rule, an operator of a vessel is required to do anything and everything to prevent a collision (including a collision with a vessel's wake). Applied to our motor yacht and sportfish, no defense to liability exists. Neither took any action to prevent a collision between their wakes and the jon boat. Both are equally responsible for all the damage to the jon boat and its passengers."

So in my case, I would say that I absolutely followed maritime law by steering starboard away from them in a head on situation as Colregs dictates. (They did not most likely due to the FALSE assumption that they had the right-of-way.) Since I didn't hit them with my boat it follows that I was travelling at a reasonable speed.

But in a civil case, it could be ruled that a collision did happen because my waves hit their vessel. The boat didn't tip over and no one was injured so they have no damages to collect in civil court. But what if they did?

Then they would have to prove that they were in a seaworthy vessel (I would argue that they weren't). Lets just say it was, then they would have to prove that my wake was the reason they tipped over(their boat captain is also responsible for alerting passengers of oncoming waves, etc and is required to follow Rule 2(b). Lets just say it was my wake. Then I am responsible to prove that that I wasn't negligent, and did anything and everything to avoid a collision (Rule 2(b)).

Well if you had to go to court to explain yourself, would you rather try to explain to a jury how your boat makes less wake at more speed so you sped-up (consider how deceiving rule 6 is worded) or just explain that you stopped or turned around as soon as you saw them.

Very tough call here considering you could potentially avoid an accident by speeding up but put yourself in a less desirable position in court.

[nwelch]

I'll put my two cents in because I'm assuming vanhanbr, your talking about the rowing team out of St. Norbert. I've been on the Fox River for the last 4 yrs, the coaches there from the Rowing team despise any boat that doesn't slow down and idle by them. My only issue is they feel they own the river when everyone else has just a right to be there as well.

And In my opinion on the civil case issue I think you could very well argue they aren't a sea worthy vessel as their sides are a mere I believe its about 5 inches off the water from when I rowed. Rowers want glass and nothing else so they hate when any boat comes by because they have to stop and balance the boat for ANY wave bigger than idle.

[vanhanbr]

I don't want to name names but it wasn't them, but it certainly seemed like they were pissed at me for just being on the water. I never really counted, but there must be 100+ homes on that stretch of the river and a public boat landing. Seems a little selfish to expect every other boater to stop and go home because you expect 100% chop-free water. I run into other boaters all the time and its never-and issue. We naturally just give each other a little space and it all works great. This sh*ts supposed to be fun! I'm determined not to dwell on this one instance. Next time I'm going to stop and talk to them, tell them I'll stay on one half the river, if they stay on the other half. If they can't agree to that then I can only do what I can do...and pay my boat insurance.

[Kenv]

wakebrd21 - You hit the nail right on the head. I am still irked by this thing days later. Technically, according to Colregs, they have NO special privileges just because they are human-powered. But they act like they own the place. The section of river by me is 4 miles long and they start on one end and paddle to the other; making it virtually impossible to avoid them.

Kenv- I started searching the internet for articles on "boat wake liability" and came up with a few. An apparently well known article printed in Seaworthy magazine says this:

"Here's an interesting point: Nowhere in the Inland Rules of Navigation will you find any mention of a duty for recreational vessels to control their wakes. Still, our two hypothetical vessels are not saved by the lack of an explicit rule.

Courts applying the General Maritime Law are entitled to interpret the rules of the road to reflect their understanding of the norms of maritime navigation. That means the rules are not necessarily what they say, but what courts think they mean. Courts have used at least two of the navigational rules to hold operators liable for the damage caused by their wakes.

First, courts have ruled that when a vessel's wake collides with another vessel and causes damage, Rule (6) of the Inland Rules applies. This rule provides that each vessel "shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision." The courts read the word "collision" to include both a collision with a vessel's hull and a collision with its wake. Applied to our motor yacht and sportfish, both failed to proceed at a safe enough speed to prevent their wake from colliding with the jon boat, so they are presumed negligent. The only defense available is for the operators to prove conclusively that their wakes did not cause the injuries to the jon boat passengers, an impossible burden.

Second, courts have used the catch-all rule, Rule 2(b) of the Inland rules, to hold operators liable for their wake. Rule 2(b) provides that "due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances ... which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger." As courts read this rule, an operator of a vessel is required to do anything and everything to prevent a collision (including a collision with a vessel's wake). Applied to our motor yacht and sportfish, no defense to liability exists. Neither took any action to prevent a collision between their wakes and the jon boat. Both are equally responsible for all the damage to the jon boat and its passengers."

So in my case, I would say that I absolutely followed maritime law by steering starboard away from them in a head on situation as Colregs dictates. (They did not most likely due to the FALSE assumption that they had the right-of-way.) Since I didn't hit them with my boat it follows that I was travelling at a reasonable speed.

But in a civil case, it could be ruled that a collision did happen because my waves hit their vessel. The boat didn't tip over and no one was injured so they have no damages to collect in civil court. But what if they did?

Then they would have to prove that they were in a seaworthy vessel (I would argue that they weren't). Lets just say it was, then they would have to prove that my wake was the reason they tipped over(their boat captain is also responsible for alerting passengers of oncoming waves, etc and is required to follow Rule 2(b). Lets just say it was my wake. Then I am responsible to prove that that I wasn't negligent, and did anything and everything to avoid a collision (Rule 2(b)).

Well if you had to go to court to explain yourself, would you rather try to explain to a jury how your boat makes less wake at more speed so you sped-up (consider how deceiving rule 6 is worded) or just explain that you stopped or turned around as soon as you saw them.

Very tough call here considering you could potentially avoid an accident by speeding up but put yourself in a less desirable position in court.

Yeah....I hear ya and I am definitely on your side. They should maybe pick better hours to row and stay closer to shore....more incidents might be avoided. One more thing though....to your comments above. Your wave that you create in a case doesn't necessarily have to be part of a "Near collision" like the rule states. Technically...you could be surfing way down one side of the river....your surf wake could travel all the way over to the other side and damage a dock....or a boat. That's what we as wake boat owners have to kinda watch out for. Also....I DOUBT that waves hitting a boat would EVER be called a collision. Two boats would have to physically touch each other to be a collision. Waves can "Damage" a boat...tip a boat...rock a boat...etc. Now...If your waves knocked them into a shore wall.....their boat would "collide" with the cement....but not with your boat....still no collision. It would just be damage. One more....YES....you would be responsible to prove that you weren't negligent....but remember.....you don't have to be negligent for your wave to tip them over. Judge might say....."well...you went by them doing 35mph 20 feet from their boat"...or...."I see you were about 50 feet away doing 15 mph" But in both cases....your wave could tip their boat. You as well as I would say...I did nothing wrong going by at 15 mph 50 feet away....but you can guarantee that the row boat will say something different.. I would LOVE to see you story on Judge Judy !!!!

[lucky7t]

Above poster mentioning how they despise boats is correct . We deal with this currently with fisherman . They are so rude to other boaters especially if they are sitting still fishing . I've had beer cans thrown at us , middle fingers etc.. You will go into a nice cove and see 50 jug lines they do on purpose to block the cove. Several times other wakeboard boats will tug there lines closer to shore or use them as a course lol

Either way I think your middle finger flying coach simply doesn't like boats and your wasting your time trying to prove anything because nothing will happen other than her bitching

[markj]

^^^Agreed. Try to make the best of it and make sure to "wave" back to her. Just do it with a smile so she knows you're not being aggressive towards her. Hey, it can be a new love language between you two. ;-)