Draw Bridge Etiquette

[dlochner]

The law provides the boundaries of our actions. When we violate the law we are punished because our transgressions have somehow caused undo harm to some other person.

In the case the PO described, the offending boater, may or may not have violated the law, but certainly the boater inconvenienced other boaters and motorists as well as putting all of us who sail in a bad light. The offensive boater may have been right within the letter of the law, but he certainly was not acting with the spirit of the law or within the bounds of civility.

There is no virtue in exercising your rights at the expense of others when it is not necessary. If the PO's description of the events is reasonably accurate, then the offending sailor was out of line in his or her actions. To act because you can and to act because you can without regard to its effect on others is simply reprehensible. There is simply too much of that BS going on today on the water and elsewhere; it demeans us as sailors when one of our kind acts in such a manner. As a group we need to rise above such narcissistic nonsense.

 

[Charlie Jones s/v Tehani]

If the wording of the regulation is as shown, I would have to agree with Jackdaw and interpret this entirely to the contrary. The mast of a sailboat is not a "nonstructural appurtenance" like a radio antenna or fishing rod. The mast of a sailboat IS essential to its navigation. It is not "easily lowered"- even in a sailing dinghy. The regulation continues to say that "no person" (which I believe in this case is referring to the drawbridge operator) "shall unreasonably delay the opening of a draw after the signal required by rules or regulations under this section has been given." That means that after a boat (or tug, or barge, or tanker, or whatever) has signaled for the draw to open, the bridge will open without delay, unless there is a reason for the delay. Vehicular traffic might be a reason for a delay, but the regulation cited here says nothing about whether the passage needs to be made under sail or power. For many boats, sailing through would be much quicker than paddling. The bridge operator's "broad authority for operation of their bridge" must come from somewhere other than the regulation quoted above. A directive for sailboats to lower their sails may come from ignorance more than anything else.

LOL Yeah well- long ago the operator at the Thunderbolt Bridge in Georgia flatly refused to open for me, be cause she was "unhappy with the horn signal. My long was not long enough"

An hour and a half later, after prolonged requests, the US Coast Guard got on the radio and ORDERED her to open the bridge. Which she then did

This in about 1981 0r 82.

 

[SFS]

In the case the PO described, the offending boater, may or may not have violated the law, but certainly the boater inconvenienced other boaters and motorists as well as putting all of us who sail in a bad light. The offensive boater may have been right within the letter of the law, but he certainly was not acting with the spirit of the law or within the bounds of civility.

I'm still confused. Since the conversation has taken a legal turn, what legal offense did the "the offending boater" commit? Or to use the language of the last sentence of the above quote, what part of the spirit of the law, or what bounds of civility did he violate? (I'm not specifically asking you, dlochner, it's just your terminology that reinforces the drift of the OP, and that's what I'm still trying to grasp.)

He slowed upon request to help the OP'er make the opening. I can't see how that puts any other boaters in a bad light. When the bridge didn't open, he maintained control of his vessel by jibing (twice), and avoided colliding with the bridge. Can't see how that puts another boater in a bad light, or is uncivil.

So what I have left is the engine reference and the notion of "disabled". If he had an operative engine and didn't use it, then I guess that would violate the "make a quick transit" idea, but he had been asked to slow down, which sort of throws that out concept out the window. If he had an inoperative engine, was he supposed to claim what the OP called "disabled status"? What if he had no engine at all?

 

[dlochner]

SFS, I was responding to this sentence: "When the bridge opened she lost the wind and had to maneuver carefully to ghost her way through. I waited as did several other vessels. Surely car traffic was well backed up."

Had the vessel's engine been running the transit would have been quicker allow others to have a quick passage and shortening the delay caused by opening the bridge.

Had the vessel's engine been running, when the boat lost the wind the skipper could have quickly shifted into gear and motored through the bridge, reducing the time the bridge was open and allowing other boats a quicker transit. Being unprepared to make a quick safe passage through a restricted waterway, is not a mark of good seamanship and it is just bad manners.

To access Lake Ontario from my marina, I have to transit a narrow channel. When the channel is busy I may sail through the channel, but I do so with my engine running in idle and I'm prepared to put it in gear if my maneuverability is suddenly impaired.

 

[SFS]

Thanks, that helps. I wonder if he had an engine, and whether it worked.

I suppose I'm inclined to believe he did not. For me, it would be easier to start the engine than jibe twice, and a lot safer to motor under the bridge, but that's just me.

 

[seadaddler]

I cruise up and down the SW Florida ICW and when we travel with many other sailboats and power the bridge operator always tells us to all get up near the bridge opening so the bridge opening will be as short as possible and I and the others do not leave our sails up to help with the bridge opening.
We did have one using their sails up only to help their very slow boat keep up with us,most bridge operators here go out of their way to be very helpful but most are very strict with moving the land traffic moving and do seem to favor land traffic,but some times will go out of their way to help boaters with bridge opening and we do not want to piss them off.
Nick

 

[dlochner]

I suppose I'm inclined to believe he did not. For me, it would be easier to start the engine than jibe twice, and a lot safer to motor under the bridge, but that's just me.

If the motor was not operable and he was entering restricted waters with limited maneuverability, then a "Securitae" call on Channel 16 and 13 would have been appropriate.

Perhaps it is my cynical tendencies that lead me to think he was showboating.

 

[Warren Milberg]

I'm with Gunni re getting through the Knapps Narrows drawbridge. The current there can be swift and sailing through would be grandstanding and dangerous. When I approach the Narrows from the Bay side, I try to take a look with binoculars at what kind of traffic it trying to get through. If it's busy, I go around Blackwalnut Pt, which is a nice sail if you have the wind. Being in a hurry in a sailboat is an oxymoron.

 

[Gene Neill]

Being unprepared to make a quick safe passage through a restricted waterway, is not a mark of good seamanship and it is just bad manners.

That says it all, in my humble and uninformed opinion.

We lost the wind once while sailing under the big, double fixed bridge at Pensacola Beach. Boat traffic was coming on fast, and of course the outboard had to get stubborn about starting. We were drifting backward the way we had come from, turning sideways right under the bridge, before I finally got motor to fire up. Scared the bojeezus out of the Admiral ... and me too, to be honest.

I was ignorant. Plain and simple. I know I looked like a complete horse's @ss, and rightfully so. It won't ever happen again though, bet on that.

Perhaps the skipper in the original post was like me ... just ignorant. Hopefully that's all it was, and hopefully he learned from it.

 

[Gunni]

The law simply codifies what anyone who has transited the ICW or other drawbridges waterways already knows - the Bridge Tender is the Boss. They sit there everyday year round and have seen it all, the good, the bad and the ugly. So if you show up at her bridge in your auxiliary sailboat looking to sail through and she doesn't think that is such a good idea she will tell you to drop those "non-necessary apurtenances" and motor your yachty self through real skippy. You could protest to the USCG, plead your bona fides on the radio while gybing about the bridge approach...or your could just drop your sails and get the job done.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I'll demonstrate my ignorance ... We passed under a draw bridge in both directions last summer. First time through, while waiting for the bridge to open, I noted a red light on the underside of the bridge. After the bridge was fully open, I waited for possibly a full minute to see if the light was going to turn green. Finally, I decided they need not wait for me any longer and I passed on through. There were no boats on the other side and nobody else going in our direction. I felt foolish, but after passing through, the bridge stayed up several minutes after I passed, so I figured I didn't needlessly hold up traffic on the roadway. The next day, I simply waited for the bridge to rise to a full stop and passed through, not paying any attention to the red light on the underside of the bridge.
Is there a standard signal protocol or do bridges have a variety of signal devices? The bridge tender never raised me on the radio after our initial contact to confirm the opening.

Edit: I decided to do a little reading and just answered my own question. 3 red lights will show in a triangular pattern. 2 at water level at the opening and the third in the center of the span on the underside of the bridge. That allows one to visualize the opening at dark! I think I failed to notice the 2 at water level since it was day time.

 

[seadaddler]

We always call the bridge on 9 VHF asking for the next possible opening and than are told what the schedule is for either on demand or a specific time schedule.
Nick

 

[SFS]

If the motor was not operable and he was entering restricted waters with limited maneuverability, then a "Securitae" call on Channel 16 and 13 would have been appropriate.

Perhaps it is my cynical tendencies that lead me to think he was showboating.

I agree about the Securite transmission. I also somehow missed your thought "Being unprepared to make a quick safe passage through a restricted waterway, is not a mark of good seamanship and it is just bad manners" that Gene quoted. I wholeheartedly agree there as well.

I share your cynical tendencies these days. Thanks for the additional input.

 

[Roland5048]

Scott, there are some bridges here in Fl. that have a red/green light similar to our road traffic signals. Usually stays red until the bridge is fully opened and locked then turns green.
The etiquette, at least where I sail, is that traffic going down current passes through first and then the up current traffic. Don't know if that is actually a rule but, it makes sense from a safety perspective.
Also, about safety, it is unwise to sail through or under a bridge here in FL. The currents, especially with an out-going tide, can be treacherous enough even while motoring. That, and with the wind changes, makes it especially dangerous. I try and avoid John's Pass like the plaque. If you absolutely have to sail through, i.e. disabled in some way, a securitae should be issued so the tender knows what's happening and can assist you through. Showboating has no place in these situations.
Also, be very courteous to the tender. He/she is in charge and can make it a very frustrating half hour to an hour for you.
Do not scorn the tender on the radio if you have a beef. The next tender down the line can hear all that. Just sayin'.

 

[Bob J.]

In the case the PO described, the offending boater, may or may not have violated the law, but certainly the boater inconvenienced other boaters and motorists as well as putting all of us who sail in a bad light..

I'm sorry Dave but this is a leap. The guy sailed thru a bridge.
You guys have become a tough crowd...

Merry Christmas by the way

Bob

 

[Benny17441]

I have had at l east three experiences in Florida waters, where the bridge tender refused to open as long as I had ANY sail up. Insisted I motor through.

That seems to be the rule in Florida's East Coast. Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant, this is the way it is and must deal with it. It really makes sense to avoid inconveniencing a group of boaters to accommodate Mr. Purist, boat handler per excellence.

 

[Kings Gambit]

If a drawbridge opens "on demand" then one supposes that it's open until the "demander" has cleared under it. However, there are two different situations with Florida's ICW bridges-namely, passing under those that "bridge" mainland to barrier island, e.g., the erstwhile Ringling Causeway Bridge (no longer a drawbridge), and under those that "bridge" across two barrier islands forming a cut, like the John's Pass Bridge (as the OP states), where one is passing either toward sea or toward the protected waters of the ICW coming from sea. If arriving from sea an on-demand bridge is essential b/c if under sail, especially running before a good wind on a flood tide, one needs unimpeded access through the cut. The tender must get the bridge up for the sailboat to pass through b/c of federal navigable waterways rights--even if going "slow." However, running down the ICW between the barrier islands and the mainland there is much less urgency so people can doodle around under power waiting for a bridge to open on a schedule, etc., and then power through. A vessel entering from sea must have right of way over vehicle traffic, and even those vessels exiting to sea. (I don't mean here to start another "rights-of-way" discussion.) The only way to "fix" the problem mentioned is to make a rule that entering from sea is on demand whereas exiting toward sea is not, or making different rules for each on how long the bridge is held up plus how quickly one must pass. Damn the vehicle traffic!! That would never work. So, it's imperfect but it favors the safety of the vessels arriving from sea. There is no "etiquette" but there may be protocol. You signal for the on-demand bridge to open, and it needs to open when you need to pass, and stay open until you've passed. That's it!!

 

[dlochner]

Like many things in life, these discussions are never as simple as we would like them to be. The reality is that this "simple" situation, passing through a drawbridge, is fairly nuanced.

KG's situation, running with a flood tide through a drawbridge makes sense, until you consider other plausible factors. What if the drawbridge operator looks up and sees an emergency vehicle approaching the bridge with lights and sirens, should the bridge operator open the bridge because the sailor needs to get through? Or keep it closed until the emergency vehicle crosses?

One way to deal with this is to have many rules governing bridge openings, trying to cover every contingency, but that is an onerous task and unnecessarily complicates what should be an enjoyable pastime.

The simple solution is that when passing through a drawbridge (or crowded channel, or marina fairway, or any of a number of similar situations) that we pass as quickly and safely as we can. And most of the time that means passing through the bridge under power or at least with the engine running.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Most things should be set up to handle the perhaps infrequent, but nevertheless predictable, circumstances. Once again, risk assessment. The New Orleans levees were designed to hold back water from a Cat 3 hurricane which are not especially uncommon, but not Cat 4 or 5 which are decidedly rare, then multiplied by the probability of a hit at any one particular spot under worst conditions. Sometimes it happens,
Most of my experience in FL was passing into the ICW from sea via Longboat Pass which is spanned by a single-draw bridge, i.e., only one section rises instead of two. So, read narrow. The approach down the channel from the head marker seems long from memory, a few hundred meters, lined with day marks with shallow water on either side. I knew one couple that went hard aground in following seas after meandering out of the channel while attempting to come in after dark. The wife and the kids essentially waded ashore while hubby dealt with situation on the boat. Bad situation, but nobody hurt. The first time we went through I furled at the head marker and motored in. But that's not too wonderful if you wrap the prop with a crab trap line or some seagrass, or the engine dies for another reason. The next couple of times I sailed through the bridge, but no doubt I did have the motor running--but not to hurry up--just, as people say, to avoid getting push into something by the tidal current running through. The tender always opened on demand, but waited until I was close enough, where the bridge draw was just making its apex as I went through, and then went back down again. The whole time from alarms to reopening the traffic gate was only a few minutes, certainly less than ten.

 

[Gunni]

So you come on a run with a flood tide through a drawbridge from open water into an area of restricted navigation and you expect the bridge tender to time your safe approach and other boaters to yield? Because you are the stand on vessel, have some "navigable right" or simply because you couldn't be bothered to strike your sails, go under engine power and make a fully controlled entry? A run and a flood tide entry would put a sailboater into a situation with very few options should any of your assumptions fall short. Just saying.