Southampton Waters Speed Limits

[SeaWeavers]

Hi All

Just have a question regarding the speed limit restrictions in Southampton Waters.

https://prnt.sc/pgbpes

From my research using the image above, upstream of the red lines are where there is a 6kt limit. The blue section, all I've found is that ships will be operating at around 10 to 15kts, is that the speed limit or isn't there one?

 

[andrewbarker]

If you're aiming to do more than 40kts you have to let the harbourmaster/VTS know

 

[scotty123]

Hi All

Just have a question regarding the speed limit restrictions in Southampton Waters.

https://prnt.sc/pgbpes

From my research using the image above, upstream of the red lines are where there is a 6kt limit. The blue section, all I've found is that ships will be operating at around 10 to 15kts, is that the speed limit or isn't there one?

Yes there is & if you exceed it, you will be doing so directly in full view out of the window of Port Control.

 

[CLB]

Yes there is & if you exceed it, you will be doing so directly in full view out of the window of Port Control.

No there is not. Below the red line is limit free, apart from a possible 40knot limit mentioned above, but I have never had a boat capable of that so it's never been a problem

 

[scotty123]

No there is not. Below the red line is limit free, apart from a possible 40knot limit mentioned above, but I have never had a boat capable of that so it's never been a problem

Yes there is, upstream (as in OP) of Weston Shelf buoy.

 

[CLB]

Yes there is, upstream (as in OP) of Weston Shelf buoy.

I am answering the question in the OP, what question are you answering? Have you looked at the image in the link?
The answer to the actual question being asked is "no there is not not".

 

[Elessar]

I am answering the question in the OP, what question are you answering? Have you looked at the image in the link?
The answer to the actual question being asked is "no there is not not".

Nearly the right answer to the actual question.

The speed limit to the Hamble extends to pile number 1 which is further to the SW than the red line indicates.

 

[Ian h]

No there is not. Below the red line is limit free, apart from a possible 40knot limit mentioned above, but I have never had a boat capable of that so it's never been a problem

It is 40 knots below the red line - Have to keep an eye on the speed :encouragement:

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2015 No 57.pdf

This came into effect after the Vector Martini powerboat crash

https://www.mby.com/news/vector-powerboat-crash-survivor-discharged-hospital-47241

 

[jfm]

It is 40 knots below the red line - Have to keep an eye on the speed :encouragement:

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2015 No 57.pdf

This came into effect after the Vector Martini powerboat crash

https://www.mby.com/news/vector-powerboat-crash-survivor-discharged-hospital-47241

Just a thought Ian and not disagreeing with you, but you have to see the notice above for what it is, which is a legally clumsy purported rule which is actually not a rule of law, and an inappropriate threat of prosecution by a trigger happy collection of civil servants (whose trigger happiness I’ve had to deal with before). There are lots of detailed points but a failure to pre notify VTS of a planned 40kt trip can legally never constitute a breach of Colreg 6. Sure guys ASK us to pre-notify, but how dare you threaten law-abiding citizens with prosecution for not doing so.

 

[MapisM]

This thread brings back interesting memories.
If you don't mind a slight o/t, I have a couple of questions on the map below for you folks who know the place much better than myself.
1) was the rule the same, back in 2009?
2) the bridge on the Itchen visible on the map near Woolston, is it the last one, or are there any others further South?

The reason why I'm asking is that back in 2009 I bought a boat from a chap who kept her in Drivers Wharf, and when we went out for the sea trial I remember to have asked him (who was helming) about any speed limit, while he was accelerating well before going under a large bridge, and he just said "naah".
We were well above 40kts by then, and we reached her max speed (60+) very shortly.
I very much doubt that we even went South enough to reach the red line.....

 

[prv]

1) was the rule the same, back in 2009?
2) the bridge on the Itchen visible on the map near Woolston, is it the last one, or are there any others further South?

I’m not so familiar with the 40kt “rule”, but I believe the 6kt one has been in place for a long time. The Itchen Bridge is the only one you’ll have passed under.

If he was already accelerating past 40kts as he went under the bridge, on any given day he could have been in amongst rowing crews, kids in dinghies from the Council watersports centre, vessels poking their noses out of Ocean Village marina or the Empress commercial dock, and who knows what else.

Sounds like an ignorant dickhead, I’m afraid.

Pete

 

[prv]

Just a thought Ian and not disagreeing with you, but you have to see the notice above for what it is, which is a legally clumsy purported rule which is actually not a rule of law

Agree. Seems particularly odd since I’d expect the harbour authority to have the power to create an actual enforceable speed limit in (a section of) its harbour limits. Presumably this would involve extra paperwork they couldn’t be arsed with, and they decided that a simple announcement of certain opinions they hold, would achieve the desired effect in practice.

Of wholly academic interest to me, of course, since I’m happy to achieve over six knots

Pete

 

[MapisM]

I believe the 6kt one has been in place for a long time. The Itchen Bridge is the only one you’ll have passed under.
...

Pretty much as I suspected.
Though in fairness, even if I don't have the slightest interest to defend him, that day we were pretty much alone out there.
In fact, I was somewhat surprised by the lack of traffic. Must have been just a lucky coincidence, I suppose.

 

[Elessar]

Pretty much as I suspected.
Though in fairness, even if I don't have the slightest interest to defend him, that day we were pretty much alone out there.
In fact, I was somewhat surprised by the lack of traffic. Must have been just a lucky coincidence, I suppose.

And the VTS control building is on the corner of the Itchen and Test looking down Southampton water. He must have planed right past them. And caused havoc in ocean village.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Just a thought Ian and not disagreeing with you, but you have to see the notice above for what it is, which is a legally clumsy purported rule which is actually not a rule of law, and an inappropriate threat of prosecution by a trigger happy collection of civil servants (whose trigger happiness I’ve had to deal with before). There are lots of detailed points but a failure to pre notify VTS of a planned 40kt trip can legally never constitute a breach of Colreg 6. Sure guys ASK us to pre-notify, but how dare you threaten law-abiding citizens with prosecution for not doing so.

:encouragement:

This seems to be a bit of a developing habit amongst public bodies. For instance in my home area the council have put up notices instructing dog owners when and how they can walk their dogs in certain areas. The purported restrictions have no basis in the bylaws for that area, they may be a good idea (or a restriction on a group of people's enjoyment of the space), but are totally unenforceable.

 

[Roger52]

With respect I think some posts misunderstand the effect of the notice. Rule 6 and Byelaw 7(1) are clear and enforceable. The paragraph in the notice following Byelaw 7(1) sets out indicators of factors that would be taken into account in the event of a prosecution under the Rule and/or Byelaw. If these indicators are not followed it's hard to imagine why any court would not convict if failure to take them into account put others at risk. It does not purport to be a rule.

 

[jfm]

With respect I think some posts misunderstand the effect of the notice. Rule 6 and Byelaw 7(1) are clear and enforceable. The paragraph in the notice following Byelaw 7(1) sets out indicators of factors that would be taken into account in the event of a prosecution under the Rule and/or Byelaw. If these indicators are not followed it's hard to imagine why any court would not convict if failure to take them into account put others at risk. It does not purport to be a rule.

My point was vts’s assertion that failure to pre notify a 40 knot trip would be a breach of colregs 6. I’m not misunderstanding that unless I’ve missed something.

 

[jrudge]

My dad used to have endless battles with officialdom - he hated “ proported laws”

He used to say “ send me the legislation you are relying on “

They either never replied and dropped it or did reply and the legislation said no such thing.

 

[Roger52]

This is clearly not a purported law.
It says "ABP Southampton considers that....". If they prosecuted a master of a vessel no doubt they would want to admit the Notice as evidence. It would be for a court to decide guilt or innocence on the facts.
The preamble to the Notice says it is a reminder to proceed at a safe speed in what is a very busy channel.

 

[jfm]

Evidence? Evidence of precisely what Roger52? It is merely evidence of what they said, which isn’t in dispute. It absolutely can’t be evidence of a breach of colreg 6, which is they threaten to assert.

The point I’m making Roger52 is this that statement:

ABP Southampton considers that, in the area of ... [xyz], a vessel navigating at a speed in excess of 40 knots through the water does not comply with IRPCS Rule 6 ... unless the master of that vessel has ... given prior notice of an intention to navigate at a speed in excess of 40 knots through the water to Southampton VTS

is inappropriate when made by a public authority.

Breach of colreg 6 is prosecutable (by MCA in their own right; they don’t need CPS). So this statement is a. threatening and b. wrong in law in that not giving notice of 40 knot travel can NEVER be a breach of rule 6. Hence their assertion that it can be, which can be called purported law ( saying the law says something that it doesn’t), is very inappropriate. That’s what I’m saying.