Anchor Ball Needed?

What should be on the Foredeck?

  • 2 semi naked Bimbos (Himbos???!!)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Olympic size swimmingpool

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
[ QUOTE ]
...
If it is not really up to you or me to follow then why do so many not follow the rule???.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually because they are ignorant of the facts or can't be assed or think they know better.

[ QUOTE ]

Your sort are bringing the country to ruin with this zealous rule creating/following ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not country specific at all, its international. Already pointed out by VicS but probably worth repeating due to much of the endless and frequently unjustified UK knocking that goes on.

[ QUOTE ]

As to your insurance situation, the COLREGS also make it clear that it is the duty of all to avoid a collision, whatever the rule - thank god COLREGS have a rule for common sense and personal responsibility!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

So at what stage and how quickly should the anchored boat take avoiding action?

A.
 
In general terms I agree with the customs that you described earlier. Down here we rarely see black balls, but invariably every visiting French boat hoists one as soon as they anchor.

We locals do not generally bother with them. Lights are a different story. Most sail boats leave their all-round masthead light on as an anchor light, possibly because all modern boats are so fitted. Personally I do not like anchor lights that high as they are not really in the line of sight of an approaching boat. You stand more chance of seeing the boat itself against the reflections of the shore light.

Personally I prefer to hang an old-fashioned lantern from my baby stay; besides being more level with the eyes of an approaching skipper, it also illuminates a part of the boat itself.

Can someone explain the difference between a 'rule' and a 'regulation'? I was under the impression that 'regulation' implied a certain amount of responsible interpretation whereas 'rule' ruled that out completely. Is it language barrier again?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain the difference between a 'rule' and a 'regulation'?

[/ QUOTE ] In this context it appears that "regulations" are a collection of "rules"

The International Regulations .............. consist of Rules 1 to 37
 
I find it amusing, this referring to others as twits, arseholes and irresponsible idiots because it worries me that you just do not get it. These people exist no matter what you may call them. To assume everyone follows the rules to the letter and not display a healthy dose of common sense is acting irresponsible.

Since sailing doesn't work I will use an the analogy of the road. I am a motorcyclist, if I assumed everyone else was following the rules I would be a fool and I would be dead...which brings to my final comment, which is a poem that sums this all up:

Here lies the body of Micheal O'day
Who died maintaining his 'right of way'.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In this context it appears that "regulations" are a collection of "rules"

The International Regulations .............. consist of Rules 1 to 37

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I appreciate that but, outside of this context, are they two words that are fully interchangeable? I was under the impression that they had slightly different implications.
 
[ QUOTE ]
To assume everyone follows the rules to the letter and not display a healthy dose of common sense is acting irresponsible.

Since sailing doesn't work I will use an the analogy of the road. I am a motorcyclist, if I assumed everyone else was following the rules I would be a fool and I would be dead...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, maybe I've lost the plot, but you appear to me in your posts to confuse (a) not assuming that everyone follows the rules with (b) not bothering to follow them.

I have no problem with (a), which seems a wise course to take. But as regards (b), to continue your analogy with motorcycling, are you then saying that, since the motorcyclist should assume that all other drivers are breaking the rules, it's okay for all other drivers to break them on the basis that the motorcyclist, following his/her assumption, will automatically compensate?

I think the rule-following 'twits' are having difficulty agreeing with (b). I know I am. It's a recipe for anarchy. Some rules may be stupid, we all recognise them when we see them, but I'm surprised anyone thinks that lights and signals are amongst them.
 
It's a fair point.

I really reacting to the fact that some people seem to feel that anyone who doesn't follow rules to the letter is the scum of the earth. I just don't think such an uncompromising view is realistic or helpful.

There are plenty of us who understand the spirit of the rule and apply it when it's use is relevant. Hoisting a ball when surrounded by 50 other boats in Osborne Bay is not a place I would chose to hoist a ball. For the rule zealots to jump on people in this type of situation shows a lack of appreciation for human nature. I would say that anyone who doesn't recognise 50 boats together as an anchorage deserves not to be in charge of a boat.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing, this referring to others as twits, arseholes and irresponsible idiots because it worries me that you just do not get it. These people exist no matter what you may call them. To assume everyone follows the rules to the letter and not display a healthy dose of common sense is acting irresponsible.

Since sailing doesn't work I will use an the analogy of the road. I am a motorcyclist, if I assumed everyone else was following the rules I would be a fool and I would be dead...which brings to my final comment, which is a poem that sums this all up:

Here lies the body of Micheal O'day
Who died maintaining his 'right of way'.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you seem to be a bit dim, and don,t get anything,

Re your 'poetic referance', The poor chap would be alive if the other irresponsible Idiots had been adhereing to the rules, don,t you think!

So, as you illustrate so magnificently!!! WE MUST, of course, be WARY OF IDIOTS, but the more of us that stick to the rules, the safer we will be. You really are a silly CHAPPIE!

Stick to the rules, BEWARE of those, LIKE YOURSELF, that don,t, and STAY SAFE for your sake and perhaps MINE.

Happily, we seem to circulate well apart, Cheers and Bye, Bye, Sorry bored now, Bill!
 
Yes, I agree there are some clear-cut cases. The problem as I see it is that each person has his/her own preconception about the risk threshold below which the rule need not, as a matter of custom, be observed. It's when two or more people with different preconceptions come together that the problems start.

I neogotiate long, boring documents for a living. Often I will challenge a clause that to me seems hugely unclear. Someone across the table, usually the client not the other lawyer, will then predictably say something like: "Oh come on! It's obvious what we'll all do if that happens, it's just commercial reality isn't it?" The implication being that I'm an uncommercial lawyer who can't possibly grasp how business really works (and conveniently overlooking the fact that, of course, my practice is a multimillion pound business that does in fact need to behave like, er, a business).

At that point I like to smile sweetly and say, "Oh. Okay, What would you do in those circumstances, then?" And then sit back to watch the two clients become really quite argumentative for twenty minutes while they proceed to disagree over what they'd actually do. Then we all agree that clarifying the clause might be good idea after all.

I think rules are somewhat similar. It may be refreshing to break the rules and assume responsibility, as some have said, but other people may disagree. If damage - or worse - results, I don't think the rule breaker will be seen to have "assumed responsibility" in the sense that it's being used here. I think he'll be regarded as having abdicated responsibility to those around him, when he shouldn't have done, because those others had every right to assume he would be following the rules.

This is not an attempt to be 'holier-than-thou'. I regularly break the rule requiring me to hoist a cone when motorsailing, for example. But I am prepared to accept that it's just laziness on my part that causes me to do so: since nothing bad has happened as a result to date, I have formed a perception that the risk resulting from my rulebreaking is low, so feck it, why bother with all messing about on the foredeck. But I can't honestly justify my decision on the grounds that I have made a rational assessment of the risk, when the reality is that I just can't be arsed.
 
I think we are pretty close.

I would in all honesty say that I do do a risk assessment which is what plays against natural laziness. Anchoring at Osborne/Newtown creek etc low risk, therefore laziness wins. Anchoring in the fairway of the Tregier river (which is what I have done), high risk, therefore laziness looses.
 
In Law, here, we have the principle of bonus pater familias when interpreting behaviour. At sea, the overriding rule is to prevent a collision at all costs and by all possible means, including but not limited to what the respective rule says. This in the sense that, if I am on a little sailing boat, while I do have right of way over power, it would be foolish of me to cut across the bows of a large powerboat. (As happened to me when, as a young lad, I was crewing on a dinghy and the helmsman' decided to stick to his course' when it was manifestly evident that the powerboat was not going to concede passage).

So yes, the rules are there and are to be followed - but not at the cost of losing sight of reality and common sense. Which is what constitutes a sizeable part of good seamanship. IMHO.
 
Agreed that your helmsman appears not to have been very seamanlike. But he wasn't truly following the rules either.

Colregs Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action." So the rule permits the stand-on vessel to take avoiding action. It isn't therefore a question of departing from the rules in order to be seamanlike. The scope is there in the rules for you to do just that.

Rule 17(b) further provides that "When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision." So, in some circumstances, the rules actually require that the stand-on vessel should take avoiding action. Far from being a seamanlike departure from the rules, this would be compliance with them.

I also disagree with the parallel that I think you're trying to draw between (a) the Colregs as they pertain to vessels meeting and (b) the rules on lights and signals. If the stand-on vessel departs from the requirement to hold its course, it does so within the rules and in order to avoid collision. If someone chooses to disobey the requirement to display an anchor ball or light, I would argue that is not directed towards minimising or avoiding damage. It actually increases the risk and because of that, it's arguably unseamanlike. If the risk is minimal, then as rb_stretch fairly points out, it may be morally (if not legally) defensible. However, it's not comparable with the stand-on vessel taking avoiding action under Rule 17.
 
Well Andrew, I congratulate you on the most concise, well-argued and temperate bit of ColRegsSpeak ever seen on these forums /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If only some others could manage it as well..... /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
I agree fully re rule 17(a) and 17(b). It is my opinion, however, that not many sailors bear in mind the existence of the elective in 17(a) and the mandatory in 17(b), with the consequence of carrying on regardless, much as the helmsman did on the dinghy.

I was not trying to draw a parallel with lights / shapes. While I must admit that I do not bother with a motor-sailing cone in local waters, I remember writing to Practical Boat Owner some years ago after a Commander (RN, Rtd) had written to say that he had painted a black triangle, with the apex pointing downward, on his genoa and was actually suggesting it as something to be copied! I remember drawing attention to the definition of 'shape' as set out in the rules.

Although I am not aware of precedents vis-a-vis the Colregs, in other areas of Law we have a term 'consuetudine' which roughly translates as 'common usage'. Thus, if for example, it has been the 'consuetudine' for people not to be prosecuted for a particular misdemeanour (in the widest sense, not in the legal definition) over a number of years, then there is a fighting chance for successful defence when someone attempts to enforce the legislation. It might well be invoked in cases regarding established anchorages where the 'consuetudine' was not to hoist anchor balls.

Some terms are difficult to translate and the meaning - as indeed the structure of the Code of Law itself - might vary from one country to another. One may also say that Laws are there to serve us, not the other way round!
 
Yes, I can certainly agree that in quite a number of jurisdictions, an argument based on customs and practice, however called, could be relied upon in support of a defence to certain actions.

See for example the following case, which illustrates your point very neatly and indeed supports the argument of those, like rb_stretch, who assert that it can be defensible to anchor without displaying a light notwithstanding the disapproving sniffs of people like me.

However, I suspect it will do little to change the beliefs of those who think that the rules on lights and signals are there for a reason, and that they should be observed. We'll just consider it to be further depressing evidence of how the world is going to the dogs!!

Conrad v. Snair, (December 7, 1995) No. 109424 (N.S.C.A.)

Liability - Unsafe Speed - Anchor Lights - Contributory Negligence - Limitation

This case involved a collision at night between a Boston Whaler and an anchored unlit sailboat. As a result of the collision, a passenger of the Boston Whaler was seriously injured. The issues concerned the liability for the collision, contributory negligence, and limitation of liability. Both the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal found that the driver of the Boston Whaler was entirely at fault for the collision. The driver was found to have been traveling at an excessive rate of speed and failed to maintain a proper lookout. With respect to the sailboat, the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal held that there was no presumption of fault because of the failure to exhibit an anchor light. They further found that there was a local custom to not display anchor lights. The driver of the Boston Whaler also argued that his passenger was contributorily negligent in that she knew of his propensity to drive his boat in a particular manner. The Court of Appeal held that even if the master was known to be reckless, that would be an insufficient basis for a finding of contributory negligence. Although in light of these findings, the Court of Appeal did not need to decide whether contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff would be a complete bar to damages, it nevertheless gave the opinion that if the Plaintiff had been negligent, the Provincial contributory negligence statute would apply to apportion damages. Finally, the driver of the Boston Whaler argued that he was entitled to limit his liability under the Canada Shipping Act because the accident occurred while he was acting in his capacity as master and not owner of the vessel. In lengthy reasons the Court of Appeal analyzed the problems that arise where the master is also the owner. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the trial Judge that the owner/master of the Boston Whaler was at fault as owner in failing to ensure his alter ego, the master, traveled at a safe speed.
 
Interesting case, thank you!

I think that trying to invoke demarcation of roles in apportioning liability in the situation owner / master was clutching at straws. In large commercial vessels it is sometimes virtually impossible to determine precisely who the 'owner' is. All the little people at the very end of the 'branches' are acting 'in solidum' but the 'master' (or operator) has ultimate responsibility for his actions. Case in point was the Erika incident.

Thanks.
 
I agree. I also award his lawyer 10/10 for trying, and the Court of Appeal even more for playing him at his own game and deciding that the alter ego was to blame! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Excellent Andrew.

As someone with no experience of law, it is so gratifying to see that people involved in the law profession do exhibit the ability to exercise some degree of judgement in interpreting the law, or as you rightly say we'll all go to the dogs. I only wish there were more people like you.

In putting my thoughts across I knew full well that it was indefensible in the black/white legal sense, but from my laymens perspective I do feel strongly that sometimes human nature just isn't like that. This is why I get similarly depressed at the culture we seem to be developing, where such a thing as an accident can no longer occur. Western society seems to need to blame someone, so we sometimes end up in ridiculous situations that defy common sense.

I hope the case reported in the papers this week, where the CPS decided not to prosecute the shopkeeper who killed his attacker, is the start of more to come. My only fear in this case was the fact that he used the attackers weapon, was the reason the CPS did not prosecute. What if he had used a knife lying on the counter???

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top