penfold
Well-known member
Point well made; it doesn't help with rule 9b though, which makes no stipulation about any signals.
Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
Point well made; it doesn't help with rule 9b though, which makes no stipulation about any signals.
Giblets
Well-known member
I know the incident did not happen in his area but QHM Portsmouth (through whose patch the HK had just passed) has a specific LNTM (10/13) regarding Vessels Constrained By Their Draught requiring the necessary lights/shapes to be exhibited. Item 4 of this LNTM is interesting and I wonder if it was added as a result of this incident.
http://www.qhm.mod.uk/portsmouth/leisure/lntm?action=view&id=388
http://www.qhm.mod.uk/portsmouth/leisure/lntm?action=view&id=388
DJE
Well-known member
And I attended the safety seminar called by ABP and Cowes Week at the start of last season in response to the incident in question.
rotrax
Well-known member
Excellent. I hope it was constructive.
l'escargot
New member
ABP have the same which is a reissue of a 2010 NTM: http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2011 no 14.pdf
Para 4 would seem a get out for those that don't display a shape and effectively says treat everything as constrained by draft...
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Since Atlanta's been charged with the Coll Reg rather than the Bye Law that suggests that in the opinion of the prosecution HK was showing the cylinder correctly.
bedouin
Well-known member
No - the rules make it clear the vessels must show the sign. The element of doubt comes from the fact that under certain circumstances you may need to take action before the day shape is visible to you.
Observer
Active member
That claim is not correct though is it. The qualification "if the circumstances of the case admit" appears six times in total (8(a), 8(b), 9(g), 15, 17(c) and 18(d)(i)). All these are rules requiring actions. The common link between them is that it is reasonably possible to conceive circumstances where it is prudent and seamanlike to take action in contrvention of the underlying rule (i.e. to appply rule 2(b).
Resolution
Well-known member
Rotrax
I guess most of us resent the idea of more regulation / red tape, hence the negative responses to your comments. I sit on the sailing committee of my club and we groan every time our resident lawyer and regular RO / umpire suggests we add to the paperwork with deeper risk assessments etc.
I do think there is one big relevant difference between organising a speedway event and most yacht races; the speedway event is held on private land where the organisers have a lot of freedom to dictate how things are run on the track, and therefore take responsibility for doing it as safely as poss.
The Cowes week races are held in the sea, not at all private, where a comprehensive (!) set of laws and regulations already exist to regulate how we act, especially vis-à-vis in meeting other boats. And there are I believe maritime laws that explicitly place the responsibility for a vessel's actions on the skipper (I cannot quote what law this is but doubtless someone here can).
Net effect of these differences is to significantly lessen the legal responsibility of the organising yacht club.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
I'm sure I could find a rule or two requiring an action where it might be prudent not to take that isn't protected by a similar caveat to "if the circumstances of the case admit", and as you imply, rule 2(b) renders this caveat utterly redundant anyway.
However, what I wrote implied that "if the circumstances of the case admit" didn't appear anywhere else, so 1 point to Observer, because it does.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
I think 'lescargot's interpretation is right & every time I disagree with you I seem to learn something new about the Col Regs so it's worth doing.
fireball
New member
The way I see it is that we (as a nation) are going the way of wanting to hold someone else responsible for our own (in)actions.
In sail racing no skipper is duty bound to race - RO's can postpone or abandon racing if they can see that there is going to be untenable conditions - eg too much/too little wind. Their duty of care should be limited to warning of known specific hazards on the course (as is done for Cowes week - probably not done for local club racing where hazards are generally known) and ensuring that a course is set that doesn't require a skipper to put their vessel in jeopardy to complete - eg A rounding mark on a drying bank on an ebb tide wouldn't be acceptable, but a course that traverses a drying bank with navigable water around it would be - (providing that drying bank is known to competitors).
Beyond setting a course suitable for the conditions, the actions of the skippers are outside the control of the RO - the skippers are obliged to abide by colregs, racing rules & local bylaws which (should) cover every eventuality concerning vessels.
We should be taking responsibility for our own actions whilst racing - a skipper cannot blame the RO for failing to point out that an obvious hazard was there - eg another vessel transiting the area or even the presence of a navigation mark. I don't think you could reasonably hold the RO responsible for failure to point out a squall coming through (I've seen dinghies deliberately capsize and sit them out). Skippers are responsible for the safety of their vessel and crew - nothing the RO does compels them to put their vessel or crew in danger - in setting a race the RO isn't saying its safe to race - it's impossible for the RO to know - what is safe for some crews/vessels is outside the capability of others - the decision to race or carry on racing is the decision of the vessel's skipper.
In sail racing no skipper is duty bound to race - RO's can postpone or abandon racing if they can see that there is going to be untenable conditions - eg too much/too little wind. Their duty of care should be limited to warning of known specific hazards on the course (as is done for Cowes week - probably not done for local club racing where hazards are generally known) and ensuring that a course is set that doesn't require a skipper to put their vessel in jeopardy to complete - eg A rounding mark on a drying bank on an ebb tide wouldn't be acceptable, but a course that traverses a drying bank with navigable water around it would be - (providing that drying bank is known to competitors).
Beyond setting a course suitable for the conditions, the actions of the skippers are outside the control of the RO - the skippers are obliged to abide by colregs, racing rules & local bylaws which (should) cover every eventuality concerning vessels.
We should be taking responsibility for our own actions whilst racing - a skipper cannot blame the RO for failing to point out that an obvious hazard was there - eg another vessel transiting the area or even the presence of a navigation mark. I don't think you could reasonably hold the RO responsible for failure to point out a squall coming through (I've seen dinghies deliberately capsize and sit them out). Skippers are responsible for the safety of their vessel and crew - nothing the RO does compels them to put their vessel or crew in danger - in setting a race the RO isn't saying its safe to race - it's impossible for the RO to know - what is safe for some crews/vessels is outside the capability of others - the decision to race or carry on racing is the decision of the vessel's skipper.
BelleSerene
Active member
Indeed.
Para 4 said:
It still leaves the judgment to the individual though. This clumsy local add-on to the global colregs makes the matter hinge on whether the sailor was in doubt, not on whether he drew the right conclusion.
So it allows a sailor to believe that the larger vessel isn't constrained by its draught – say, he knows (or believes he knows) the depth and width of the channel and that there's plenty of space ahead for it to execute its turn. The sailor can then declare he wasn't 'in any doubt' (he doesn't have to have been right, remember, just in no doubt) and then this para doesn't apply to him.
(No, I'm not recommending doing this - just pointing out that as the port's rule hinges on whether the sailor had doubt about the matter and not on whether he was right, it doesn't make an effective get-out for massive vessels that fail to display the requisite symbol.)
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Good point. How the hell do the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone was in doubt. Which might be another reason why the prosecution here aren't going for that law if it turns out the cylinder wasn't up.
DJE
Well-known member
Several people are bandying about that phrase “Duty of Care”. Under common law everyone has a duty of care to anybody who they could reasonably expect to be affected by their actions. You can’t limit that. The big question is whether you were negligent and it is my firm belief that drawing the skippers’ attention to the hazards and assuming that they are competent to run their boats is not negligent.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
+1
fireball
New member
Ok - thats a better expanation than mine - and I do agree with it.
This is where the grey area comes in - what hazards should a race committee be expected to draw attention too or even avoid ... ?
IMHO - It should be for unusual or unique hazards - In terms of Cowes week where you've potentially got racing skippers from outside the area then it is sensible to draw their attention to the precautionary area and the ramifications of it as there are some specific rules that apply there, but for other areas where it's "as per normal" then it is the skippers responsibility to ensure they're aware of the general hazards in the area.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Has any sailing committee in the UK been sued for failing to draw attention to something in a race briefing?
I doubt anyone will find an example & no sailing club I've ever been a member of has been sued for negligence.
I think sailing clubs are at more legal risk from members tripping over a paving slab in the carpark than running a race in an area with shipping channels.
Last edited:
rotrax
Well-known member
Fireball says a skipper cannot blame a RO for failing to point out an obvious hazard was there.
It is the dependants of a deceased skipper and the ****e stirring lawers that would be the problem.
Imagine the courtroom:- Barrister- So, you were aware before setting the course that the competitors would cross the marked navigation channel at a time when most leisure vessels would be taking advantage of the rising tide to cross the bar at the harbour entrance.
RO:- Yes-we always do it that way.
Barrister:- Was ther another area of the harbour-which I understand covers a large area of water during a rising tide-where the competitors would not have had to cross the main navigation channel during this busy period?
R0:-Yes-I suppose there is.
Barrister:- So-by placing the racing marks in a different area the competitors would have had less chance of closing with heavier vessels?
Ro:-Er-I suppose so.
I think you can see where this is going.
Many of you think this senario is unlikely. I really hope it is.
But it needed bringing up-if a ****e stirring lawyer can see a few bob you never know....................
It is the dependants of a deceased skipper and the ****e stirring lawers that would be the problem.
Imagine the courtroom:- Barrister- So, you were aware before setting the course that the competitors would cross the marked navigation channel at a time when most leisure vessels would be taking advantage of the rising tide to cross the bar at the harbour entrance.
RO:- Yes-we always do it that way.
Barrister:- Was ther another area of the harbour-which I understand covers a large area of water during a rising tide-where the competitors would not have had to cross the main navigation channel during this busy period?
R0:-Yes-I suppose there is.
Barrister:- So-by placing the racing marks in a different area the competitors would have had less chance of closing with heavier vessels?
Ro:-Er-I suppose so.
I think you can see where this is going.
Many of you think this senario is unlikely. I really hope it is.
But it needed bringing up-if a ****e stirring lawyer can see a few bob you never know....................
toad_oftoadhall
New member
I'm not sure a made up exchange helps your case in the slightest.
A real court case with a similar exchange resulting in some kind of compensation award would be convincing, but clearly you can't find such a case.
