Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[fireball]

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....................

Yes - America here we come ....

so out of 000's of competitors, one skipper made a bad call and ended up under a ship ... so were the 000's brilliant skippers who could see that there was shipping there and knew how to avoid it or was the 1 a twit and made a mistake that could potentially cost him the ultimate price.
Was it known that there would be shipping - either by common knowledge or by RO briefing? Yes
Did the RO instruct the competitors to cross in front of the ship? No.

There's always a safer way - it's usually to end up on the sofa doing sweet FA ...

There will always be **** stirring lawyers who think they can make a few bob - it's up us as a nation to stop blaming everyone else for our own actions and for the judges to throw "stupid" cases out of court.

 

[rotrax]

You are still missing the point.................


Which is to be VERY aware of the potential for things to go tits up-and being in a position to cover ones ar$e.

 

[fireball]

You are still missing the point.................


Which is to be VERY aware of the potential for things to go tits up-and being in a position to cover ones ar$e.

I'm not missing the point - I get your point I just don't agree with it.
DJE explained duty of care far better than I could - I just think your (devils advocate) thinking is taking it way too far.

 

[DJE]

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....................

Take that to its logical conclusion and of course it would be safer to not go sailing at all.

Anybody can make something safer; the clever bit is knowing when to stop!

 

[rotrax]

I'm not missing the point - I get your point I just don't agree with it.
DJE explained duty of care far better than I could - I just think your (devils advocate) thinking is taking it way too far.

DJE's explanation is not the one I am familiar with.

I was a licenced official in two motorcycle racing disiplines-Speedway and Circuit racing.
My responsibilities were clear and unambiguous.
The sports I was licenced to administer were dynamic and inherently dangerous.
It was my duty of care to ensure that ANY risk outside of the actual riding of the motorbikes were eliminated as far as possible.
In Speedway this meant ensuring the track was safe as far as the surface, fence, marshall and first aid positioning and many other very minor factors-including the sand in the fire buckets! I had more power than any other official to veto a meeting or stop one once it had started. Even the Referee defered to me on track safety.

It seems very different in boat racing.
As I have little real interest in it as a sport I will let those who are involved get on with it.
Hopefully we will not revisit this area in tragic circumstances.

 

[DJE]

DJE's explanation is not the one I am familiar with.

If you were more familiar with the law you might be a little less worried about those ***** lawyers.

.....motorcycle racing disiplines-Speedway and Circuit racing.....It seems very different in boat racing.

Hardly surprising!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

DJE's explanation is not the one I am familiar with.

Unfortunate, because DJE's is the correct 'explanation'.

 

[rotrax]

Unfortunate, because DJE's is the correct 'explanation'.

A court may consider that the senario I proposed earlier that the RO had failed in their duty of care by placing racing boats close to leisure craft using the main navigation channel.

Surely even you Toad can recognise that as a possibility.

I speak with direct experience of a motorsports inquiry into a fatality and two serious injuries when a similar event occured.

The recognised governing body of Motorcycle Racing altered its philosophy as a direct result-including pressure from the insurance companies that indemnified them and the clubs.
Untill then it had been a case of "We have always done it like that".

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

A court may consider that the senario I proposed earlier that the RO had failed in their duty of care by placing racing boats close to leisure craft using the main navigation channel.

No, I can't imagine that for one second. The idea that a setting a course that included one or more legs in or over a 'main navigational channel' could in any way be negligent in a legal sense is just crazy. Negligence is a pretty high bar. Sailing in the "main navigational channel" is perfectly normal. So normal that there are even rules that tell you how to do it in the IRPCS.

I speak with direct experience of a motorsports inquiry into a fatality and two serious injuries when a similar event occured.

...and someone was deemed negligent and compensation was awarded because of that? Who? Why? You're not offering enough detail to see if there's a similarity.

 

[blueboy]

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....................

You really do like pontificating on a subject about which you appear to know little.

I've skippered boats at Cowes Week a number of times and I do some race officering (not in Cowes Week). Like most race officers, I've passed a little test and have a decorative certificate for my pains.

The event planning and daily planning for Cowes Week will include documented Risk Assessment. The protocols for running the event will have been discussed and agreed with local stakeholders such as ABP officials. The documentation which skippers receive makes the harbour bye-laws and exclusion zone abundantly clear. Your assumption that Cowes Week is run on some footloose and fancy-free basis could not be further from the truth.

Given the need to start and finish 1000-odd boats (in a good year) the only way Cowes Week can work is with most boats operating from fixed start and finish lines near Cowes. The only racing you can run that starts and finishes at Cowes crosses the main navigation channels. So your dialogue above falls at the first hurdle.

Since the racing in Chichester Harbour is another bete noire of yours and that's something I'm directly involved with, let's talk about that. The protocols for racing in the Harbour are agreed between the clubs (jointly) and the Harbour Master. There are differing arrangements according to likely levels of non-racing traffic. The East Head anchorage is a known problem area and attempts are made to keep racing away from there at peak times. At other times, racing boats will go in there to avoid foul tide. It is impossible at any time to set courses for adult sailors that don't impinge on the main channel, although smaller courses for juniors are normally set elsewhere. At low water, start lines will also necessarily occupy some of the deep channel but space is always left for non-racing traffic, which most thankfully have the good sense and courtesy to use.

Your apparent belief that race courses are randomly set without consideration for safety or the needs of other Harbour users is entirely wide of the mark.

 

[Keen_Ed]

I speak with direct experience of a motorsports inquiry into a fatality and two serious injuries when a similar event occured.

Someone hit a ship while bike racing? I'm not surprised the organisers were found to be negligent. Didn't the competitors complain about the track being damp?

 

[Resolution]

Rotrax
Maybe one reason why motor racing is so dangerous is because it lacks clear cut rules as to who has right of way on the race circuit. Consequently there are frequent collisions and inevitably damage.
In yacht racing we have very clear and detailed rules to determine right of way and give way situations. Consequently we have relatively few collisions even though we race without brakes.

Perhaps you should leave us to our race practices and go and worry about your sports own rules?

 

[fireball]

A court may consider that the senario I proposed earlier that the RO had failed in their duty of care by placing racing boats close to leisure craft using the main navigation channel.

Surely even you Toad can recognise that as a possibility.

Not really - because there are rules in place that govern the actions between vessels whether they are racing or not.

 

[DAKA]

At low water, start lines will also necessarily occupy some of the deep channel but space is always left for non-racing traffic, which most thankfully have the good sense and courtesy to use.

.

Perhaps some locals know where to go but many dont know how accurate a chart is outside of a buoyed channel.
At best someone in a rib will shout 'go over there' while wafting an arm in a vague direction towards a mud bank.

Are you posting from Royal yacht club of cloud cuckoo land

 

[blueboy]

^

No need to go outside the buoyed channel. As I said, space is always left.

There are no "Royal" clubs in Chichester Harbour. So the answer to your question is no.

 

[A1Sailor]

No, I can't imagine that for one second. The idea that a setting a course that included one or more legs in or over a 'main navigational channel' could in any way be negligent in a legal sense is just crazy. Negligence is a pretty high bar. Sailing in the "main navigational channel" is perfectly normal. So normal that there are even rules that tell you how to do it in the IRPCS.

Indeed, although the Port of Southampton suggests the following:

What can you do?
Avoid sailing in the commercial ship channels, especially in poor visibility. Obey Rule 9 of the ColRegs for conduct in narrow channels by keeping to the starboard side of the channel and crossing only when this does not impede the passage of a large vessel that can safely navigate only within the narrow channel.

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/Yachting_and_Leisure/

 

[Keen_Ed]

Not really - because there are rules in place that govern the actions between vessels whether they are racing or not.

Also, unlike motorsport, racing boats are only a bit quicker than cruising boats, and a lot slower than motorboats.

 

[DAKA]

^

No need to go outside the buoyed channel. As I said, space is always left.

Its wrong to thread drift here, if you are interest please start a new thread , who ever organises the dinghy racing around Cobnor Point expect traffic to navigate outside the buoyed channel .

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Avoid sailing in the commercial ship channels, especially in poor visibility. Obey Rule 9 of the ColRegs for conduct in narrow channels by keeping to the starboard side of the channel and crossing only when this does not impede the passage of a large vessel that can safely navigate only within the narrow channel.

I'd be interested in their suggested route Warsash->Alum Bay without breaking their guidelines, but I agree that does look a gift for a Barrister trying to make a yacht look irresponsible.

I'm still unconvinced that it's a big problem. I've been talking to a chap who competes in four & two wheeled motorsport this afternoon. He doesn't think that motorsport has a legal problem at all. He's never heard of a civil case. He claims Italy has criminal legislation aimed at motorsport but is unaware of a big legal issue in the UK.

So I'd say that not only does Sailing pretty much have its house in order but it looks like motorsport does too.

I'd like to see some examples of recent cases in both sports.

 

[fireball]

Also, unlike motorsport, racing boats are only a bit quicker than cruising boats, and a lot slower than motorboats.

I think you're missing the word "generally" there - there've been some remarkable increases of speed in recent years with hydro-foiling boats. Racing Cats have always been that little bit faster too.
I would think that once we get hyrdo foiling yachts regularly racing in the solent then there will probably be some (hopefully self imposed) restriction on where & when they race - partly because slower craft would not have a chance of keeping clear under the current IRPCS. But all the time we have vessels of similar speed (save for the odd few) then there is no real need to forcefully segregate them.

Just going back to Chi Harbour - if the court heard how the Corby 33 was "Highly Manoeuvrable" - does this not apply when similar vessels are in Chi Harbour? Do they suddenly become restricted in their ability to manoeuvre? IMHO, other than within mooring areas and marina approach channels, leisure craft are capable of complying with the IRPCS.