Chichester Marina hazard to navigation warning

[bedouin]

What if two vessels are on parallel or diverging courses, and one of them tacks under the bows of the other?


But let's also go back to the narrow channel case -- do we all agree that a sailing vessel should not tack under the bows of another vessel coming up the channel, so close that a crash stop or hard maneuvers are required of the other vessel?

In the first case, in almost every case one of the vessels would be overtaking but I agree that there could be cases where risk of collision exists but it is not clear which vessel is stand on.

In the second case I think what we established was that tacking at the edge of the channel is effectively making no change in course so if you are stand on vessel that is fine (in fact you are obliged to do so) - and the other vessel will have given you plenty of room. If you are give way vessel then you shouldn't get yourself into that situation - you should have chosen to take action earlier.

I think I understand what you are trying to get at but I don't think you can construct a reasonable example without at least 3 vessels involved, probably more.

 

[Dockhead]

Thanks both
I'd like to think about the sailboat/mobo and narrow channel so more but for now it looks like this to me:

You have Llana and W telling us, I think, that the rules create a stand off. The sailboat is obliged not to impede the mobo; the mobo is required to give way to the sailboat because Rule 8f(iii) tells us that normal rules apply. If that is correct, the rules are profoundly crummy. it's like the highway code telling us to stop at both green and red traffic lights. What humans want is a rule telling the green light guy to go and the red light guy to stop. It's not hard.

But I'm not 100% convinced on Llana and W. 8f(iii) just says normal rules still apply to the not to be impeded vessel. Normal rules includes 18, which says steam gives way to sail, and includes the rule that 18 is itself subject to 9b, which says >20m sailboat must not impede steam boat in a channel. Heck. IF you interpret (I'll call it "JFM interpretation") the 9b do not impede obligation on the sailboat as trumping the steamboat's rule 18 obligation to keep clear (your authority for that being the opening line of rule 18) then at least you get some sense and a clear rule about who gives way and who carries on - like red-green traffic lights it now makes sense because you're clear that sailboat is give way. But I say "IF" - JFM interpretation isn't yet clear to me because the wording seems to lack the necessary clarity. Part of the case for JFM interpretation is that the alternative "L+W" interpretation leads to the following outcome:

• 9b. sailboat must not impede, according to a rule that is superior to the next two below;
• 17ai. Sailboat shall keep her course and speed;
• 18+16. mobo must keep well clear of sailboat;
• 8fiii. mobo is always subject to part B

Hmmm. What a mess! As a minimum, there is a conflict between the first two above. If there is a collision, it is always 50/50 blame because both boats must have breached their respective obligation. That surely makes the L+W interpretation questionable: the rules should at least allow the possibility of 100:0 blame in order to be fair. In old cases there were plenty of 100% blame allocations, and only the new 17b made that harder, but even 17b allows the possibility of a 100% blame allocation.

If you apply Roanoke and the cases and stories referred to in the full judgement, the sailboat's 17ai obligation broadly means doing whatever it sensibly and predictably should, including (as one judge explicitly said) movements to comply with Colregs, so including movements to comply with 9b. The mobo has a right and (perhaps) obligation to assume the sailboat will move so as not to impede (that movement being the stand on obligation of the sailboat, following roanoke). Accordingly the correct thing for mobo to do is carry on and not dodge the sailboat (until 17b bites, of course, but that's a different point so let's leave it out of the discussion). I think I prefer this JFM interpretation to L and W's but I want to think about it some more... open to other ideas.

I think it is unbeleivable crummy of Colregs to provide a non impedance right on the mobo in clear words, and reinforce it with the "18 is subservient to 9" words, then for IMO or whoever to issue stuff saying that actually, do you know what, the mobo must give way after all. Colregs need to produce red light/green light answers, with 17b backstop to stop people playing chicken

I think that the COLREGS fundamentally don't produce the "red light/green light" answers which we all yearn for, partially because they are awkwardly formulated, but also partially because "red lights/green lights" are better suited to right of way situations -- where someone has the "green light" and moves out with impunity. There just isn't anything quite like a "green light" under the COLREGS, and I think that's a big part of the confusion.

And that's the same reason why the obligations under the Rules don't tend to "trump" each other.

I think if you read the relevant passages again, you'll see that "9b do not impede obligation" definitely does not "trump" Rule 18 obligation to keep clear -- notwithstanding the bloody confusing phrase "Except where Rules .. . 9 . . . otherwise require." Because Rule 9 does not "otherwise require" -- it requires the sailboat to "not impede", which is not "otherwise" to the power vessel's obligation to "give way". I was tearing my hair out over this a few years ago, but it is so. And Rule 8 clarifies this:

"(iii). A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when
the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision. "

So I think it is pretty clear, and the commentators agree, that if a sailboat is required to not impede the passage of a ship coming up a channel, the ship is nevertheless required to give way under Rule 18 once a risk of collision exists. I think there's no controversy about that, and it's harmonized by the idea that "not impeding" starts to occur prior to the risk of collision coming into existence, or starts to occur. So the sailboat shouldn't even be in the channel, or should be well clear off to the side, when the ship comes through, so that a risk of collision never arises, and the ship is never required to maneuver -- that is how "not impeding" is supposed to work.

More complicated is whether or not the sailboat is obligated to stand on once he fails to "not impede" and the risk of collision does arise, or whether its obligation to carry on "not impeding" means it should also maneuver. That's really a mess either way. The U.S. Coast Guard, at least, thinks both vessels must maneuver:

"The new Rule provides that if the not-to-be-impeded vessel would be the give-way vessel under the general rules, it has the duty to stay out of the way of the impeding vessel after risk of collision arises. Under the new Rule, which changed the earlier official guidance in this respect, the impeding vessel also continues to have a duty to stay out of the way after risk of collision arises, and does not gain the stand-on status that the general rules might have given it. Both vessels would be obligated to stay out of the way."

I guess that's kind of coherent. It bothered me a lot because if someone is obligated to give way, someone else should be obligated to "hold still" (stand on), so that the giving-way can be effective, but maybe it just doesn't matter so much in this context.

 

[Dockhead]

So, in "red-light, green-light" form for Rule 9 not impeding, according to U.S. Coast Guard interpretation:

1. No risk of collision yet. Ship has green light. Sailboat which sees that it will encounter ship traffic is obligated to set up a crossing of a TSS or transit of a narrow channel in such a way that a risk of collision, and consequent steering-and-sailing rules maneuvering never occurs.

2. Risk of collision arises in the TSS or narrow channel. Ship has red light. It is obligated to give way to the sailboat under Rule 18. Sailboat also has red light -- it is obligated to carry on "not impeding" and to maneuver out of the way of the ship.


The more I think about this, the more sense it makes. There will be cases where the fact that no one is standing on will complicate the maneuver of the give-way vessel. But not in a narrow channel -- we can see how simultaneous maneuvering could be ok. In a TSS I don't know -- suppose the sailboat turns right around and tries to get back out of the TSS, after realizing its mistake. That would fulfill the idea of carrying on "not impeding", but could cause a dangerous situation if the ship is trying to give way by passing behind.

 

[jfm]

Dockhead, many thanks for that. As I said I was still mulling this one over, and all your analysis is very helpful. A few quick thoughts:

Red/green lights - don't take me too literally - I meant clarity about who has to do what, with the same degree of clarity that red/green lights give people as to what they are free to do and obliged to do. The analogy only goes that far, I appreciate

I think if you read the relevant passages again, you'll see that "9b do not impede obligation" definitely does not "trump" Rule 18 obligation to keep clear -- notwithstanding the bloody confusing phrase "Except where Rules .. . 9 . . . otherwise require." Because Rule 9 does not "otherwise require" -- it requires the sailboat to "not impede", which is not "otherwise" to the power vessel's obligation to "give way". I was tearing my hair out over this a few years ago, but it is so.

That is crystal clear and tremendously helpful, thank you. I don't much like the answer, , but I can see the analysis.

So I think it is pretty clear, and the commentators agree, that if a sailboat is required to not impede the passage of a ship coming up a channel, the ship is nevertheless required to give way under Rule 18 once a risk of collision exists. I think there's no controversy about that, and it's harmonized by the idea that "not impeding" starts to occur prior to the risk of collision coming into existence, or starts to occur. So the sailboat shouldn't even be in the channel, or should be well clear off to the side, when the ship comes through, so that a risk of collision never arises, and the ship is never required to maneuver -- that is how "not impeding" is supposed to work.

I get all that but as ever with Colregs its is easy to think of an example that undermines it. Sailboat is goosewinged running down a long channel; 1.5 miles away a mobo is steaming upwind toward the sailboat. They can see each other easily as well as having good radar. They are both keeping to starboard, but the channel is too narrow for them to pass, though it has plenty of places for either of them to pull over and let the other pass. Sailboat's "must not impede" obligation does not happen first - the very definition of risk of collision includes a non changing compass bearing, so there is risk of collision in this example long before sailboat need pull over so as not to impede.

As the two boats get quite close ish, both are required by different sections of law to pull over to make space for the other to pass. Let's suppose they do that. After a while, one of them thinks "to hell with this" and pulls back out into the channel so as to carry on its passage - that guy is breaking the law. Back to traffic lights, this really is like both sets of lights being red: complying with law means staying there for ever till you die of old age; carrying on means breaking the law.

Now of course the two captains will be sensible and figure it out, but that brings us back to collisions not occurring despite Colregs, not because of them. International Rules for the Possible Creation of Collisions at Sea

 

[Dockhead]

Dockhead, many thanks for that. As I said I was still mulling this one over, and all your analysis is very helpful. A few quick thoughts:

Red/green lights - don't take me too literally - I meant clarity about who has to do what, with the same degree of clarity that red/green lights give people as to what they are free to do and obliged to do. The analogy only goes that far, I appreciate
That is crystal clear and tremendously helpful, thank you. I don't much like the answer, , but I can see the analysis.

I get all that but as ever with Colregs its is easy to think of an example that undermines it. Sailboat is goosewinged running down a long channel; 1.5 miles away a mobo is steaming upwind toward the sailboat. They can see each other easily as well as having good radar. They are both keeping to starboard, but the channel is too narrow for them to pass, though it has plenty of places for either of them to pull over and let the other pass. Sailboat's "must not impede" obligation does not happen first - the very definition of risk of collision includes a non changing compass bearing, so there is risk of collision in this example long before sailboat need pull over so as not to impede.

As the two boats get quite close ish, both are required by different sections of law to pull over to make space for the other to pass. Let's suppose they do that. After a while, one of them thinks "to hell with this" and pulls back out into the channel so as to carry on its passage - that guy is breaking the law. Back to traffic lights, this really is like both sets of lights being red: complying with law means staying there for ever till you die of old age; carrying on means breaking the law.

Now of course the two captains will be sensible and figure it out, but that brings us back to collisions not occurring despite Colregs, not because of them. International Rules for the Possible Creation of Collisions at Sea

Even worse than that, what about a sailboat and a motor vessel under 20 metres? Does Rule 9 create mutual obligations to "not impede", or does it not apply?

I have always thought that Rule 9 does not apply, but I have no authority for this, and it is not impossible to imagine mutual obligations, even if this cannot in any way be put into "green light, red lights" terms.

 

[Blue Sunray]

The main commentators (Cockcroft, Llana & Wisneskey, and Farnell) do not agree with my interpretation of Rule 17.

I had no right to make such categorical assertions of this interpretation, without knowing that, even if I am right. Mea culpa.

For my sins, I am going to do the research, consult with the main experts, get thoroughly acquainted with all points of view on this, and write an article about it.

I will come back when I've finished the job. Whatever I posted which was wrong, I will retract.

You are a Gentleman. How very well written.

 

[bedouin]

Even worse than that, what about a sailboat and a motor vessel under 20 metres? Does Rule 9 create mutual obligations to "not impede", or does it not apply?

I have always thought that Rule 9 does not apply, but I have no authority for this, and it is not impossible to imagine mutual obligations, even if this cannot in any way be put into "green light, red lights" terms.

I am really not convinced by the green light/red light thing - there are just too many cases where it is nonsense. I would like to see some authority from that or some argument from the text of the rules as to why that should be the case.

I came across an old thread on here from 2010 discussing this point and TimB saying he was unable to get a clear answer out of MCA, and another contributor criticising Cockroft's interpretation.

There are no grounds I can see in the rules for Rule 9 not creating a mutual obligation. But on a more natural interpretation of the obligation that doesn't pose a problem - you can effectively ignore Rule 9 and rely on the normal stand on/ give way priorities.

 

[Uricanejack]

This has been an interesting discussion to watch or read between Dockhead JFM and Bedoin. At least two possible all 3 of you are much more expert on law than I am. I have learned a few things. Roanoak ect.

In the end only the likes of Denis Conner and the New York yacht club can afford to have their Lawyers pursue such interest. Most of the rest of us will just have to accept what our mutual insurance providers decide to do if paint or gel coat is exchanged. Perhaps this is why it hasn't come up since a couple of J class owners took each other to court.

The point which has been made at length the obligation of the stand on vessel allows for Slowing to take a Pilot. Tack at the edge of a channel. provided its required for safe navigation and is predictable. fairy snuff .

Rule 9, 13, 18, 17, have all been mentioned. add 5, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 2 to the mix. Particularly 2.
You are looking for an absolute, where there is no absolute. Maybe there should be. Even so there is no red to stop green to go.

Rule 2 is the clincher.

RULE 2 - Responsibility
a. Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
b. In consenting and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

You could also call it Catch 22.

a. Niether the tacking sail boat or the motor boat proceding up the channel are exonerated by any other rule. or interpretation of any other rule.
They must both comply with the rules. All of them. Which appears to not make sense. If they contradict each other.
Then it gets really vague with the requirement to comply with the ordinary practice of good seamen. What the heck is this. Simple common sense?

The special circumstances of the case. Another got Cha. This could be pretty much anything. certainly not limited to the edge of a channel. presence of other vessels.

We go on the B

Due regard shall be had for to all dangers of navigation and collision. This requires situational awareness of your surroundings and the other vessels. You cannot be expected to or expect another vessel to risk going to close to a danger to navigation or risk of collision.

Which may make a departure from these rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

This is the catch 22. The rule is you must break the rules.

I have a feeling the wording has changed some since I first read it. If anything it is even more of an embuggerance than it was.

So we are back to Give Way and Stand On.
16 and 17 obviously Both have obligations. Taking all of the above into consideration Requires a good effective lookout. Which includes figuring out or assessing what the other vessel is and making a prediction about what it may or may not do.
rule 7 Determining if a risk of collision exists and if any maneuver will bring about a risk of collision.
but also 8 remember this bit.

a. If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.

One might think this only applies to the give way vessel. Actually I think it applies to both. Remember a stand on vessel may be required to take action to avoid a collision.

The 9 has been discussed already by smarter people than me.

The bottom line. No matter how right it is for a sailboat to tack at the edge of a channel. She still has to take into account all of the above.
Lookout requires her to know about the motor boat proceeding up the channel.
She may predict or expect the motor boat to keep clear. And expect the tack. She must also consider the presence of a Navigational hazard. ( the Edge of the Channel) other moored vessels. The possibility The tack may involve risk of collision.
She must use the Ordinary Practice Of Seamen. Common Sense. To realise tacking may cause a risk of collision and the motor boat may not act as she expects.
She must continue to watch, Keep a lookout, Asses the risk of collision and if necessary take action in time to avoid a collision. Even if she is required to break the rules.

Case Law to Quote, I cant quite recall. The name of one of the vessels was the Sea Witch. It was in New York harbour. If I remember right early 70's I think. The Poor Old Sea With was at Anchor, How innocent and blameless could you get. She was still held partially responsible. For failing to keep a lookout, Observing the approaching tanker which had lost its steering. Trying to warn the approaching tanker. and trying to slip her cable.
About as unfair as possible but there you go.

 

[jfm]

This is the catch 22. The rule is you must break the rules.

That was a good read Uricanejack :encouragement: I particularly like the quote above! Our fundamental rules of road are fine, but the Colregs doc that tries to legislate all the detail is a very poor effort.

 

[Dockhead]

. . . The bottom line. No matter how right it is for a sailboat to tack at the edge of a channel. She still has to take into account all of the above.
Lookout requires her to know about the motor boat proceeding up the channel.
She may predict or expect the motor boat to keep clear. And expect the tack. She must also consider the presence of a Navigational hazard. ( the Edge of the Channel) other moored vessels. The possibility The tack may involve risk of collision.
She must use the Ordinary Practice Of Seamen. Common Sense. To realise tacking may cause a risk of collision and the motor boat may not act as she expects.
She must continue to watch, Keep a lookout, Asses the risk of collision and if necessary take action in time to avoid a collision. Even if she is required to break the rules..

Yes! This is very perceptive, and absolutely right. In fact I think that the bolded thing which Uricanejack wrote is really the heart of the matter.

The COLREGS are NOT intended to replace common sense, and are especially not intended to replace the "ordinary practice of seamen". I hate them less and less, the more I think about and work with them, although they can be maddening at times.


Bottom line: No one, ever, is supposed to just barge ahead heedless, and screw the poor buggers who, he thinks, are supposed to give way. Maybe you drive like that on land, when you have a green light, but it never works like that at sea. That's what bothered me in the video in the original post of this thread -- everyone barging ahead and expecting everyone else to stay out of their way, no one doing any seamanlike collision avoidance.

The other thing, also hinted at in this post, is that if there is a collision, in very few cases is there anyone really innocent, the way the Rules work, and the way the actual practice of collision avoidance works. The way collision avoidance works at sea almost inevitably requires two vessels both violating the Rules and/or navigating in an unseamanlike manner. Even one vessel following the Rules and good seamanship is enough to solve just about any situation. People who think they are the stand-on vessel in some encounter with another vessel -- should always have that in mind!

 

[bedouin]

The other thing, also hinted at in this post, is that if there is a collision, in very few cases is there anyone really innocent, the way the Rules work, and the way the actual practice of collision avoidance works. The way collision avoidance works at sea almost inevitably requires two vessels both violating the Rules and/or navigating in an unseamanlike manner. Even one vessel following the Rules and good seamanship is enough to solve just about any situation. People who think they are the stand-on vessel in some encounter with another vessel -- should always have that in mind!

The is easy to say - but is not actually true. In standard crossing situations it may be the case - but in the Roanoke case cited above, Roanoke was not held to be responsible at all (that is what the appeal was about); in that collision in the Solent where a yacht caught its spinnaker on a tanker's anchor I think the tanker was not held responsible - and in the original video had there been a collision it may have been entirely the Mobo's fault. The common theme is that in each case when it became apparent the other party was not keeping clear the stand on vessel had no safe alternative.

The real objective of colregs is not purely to wind up MOBOers but to make everyone's behaviour predictable. In particular it makes the behaviour of the stand on vessel predictable so the give way can take avoiding action safely. The stand on vessel does not get rights, any more than the give way - they both have mutual responsibilities

 

[jfm]

Yes! This is very perceptive, and absolutely right. In fact I think that the bolded thing which Uricanejack wrote is really the heart of the matter.

The COLREGS are NOT intended to replace common sense, and are especially not intended to replace the "ordinary practice of seamen". I hate them less and less, the more I think about and work with them, although they can be maddening at times.


Bottom line: No one, ever, is supposed to just barge ahead heedless, and screw the poor buggers who, he thinks, are supposed to give way. Maybe you drive like that on land, when you have a green light, but it never works like that at sea. That's what bothered me in the video in the original post of this thread -- everyone barging ahead and expecting everyone else to stay out of their way, no one doing any seamanlike collision avoidance.

The other thing, also hinted at in this post, is that if there is a collision, in very few cases is there anyone really innocent, the way the Rules work, and the way the actual practice of collision avoidance works. The way collision avoidance works at sea almost inevitably requires two vessels both violating the Rules and/or navigating in an unseamanlike manner. Even one vessel following the Rules and good seamanship is enough to solve just about any situation. People who think they are the stand-on vessel in some encounter with another vessel -- should always have that in mind!

I generally agree that but would like to bring out one point in relation to the video. The stand on sailboat has a 17b obligation to take late action to avoid a collision, if the give-way boat isn't doing enough. (17b is why in nearly all collisions both sides share blame). It doesn't have an obligation to take early or anticipatory action, though it has 17(a)(ii) rights as a matter of choice. In the video, the mobo's own actions were enough to prevent a collision, as proven by fact a collision didn't occur. They were clumsy actions (compared with hanging back and passing astern of the sailboats after the tacks), but they were enough to avoid a collision. Therefore 17b never bit. Therefore I do not see any large criticism of the sailboats. IF there had been a crash the sailboats would have shared blame for not luffing up but that isn't the scenario we are dealing with

 

[jfm]

The is easy to say - but is not actually true. In standard crossing situations it may be the case - but in the Roanoke case cited above, Roanoke was not held to be responsible at all (that is what the appeal was about); in that collision in the Solent where a yacht caught its spinnaker on a tanker's anchor I think the tanker was not held responsible - and in the original video had there been a collision it may have been entirely the Mobo's fault. The common theme is that in each case when it became apparent the other party was not keeping clear the stand on vessel had no safe alternative.

Just on a technicality B, which isn't meant to disagree with your general point, the 17b obligation on the give way boat to do last minute collision avoidance dates iirc from 1973; it wasn't in the law for Roanoke. That made it easier for the court to find 0% blame for Roanoke. In our Chichester case, if there had bee a collision I would expect the sailboats would have taken some blame under 17b, but that would be a different scenario rather than the one we're actually dealing with. The Solent yacht/tanker was of course recent so 17b existed, which shows from what you say that it is still possible to get 0-100 blame allocation

 

[bedouin]

Just on a technicality B, which isn't meant to disagree with your general point, the 17b obligation on the give way boat to do last minute collision avoidance dates iirc from 1973; it wasn't in the law for Roanoke. That made it easier for the court to find 0% blame for Roanoke. In our Chichester case, if there had bee a collision I would expect the sailboats would have taken some blame under 17b, but that would be a different scenario rather than the one we're actually dealing with. The Solent yacht/tanker was of course recent so 17b existed, which shows from what you say that it is still possible to get 0-100 blame allocation

While the Chichester case didn't end in a collision, it is hard to know what the skipper should have done had the MOBO stood on. 17(a)(ii) didn't really apply because any action he could have taken would have brought him closer to the MOBO and made collision more likely. So at the last moment when he had to tack he had the option of tacking and colliding with the MOBO or hitting the moored boat.

What in practice you would do would be to luff up and "collide" with the moored boat fending off to minimise the damage, but that means you have chosen a collision where you are 100% to blame to one where you are 99% innocent! (Making the necessary assumptions about precise location of boats).

In fact in the tanker case I thought the tanker at least partly to blame for making misleading sound signals, but he clearly had no option to manoeuvre to try to avoid the sailing boat.

 

[Dockhead]

I generally agree that but would like to bring out one point in relation to the video. The stand on sailboat has a 17b obligation to take late action to avoid a collision, if the give-way boat isn't doing enough. (17b is why in nearly all collisions both sides share blame). It doesn't have an obligation to take early or anticipatory action, though it has 17(a)(ii) rights as a matter of choice. In the video, the mobo's own actions were enough to prevent a collision, as proven by fact a collision didn't occur. They were clumsy actions (compared with hanging back and passing astern of the sailboats after the tacks), but they were enough to avoid a collision. Therefore 17b never bit. Therefore I do not see any large criticism of the sailboats. IF there had been a crash the sailboats would have shared blame for not luffing up but that isn't the scenario we are dealing with

We have drilled into very interesting territory.

Let's put aside the Rule 17 question, which I am working on separately as I promised. I don't think that the sailboats are innocent under Rule 17 but recognizing that I don't have obvious support in the authorities I am going to have to try harder.

Leaving that aside, I think the sailboats are at fault for barging ahead and creating an in extremis situation which required hard maneuvers from the mobo. If they were doing what Uricanejack so correctly and so aptly described, they would have seen that the mobo did not intend to maneuver, and they would not have forced the situation as they did. That's Rule 2, not late action under steering and sailing (I agree with your analysis of that).

I think it's crucially important to keep in mind that the mobo's fault in not giving way, does not mean that you are allowed to force in extremis maneuvers and create unreasonable risks of collision. This is so different from traffic rules. I believe that Rule 2 requires you to do everything necessary to prevent in extremis maneuvers, breaking the other guy's stern gear, etc. EVEN if he is at fault and EVEN if you have to actually break the Rules to do it -- as Uricanejack said.

 

[Dockhead]

The is easy to say - but is not actually true. In standard crossing situations it may be the case - but in the Roanoke case cited above, Roanoke was not held to be responsible at all (that is what the appeal was about); in that collision in the Solent where a yacht caught its spinnaker on a tanker's anchor I think the tanker was not held responsible - and in the original video had there been a collision it may have been entirely the Mobo's fault. The common theme is that in each case when it became apparent the other party was not keeping clear the stand on vessel had no safe alternative.

The real objective of colregs is not purely to wind up MOBOers but to make everyone's behaviour predictable. In particular it makes the behaviour of the stand on vessel predictable so the give way can take avoiding action safely. The stand on vessel does not get rights, any more than the give way - they both have mutual responsibilities

I'm not sure I quite understand the point you're trying to make, but I agree with the individual parts of this, particularly the last paragraph.

I think that much of our disagreement about the Chichester case comes not from any disagreement about the Rules, as different evaluation of the actual facts of the case.

You think that the sailboats just couldn't do any maneuver other than the one they did. If we suspend disbelief and take that as given, then I agree they were innocent.

As a matter of boat handling, I can say that on my own boat (a 54' sailing yacht), I could have in that situation luffed up or simply tacked over to a hove-to position without any significant risk of colliding with the moored boats, but I admit that (a) different boats and different helmsmen may have different capabilities; and (b) the wind, current, and distances may have been different in reality to how I imagine them, so wise men might disagree.

But what condemns the sailboats' behavior in my mind is their attitude[/] -- they were not watching the mobo and apparently not even thinking about what to do in case the mobo didn't maneuver. The only thing they were thinking about was what insults to hurl at him as he went by. They were obviously not taking up any responsibility for avoiding a collision, and that is forbidden by the Rules, and contradicts what you so well said in your last paragraph. Anyway, that's how it looked to me.


One thing I'd like to add is about mutual responsibility as assigned by law courts in cases of collisions. Yes, there are cases where one vessel is held to have 0% responsibility but according to all the commentators such cases are rare. I think that this is not just a question of 17(b) action as JFM believes, but a question of other action leading up to the collision that the stand-on vessel could have and should have taken. It really does take two fools to make a collision at sea, and it's hard to imagine many cases where there was really nothing the stand-on vessel could have done at any phase of the encounter, which could have averted the accident. With some rare exceptions like vessel at anchor (notwithstanding Uricanejack's example). But even being run down from behind, admits the chance to get out of the way, if a proper watch is being kept.

 

[jfm]

Leaving that aside, I think the sailboats are at fault for barging ahead and creating an in extremis situation which required hard maneuvers from the mobo. If they were doing what Uricanejack so correctly and so aptly described, they would have seen that the mobo did not intend to maneuver, and they would not have forced the situation as they did. That's Rule 2, not late action under steering and sailing (I agree with your analysis of that).

I think it's crucially important to keep in mind that the mobo's fault in not giving way, does not mean that you are allowed to force in extremis maneuvers and create unreasonable risks of collision. This is so different from traffic rules. I believe that Rule 2 requires you to do everything necessary to prevent in extremis maneuvers, breaking the other guy's stern gear, etc. EVEN if he is at fault and EVEN if you have to actually break the Rules to do it -- as Uricanejack said.

Just as food for thought, rather than argument, and I'm appreciating the quality of your analysis, my view is you are reading too much into rule 2

The first para says that nothing in the rules exonerates you from the consequences of neglect of ordinary seamanship precaution. But in the case where the extremis action occurred and sterngear broke, say, the sailboat doesn't even seek or need exoneration under the rules (assuming, not agreeing, that he was unseamanlike). If there were a rule that Sailboat had breached, then sailboat might well hope to find exoneration under some other rule, and this para would then be pertinent as a block to that exoneration. But Sailboat hasn't breached any rule, so doesn't care that this rule denies him any exoneration. OK, if the mobo sued for damages to sterngear, then this rule wouldn't provide any protection for sailboat, but I can't see sailboat needing that protection because a civil claim by mobo would be hopeless anyway, particular because sailboat has broken any Colregs rule.

The second para is a rule of interpretation, which morphs by some incredibly kackhanded drafting into a remarkable rule that says depart from the rules. I see absolutely nothing in it that creates an obligation on sailboat, whether an obligation to refrain from a manoeuvre that breaks mobo's stern gear or any other obligation

So in summary, neither bit of rule 2 imposes an overriding obligation of seamanlike behaviour, I think

 

[jfm]

But what condemns the sailboats' behavior in my mind is their attitude[/] -- they were not watching the mobo and apparently not even thinking about what to do in case the mobo didn't maneuver. The only thing they were thinking about was what insults to hurl at him as he went by. They were obviously not taking up any responsibility for avoiding a collision, ...

Yep, just to be clear, I'm not violently disagreeing that. It's hard to deduce all the facts from a video anyway. My main posts above were, as I said, laser focussed on whether sailboats breached 17(a)(i).
OK, we have subsequently moved onto rules 9b and 2(!)...

 

[Dockhead]

Just as food for thought, rather than argument, and I'm appreciating the quality of your analysis, my view is you are reading too much into rule 2

The first para says that nothing in the rules exonerates you from the consequences of neglect of ordinary seamanship precaution. But in the case where the extremis action occurred and sterngear broke, say, the sailboat doesn't even seek or need exoneration under the rules (assuming, not agreeing, that he was unseamanlike). If there were a rule that Sailboat had breached, then sailboat might well hope to find exoneration under some other rule, and this para would then be pertinent as a block to that exoneration. But Sailboat hasn't breached any rule, so doesn't care that this rule denies him any exoneration. OK, if the mobo sued for damages to sterngear, then this rule wouldn't provide any protection for sailboat, but I can't see sailboat needing that protection because a civil claim by mobo would be hopeless anyway, particular because sailboat has broken any Colregs rule.

The second para is a rule of interpretation, which morphs by some incredibly kackhanded drafting into a remarkable rule that says depart from the rules. I see absolutely nothing in it that creates an obligation on sailboat, whether an obligation to refrain from a manoeuvre that breaks mobo's stern gear or any other obligation

So in summary, neither bit of rule 2 imposes an overriding obligation of seamanlike behaviour, I think

It's an interesting question, and will reward some reading.

Take an extreme example, however -- what if some other motor vessel, say one just the same size as yours, is motoring on a parallel course to starboard of you, you are both planing at high speed, and suddenly, and for no reason apparent to you, and with no warning, alters course to pass right under your bows. The only way for you to avoid a collision is to slam both drives into reverse and wind up to max RPM, and you barely manage it, and wreck both gearboxes.

Is he responsible for the damage? Let's think it through:

1. He had the right to change course.

2. He had the right to create a risk of collision (as we have discussed).

3. You as the vessel on the port side were obligated to give way.

So why isn't it entirely your problem, and your bills to pay for the gearboxes you ruined in the process of preventing the collision? He didn't violate any rule. Unless it was Rule 2.

And what if there had been a collision after all? You were obligated to give way, but didn't/couldn't. Is he responsible? And if so, on what basis?

 

[bedouin]

You think that the sailboats just couldn't do any maneuver other than the one they did. If we suspend disbelief and take that as given, then I agree they were innocent.

As a matter of boat handling, I can say that on my own boat (a 54' sailing yacht), I could have in that situation luffed up or simply tacked over to a hove-to position without any significant risk of colliding with the moored boats, but I admit that (a) different boats and different helmsmen may have different capabilities; and (b) the wind, current, and distances may have been different in reality to how I imagine them, so wise men might disagree.

I understand the point you are trying to make - but let's turn it around and ask what you would have done had you been the skipper (and for the sake of argument let us assume starting the engine isn't an option - that is another discussion entirely). In those conditions neither luffing nor taking way off the boat on that tack are feasible - the only way the boat can be stopped safely would be to tack then rather than sheeting in, let the sheets fly while pointing about 60-90 degrees to the wind - but to do that would violate the stand on vessel's obligation and make collision more likely