Chichester Marina hazard to navigation warning

[Uricanejack]

The rules exist to guide the wise. The rules are adhered to by fools.
There are no "Rights" expressed or implied.
There are "obligations" which vary and apply to all, all the time.
The rules a written for single vessel meeting single vessel.
Throw in a 3rd, a hazard, a Rock, each situation is subject to interpretation, and misinterpretation.
Regardless the obligation always exists to avoid a collision. Nothing in these rules absolves you from this obligation,
Nothing in these rules allows you to create a close quarters situation.
The ordinary practice of seamanship is always required but never specifically defined
Short answer they were all at fault in different ways.

Dockhead appears to understand the rules better than his detractors who could learn something by paying attention to what he said. Even if they are instructors

 

[MapisM]

...or CDS members, for that matter!

 

[jfm]

Interesting analysis J, thanks for your contribution.
If nothing else, it strengthens what I always thought about colregs, i.e. that they aren't worth much more than the sheets of paper where they are written: can you imagine anyone in a situation like the one of the video (or worse!) mentally doing the all the evaluations you made, in real time, and act accordingly (not to mention the assumption that also the skipper of the other vessel involved would follow exactly the same logic)?!? .

Yup, the Colregs are a shamefully bad set of rules. We avoid collisions and get along nicely mostly despite them, not because of them.

I don't think Dockhead meant the heave to alternative as something specifically implied by 2b, and in this sense you are right in saying that he didn't explain a legal basis for it. But what he wrote is:
"If the yacht's skipper [...] could not see with reasonable certainty that the mobo did leave room for him to tack, then he must not tack. He must first of all hold course and speed to the extent he can. If he can't carry on because he's run out of channel, then he must luff up and let the mobo go by."
Now, my understanding of what he meant is: if the yacht skipper understands that tacking implies a high risk of collision, under 2b he must "do anything else feasible" (so to speak) to avoid it.

I agree that luffing up might have been sensible, but as I said I was being laser focussed just on the question of whether tacking contravened the stand-on vessel's obligation to hold speed and course, ie 17 (a)(i). I stayed focussed on that because I think it is, in isolation, an interesting point of principle and one that the Colreg writers failed to deal with well. My contention is that there is nothing in the rules saying tacking contravenes 17 (a)(i) if there is no clear water but does not contravene 17 (a)(i) if there is clear water. Thus, the question of whether 17 (a)(i) is breached or not does not depend on whether there was clear water because neither 17 (a)(i) nor 2b mention clear water. By tacking into unclear water the sailboat skipper might have been breaking some other rule, but I contend that it does not breach 17 (a)(i). It might breach all sorts of Darwinian rules (!) but not 17 (a)(i). IMHO.

Otoh, I still can't understand (but I will not ask bedouin anymore, since after his last reply to myself it's pretty obvious that he only hears/understands what he likes) what those who keep saying that it was correct to keep tacking no matter what would have done, if they would have realized that by tacking they were going to collide for good.
I know this is not what happened in this case, but let's assume that as the sailboat skipper you would have evaluated that by tacking you were going straight into the mobo: what would you have done?

For sure I wouldn't have tacked into a what I judged was a near certain collision. But the only point I was making was that to have tacked, even if the boats collided, would not have breached 17 (a)(i). Illustrating that another way, if I am being overtaken in open water travelling in a straight line and the overtaker drives into my transom, I am absolutely not in breach of 17 (a)(i). I would have the early choice under 17 (a)(ii) to ignore 17 (a)(i) and get out of the way, and I would have the 11th hour obligation under 17(b) to do something to best avoid the crash, but that is different from the 17 (a)(i)/tacking question and I think it is useful not to confuse them. The question of whether tacking in a channel by a stand-on boat breaches 17 (a)(i) is in isolation and interesting conundrum and deserves its own analysis free from other factors or circumstances. IMHO!

Just for the record, it is perhaps worth mentioning two techy points:
First, all three of the overtaker's obligation to "keep out of the way", a mobo's obligation to "keep out of the way of" a sailboat, and a stand-on vessel's 17 (a)(i) obligation to hold course/speed, apply to vessels within sight of each other, not just where risk of collision exists. The 17 (b) obligation on the stand on vessel to do something applies only where collision "cannot be avoided". In the circumstances here, there is no rule that starts to apply specifically because "risk of collision" comes into existence at some point in the proceedings.

Second, there is a mutual rule 9 obligation on both vessels because (<20m) not to impede the other. This trumps 18 (sail/power) but not 13 (overtaking). I think therefore that the overtaking status of the mobo in effect takes away the rule 9 obligations of the sailboat, but even if it didn't I don't think the sailboat tacking in this case breaches that rule. The mobo had loads of room and accordingly any impact on its passage did not have as its proximate cause the tacking by the sailboat. Sure, once the mobo had screwed up and got where it got to, the sailboat's tacking might have impeded the mobo (actually it sped up in this case so wasn't impeded!), but the proximate cause of the impediment to the passage wouldn't have been the tack. So I don't see the sailboat as breaching rule 9 when it tacked, even if rule 9 applied, which it didn't because of the overtaking situation

 

[dom]

T

I agree with you that the Rules don't tell us explicitly what to do in this case, but I do think that what you need to do is pretty clear as a matter of standard interpretation of the Rules -- you must do the least harm, and avoid creating a risk of collision which didn't exist before.

That is because, besides the ordinary Rule 2 reasons for that, the give-way vessel was entitled to rely on your holding course and speed in order to work out his own maneuver. That's a fundamental principle of collision avoidance, in practice first, reflected into the COLREGS out of practice. So as the stand-on vessel, you are obligated to do whatever you can, to allow the give-way vessel's maneuver to succeed. So, luff up. If the give-way vessel is not giving way at all, but just barging along, then that all the more requires you to luff up and stay out of the way -- and that's specifically stated in the Rules (17(b)).


What constitutes a "risk of collision" does require some interpretation, and wise men might disagree on the interpretation of this or that situation, but if vessels must maneuver in order to avoid a collision, I think it is pretty hard to argue, that no risk of collision exists. The Rules talk about being unable to discern a changing bearing (Rule 7(d)(i)), and say that if there is any doubt about whether a risk of collision exists, then there is one (Rule 7(b)), so I think it would be hard to argue that a boat which forces another to maneuver to avoid it, has not created a risk of collision.

One could argue (as I suggested either here on in the other place) that the yachts should have fired up their engines and motored gently head to wind. However, looking at the vid I don't think luffing would have worked, indeed I it might have made the problem worse. For when a sailboat turns head-to-wind it loses all propulsive power and is rapidly slowed by the wind and water resistance acting upon its hull and flapping sails. The yacht would have consequently stopped fairly quickly --possibly just as the mobo was alongside -- at which point the bow would have uncontrollably blown off the wind and hit either the mobo or a moored yacht.

I would therefore suggest that the yachts were within their rights (if ill-mannered) to tack when they did. Moreover I am inclined to share jfm's opening comments on poor drafting of the rules and would go a step further and argue that COLREGS are a about as useful a mindset in a narrow channel packed with recreational boats as a Highway Code Connoisseur would find his finely tuned notions in a Tesco carpark on Christmas Eve. Poss exaggerating a bit, but not much!

 

[bedouin]

2. Bedouin and elecglitch present their own modification to 17(a)(i), in the form of a rule saying the sailboat has the right to tack, but they too don't say what is the legal basis for their modification.

I am told the standard authority is Lord Alberstone in Windsor-Roanoke, 1908

 

[jfm]

Thanks dockhead. sorry to interrupt your sailing! I'm making a few replies below, all in the spirit of friendly debate of course. As said above the tacking question is interesting.

Where I depart is the idea, which I think is implied by your reasoning, that once the sailor cannot hold his course and speed, because he has run out of channel, he is suddenly free to do anything he wants.

No, most definitely not. He is ALWAYS bound by 17ai. My argument is that when he tacks he remains in compliance with 17ai (read with 2b), not doing anything he wants.

I agree with you that the Rules don't tell us explicitly what to do in this case, but I do think that what you need to do is pretty clear as a matter of standard interpretation of the Rules -- you must do the least harm, and avoid creating a risk of collision which didn't exist before.

I very firmly disagree that. There is stuff in the rules telling us what to do when in sight of each other, when risk of collision exists, and when collision is certain unless we do something, but there is absolutely nothing in Colregs saying we must avoid risk of collision or that avoiding a risk of collision is a factor that must be taken into account in deciding what to do. There is 2b telling us to have regard to dangers of collision, but that is not saying we must avoid risk of collision.

That is because, besides the ordinary Rule 2 reasons for that, the give-way vessel was entitled to rely on your holding course and speed in order to work out his own maneuver. That's a fundamental principle of collision avoidance.

Absolutely not. The give-way guy is entitled to rely on you complying with 17ai, which means holding course and speed as modified by 2b. With lots of respect and meant in friendly way, you cannot advance your own answer as an argument in support of the contention that your argument is correct!

So as the stand-on vessel, you are obligated to do whatever you can, to allow the give-way vessel's maneuver to succeed. So, luff up.

That just isn't what the rules say. The obligations on the stand on guy are just 17ai. We are debating what that actually means, and "whatever you can to let him succeed" is one heck of a stretched interpretation imho

If the give-way vessel is not giving way at all, but just barging along, then that all the more requires you to luff up and stay out of the way -- and that's specifically stated in the Rules (17(b)).

The 17b obligation kicks in when collision is certain unless the stand-on guy does something. I don't think that obligation kicked in in this case - I'm commenting on the case where you do not get to 17b, but of course if you do get there then 17b definitely operates. But we should just leave this aspect because the really interesting question before us right now is: "In a non 17b scenario, can the stand on guy tack and still comply with 17ai?"

What constitutes a "risk of collision" does require some interpretation, and wise men might disagree on the interpretation of this or that situation, but if vessels must maneuver in order to avoid a collision, I think it is pretty hard to argue, that no risk of collision exists. The Rules talk about being unable to discern a changing bearing (Rule 7(d)(i)), and say that if there is any doubt about whether a risk of collision exists, then there is one (Rule 7(b)), so I think it would be hard to argue that a boat which forces another to maneuver to avoid it, has not created a risk of collision.

As mentioned in another post above, I don't think there is any obligation not to create a risk of collision - i'll happily be corrected on that but I think that is correct. In any case, I dont think the whole topic of risk of collision is relevant in determining the question of whether a tacking sailboat tacking at the sides of a channel breaches 17ai. The Dashcam guy's obligations to keep out of the way of the sailboat (because he is a mobo and because he is overtaking) exist even if no risk of collision, and the stand-on guy's 17ai obligation also exists even if there is no risk of collision. I'm being slightly trite there, because if there is no risk of collision then no-one need do anything I suppose, but I'm just saying the particular rules we are discussing here are not expressly "risk of collision" items, and I'm saying there is no obligation to refrain from creating a risk of collision. Indeed, all risks of collision are created.

I haven't addressed all of the issues raised in your post, for which I apologize. I'm on my boat 1500 miles from my law library, but I'll try to dig up some applicable cases. .

No need to apologise; just enjoying the debate. There are plenty more other debates you could have in relation to Colregs.

 

[jfm]

I am told the standard authority is Lord Alberstone in Windsor-Roanoke, 1908

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the caselaw but (smugly) it is nice to reach the same answer through your own analysis as a law lord, and not just any law lord but one who became MR and then Lord Chief Justice.

Lord Alverstone's speech settles the answer I think. It is below. Hold course and speed in rule 17(a)(i) means doing what you were doing and what the other guy should expect, including in the case at hand stopping to pick up a pilot. The tacking sailboats in our scenario were tacking predictably and repeatedly, and so tacking at the edge of the channel was fully in compliance with their 17(a)(i) obligations. Luffing up actually wouldn't have been. Case closed?

 

[superheat6k]

So my basic understanding that a motor boat shall keep clear of a sailing boat tacking up a channel, unless the sailing boat is overtaking him, whether said sail boat has an engine available or not, holds true from the defined interpretation of the rules by a Law Lord.

This largely extinguishes much of the argument that the sailboat was somehow at fault here, a premise with which I strongly disagree. He was simply applying his public right to navigate his sailing boat a reasonable course along a channel, which by virtue of the wind meant the only way available to him to follow his course was by a series of heading alterations achieved by tacking.

I know this is to much for the Colregs as set out, but a simple clarification as to just what 'course' means in regard to narrow channels would possibly resolve the situation.

Does anything included in the IRCPS issued long after this judgement, trump it ?

 

[bedouin]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the caselaw but (smugly) it is nice to reach the same answer through your own analysis as a law lord, and not just any law lord but one who became MR and then Lord Chief Justice.

Lord Alverstone's speech settles the answer I think. It is below. Hold course and speed in rule 17(a)(i) means doing what you were doing and what the other guy should expect, including in the case at hand stopping to pick up a pilot. The tacking sailboats in our scenario were tacking predictably and repeatedly, and so tacking at the edge of the channel was fully in compliance with their 17(a)(i) obligations. Luffing up actually wouldn't have been. Case closed?

I thought you might appreciate the quality of the authority His judgement goes well beyond what I would have assumed.

But as you say it is pretty obvious anyway as the contrary position is clearly nonsense and anyone who has had any training in Colregs should know the basics.

 

[jfm]

Does anything included in the IRCPS issued long after this judgement, trump it ?

Nope. Rule 17 was heavily added to in the 1973-ish update, but the rule under discussion here, 17(a)(i), wasn't and has been there since time immemorial
Yep, to the rest of your post.

 

[bedouin]

Does anything included in the IRCPS issued long after this judgement, trump it ?

No - because he has given a ruling on the meaning of the phrase that is still used. It is definitive statement on the legal meaning of the responsibility of the stand on vessel.

Changes to IRPCS may change which vessel is stand on but the responsibility of the stand on vessel hasn't changed.

 

[jfm]

I thought you might appreciate the quality of the authority His judgement goes well beyond what I would have assumed.

But as you say it is pretty obvious anyway as the contrary position is clearly nonsense and anyone who has had any training in Colregs should know the basics.

I agree with you, except that the bit I've marked in bold is a bit of a stretch. Colregs is a terrible document and it is impossible to teach it at RYA-style course level so far as situations like this are concerned. Even with that limitation, in my experience it isn't taught well and really the only thing taught widely is basic rule-of-road stuff like crossing, overtaking, power/sail, and so on. The narrow channels thing (rule 9) has never been taught to me (I've done up to YM practical) and seems not to be taught to plenty of others (I've driven a 24m boat up the Hamble on a few occasions!), yet seems quite an important rule. And so on. Thanks again for the case law - it answered an interesting (in my head anyway...) question.

 

[Dockhead]

I am told the standard authority is Lord Alberstone in Windsor-Roanoke, 1908

Even more than an actual argument, an actual citation! Wonders never cease! Surprised and gratified.


The only problem is that this case establishes (or confirms; I don't think it was controversial even in 1908) only the OBLIGATION of the give-way vessel to anticipate that the stand-on vessel may fail to hold course and speed, due to its ordinary practices, in that case, taking on a pilot. That case is actually a very good citation for the erroneous position of Bedouin, as none other than the great Cockcroft (with whom I have corresponded privately) has written that it means that the Roanoke was justified in deviating from her course and speed to take on the pilot, even though a collision resulted. But other courts have not followed Cockcroft's interpretation, and there is no doctrine in interpretation of the COLREGS, that a stand-on vessel has the right to behave as it likes, deviating from course and speed willy nilly if only that is part of some ordinary maneuver which could be anticipated by the give-way vessel, without first being sure that the give-way vessel has taken account of its intentions. For example, Windsor-Roanoke was offered as precedent in a case where the stand-on vessel was adjusting its compass, and the judge refused to apply it, commenting, in fact, that doing so would be akin to "tearing up the steering and sailing rules". I am not aware of Windsor-Roanoke ever having been applied as precedent in a case where a sailing vessel tacked under the bows of another vessel. If you can provide one, I'll eat my hat. You have a temporary advantage as I am sailing in Finland 1500 miles away from my law library, and with limited internet access.

That the give-way vessel is obligated to anticipate the ordinary course of maneuvers of the stand-on vessel, whether it is taking on a pilot, adjusting a compass, or tacking -- I agree, and I said so specifically above. But in the COLREGS, obligations on one side do not automatically produce privileges on the other side -- that is the peculiar way of the COLREGS. And they do not do so here.

 

[Dockhead]

So my basic understanding that a motor boat shall keep clear of a sailing boat tacking up a channel, unless the sailing boat is overtaking him, whether said sail boat has an engine available or not, holds true from the defined interpretation of the rules by a Law Lord.

This largely extinguishes much of the argument that the sailboat was somehow at fault here, a premise with which I strongly disagree. He was simply applying his public right to navigate his sailing boat a reasonable course along a channel, which by virtue of the wind meant the only way available to him to follow his course was by a series of heading alterations achieved by tacking.

I know this is to much for the Colregs as set out, but a simple clarification as to just what 'course' means in regard to narrow channels would possibly resolve the situation.

Does anything included in the IRCPS issued long after this judgement, trump it ?

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that because the mobo is at fault, that this means that the sailboat had the right to tack willy nilly up the channel, or indeed under the bows of another vessel. The COLREGS don't work that way.

The mobo is clearly at fault -- should have anticipated the tack, and should have given the sailboat room to tack.

That does not however mean that if the mobo failed to give the sailboat room to tack, that he could do so anyway, force the mobo into a crash stop, or cause a collision. The mobo's obligations do not reduce the obligations of the sailor, who must have luffed up or hove-to, had he not been given room to tack as required of the mobo.

This is not only an obligation of the stand-on vessel, but one of the core obligations of Rule 2.

 

[Dockhead]

Thanks dockhead. sorry to interrupt your sailing! I'm making a few replies below, all in the spirit of friendly debate of course. As said above the tacking question is interesting.
No, most definitely not. He is ALWAYS bound by 17ai. My argument is that when he tacks he remains in compliance with 17ai (read with 2b), not doing anything he wants.

I very firmly disagree that. There is stuff in the rules telling us what to do when in sight of each other, when risk of collision exists, and when collision is certain unless we do something, but there is absolutely nothing in Colregs saying we must avoid risk of collision or that avoiding a risk of collision is a factor that must be taken into account in deciding what to do. There is 2b telling us to have regard to dangers of collision, but that is not saying we must avoid risk of collision.

Absolutely not. The give-way guy is entitled to rely on you complying with 17ai, which means holding course and speed as modified by 2b. With lots of respect and meant in friendly way, you cannot advance your own answer as an argument in support of the contention that your argument is correct!

That just isn't what the rules say. The obligations on the stand on guy are just 17ai. We are debating what that actually means, and "whatever you can to let him succeed" is one heck of a stretched interpretation imho

The 17b obligation kicks in when collision is certain unless the stand-on guy does something. I don't think that obligation kicked in in this case - I'm commenting on the case where you do not get to 17b, but of course if you do get there then 17b definitely operates. But we should just leave this aspect because the really interesting question before us right now is: "In a non 17b scenario, can the stand on guy tack and still comply with 17ai?"

As mentioned in another post above, I don't think there is any obligation not to create a risk of collision - i'll happily be corrected on that but I think that is correct. In any case, I dont think the whole topic of risk of collision is relevant in determining the question of whether a tacking sailboat tacking at the sides of a channel breaches 17ai. The Dashcam guy's obligations to keep out of the way of the sailboat (because he is a mobo and because he is overtaking) exist even if no risk of collision, and the stand-on guy's 17ai obligation also exists even if there is no risk of collision. I'm being slightly trite there, because if there is no risk of collision then no-one need do anything I suppose, but I'm just saying the particular rules we are discussing here are not expressly "risk of collision" items, and I'm saying there is no obligation to refrain from creating a risk of collision. Indeed, all risks of collision are created.

No need to apologise; just enjoying the debate. There are plenty more other debates you could have in relation to Colregs.

Strong arguments, well expressed, which challenge to deeper critical thinking on the matter, even if I disagree with them -- that is why these debates can be so useful despite the many idiots who crawl out.

The most interesting thing you say is that there is no obligation to "avoid a risk of collision" -- and you are right on that. It means I've oversimplified that aspect of the question, and will have to dig into that. What I meant is that you must not tack under the bows of another vessel, causing a crash stop, possible damage to stern gear, and unreasonable risk of collision, when you can perfectly well luff up and let him go by without drama. That is required by Rule 2 (I would hope that everyone would agree about that), but it's also part of the required behavior of stand-on vessels, but you force me to express that better and dig for some better arguments on the last part of that.

I don't have my books, but I'll write to Cockcroft and see if maybe he would comment, and I'll look for cases. It may take a few days.

 

[superheat6k]

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that because the mobo is at fault, that this means that the sailboat had the right to tack willy nilly up the channel, or indeed under the bows of another vessel. The COLREGS don't work that way.

The mobo is clearly at fault -- should have anticipated the tack, and should have given the sailboat room to tack.

That does not however mean that if the mobo failed to give the sailboat room to tack, that he could do so anyway, force the mobo into a crash stop, or cause a collision. The mobo's obligations do not reduce the obligations of the sailor, who must have luffed up or hove-to, had he not been given room to tack as required of the mobo.

This is not only an obligation of the stand-on vessel, but one of the core obligations of Rule 2.

I understand that no vessel has a right of way, but one will have an obligation to stand on, with appropriate caution, and may be required to undertake whatever manoeuvre he may deem necessary to avoid an imminent collision when action of the keep clear vessel alone will not suffice to avoid collision.

This in turn may create secondary situations for other vessels in the vicinity, where a manoeuvre to avoid one situation may place you immediately into another, but this would be certain thread drift.

The interpretation given in 1908 simply implies that by tacking the sailing vessel is continuing his standing on obligation, albeit with a perfectly correct manoeuvre.

Thus it is reasonable for the sailing boat to make the assumption the stand clear (motor boat and indeed overtaking) vessel understands his obligations and will act accordingly.

Having found himself close to harms way after the tack he did have available an opportunity to turn away and attempt another tack, or indeed luff, but had that been me I can assure the mobo would have had my ire as I made my plans for an emergency manoeuvre to comply with my obligation not to collide.

(Apologies for not quoting rule numbers here)

 

[bedouin]

Having found himself close to harms way after the tack he did have available an opportunity to turn away and attempt another tack, or indeed luff, but had that been me I can assure the mobo would have had my ire as I made my plans for an emergency manoeuvre to comply with my obligation not to collide.

I don't agree that Luffing was an option there - clearly light winds in a narrow channel - having luffed it would be very difficult to get going again. Anything other than the action he took would have almost inevitably caused him to collide with one of the moored vessels.

 

[Dockhead]

I understand that no vessel has a right of way, but one will have an obligation to stand on, with appropriate caution, and may be required to undertake whatever manoeuvre he may deem necessary to avoid an imminent collision when action of the keep clear vessel alone will not suffice to avoid collision.

This in turn may create secondary situations for other vessels in the vicinity, where a manoeuvre to avoid one situation may place you immediately into another, but this would be certain thread drift.

The interpretation given in 1908 simply implies that by tacking the sailing vessel is continuing his standing on obligation, albeit with a perfectly correct manoeuvre.

Thus it is reasonable for the sailing boat to make the assumption the stand clear (motor boat and indeed overtaking) vessel understands his obligations and will act accordingly.

Having found himself close to harms way after the tack he did have available an opportunity to turn away and attempt another tack, or indeed luff, but had that been me I can assure the mobo would have had my ire as I made my plans for an emergency manoeuvre to comply with my obligation not to collide.

(Apologies for not quoting rule numbers here)

This is generally reasonable, however --

1. The judge's obiter dictum in Windsor-Roanoke about not taking course and speed literally, has NOT been accepted as a general rule, and has not been extended to sailboats tacking up a channel (or to ships' adjusting compasses, or to anything else for that matter), so take it with a grain of salt. As a matter of law, this is anything but "case closed" -- it is one argument you can make, but it's not binding precedent if it's not on point, and has not been generally accepted as a rule with broad application.

2. It is NEVER reasonable, as the stand-on vessel, to assume that the give-way vessel is taking adequate measures to prevent a collision. You are specifically obligated to keep a sharp watch and take action when necessary. The idea that you can tack willy-nilly up a channel without regard to developing collision situations is wrong on several different levels. You must see that you have room to tack, before executing the tack -- you must not just tack and let the mobo worry about it, including breaking his stern gear or whatever. This is a general, and important, principle of collision avoidance, which is often neglected, as it is very different from how it's done in land, in traffic.

 

[Dockhead]

I don't agree that Luffing was an option there - clearly light winds in a narrow channel - having luffed it would be very difficult to get going again. Anything other than the action he took would have almost inevitably caused him to collide with one of the moored vessels.

Luffing up is ALWAYS an option, unless you have no steerage, or you are incapable of handling your boat. If you have no steerage, you need to have the engine on, and if the engine is broken, you need to show NUC. Clearly not the case in the video shown.

If the level of boat handling skill of the sailors is so low, that they are incapable of luffing up accurately, and that only tacking could prevent a collision with the moored boats, then they are making a choice of possibly colliding with the moored boats, or possibly colliding with the mobo, and the mobo may be a better bet, since there is someone at the helm, who may be more skillful than you. If the risk is significant, you will need to give a signal to let traffic know that you are not fully in control of your vessel, and not just blithely ignore the traffic, as the sailors in the video did.

"Difficult to get going again" is not an excuse -- this is an inconvenience you are required to endure, if it is necessary to allow a safe pass, even with a vessel which is violating its own obligations. The COLREGS are not made to preserve your convenience -- they are made to preserve safety. Starting the engine and running it for about 30 seconds would solve that problem in a trice, in any case. And if the wind is so light, that the sailors cannot control their vessel, when negotiating a narrow channel with other traffic, then for Christ's sake they should start their engines in any case.

Leaving aside the obligations of the stand-on vessel issue, what is really poor about the yachts' behavior is the arrogant and unseamanlike attitude towards other traffic, sailing willy-nilly up the channel and to hell with other traffic.

 

[jfm]

The only problem is that this case establishes (or confirms; I don't think it was controversial even in 1908) only the OBLIGATION of the give-way vessel to anticipate that the stand-on vessel may fail to hold course and speed, due to its ordinary practices, in that case, taking on a pilot. That case is actually a very good citation for the erroneous position of Bedouin, as none other than the great Cockcroft (with whom I have corresponded privately) has written that it means that the Roanoke was justified in deviating from her course and speed to take on the pilot, even though a collision resulted. But other courts have not followed Cockcroft's interpretation, and there is no doctrine in interpretation of the COLREGS, that a stand-on vessel has the right to behave as it likes, deviating from course and speed willy nilly if only that is part of some ordinary maneuver which could be anticipated by the give-way vessel, without first being sure that the give-way vessel has taken account of its intentions. For example, Windsor-Roanoke was offered as precedent in a case where the stand-on vessel was adjusting its compass, and the judge refused to apply it, commenting, in fact, that doing so would be akin to "tearing up the steering and sailing rules". I am not aware of Windsor-Roanoke ever having been applied as precedent in a case where a sailing vessel tacked under the bows of another vessel. If you can provide one, I'll eat my hat. You have a temporary advantage as I am sailing in Finland 1500 miles away from my law library, and with limited internet access.

That the give-way vessel is obligated to anticipate the ordinary course of maneuvers of the stand-on vessel, whether it is taking on a pilot, adjusting a compass, or tacking -- I agree, and I said so specifically above. But in the COLREGS, obligations on one side do not automatically produce privileges on the other side -- that is the peculiar way of the COLREGS. And they do not do so here.

Dockhead, I totally get the point that one party's obligation doesn't create a mirror image privilege for the other, and indeed that is why my posts have been laser focussed on the sailboat's obligations under 17(a)(i) and the question of whether tacking at edge of channel is a breach, and I have never got distracted by the multiple failings of the mobo because they are not relevant to that question. But actually this point of yours misses the mark, because the sailboat is required to continue as before, ie tack at the edges of the channel; it isn't a privilege at all

I really struggle to accept your analysis of what Lord Alverstone said. I have searched for the case and can't find it online, so have ordered a paper copy which takes a few days. Meantime, are you absolutely sure that his speech was about the give-way ship's obligation to anticipate, and not about the stand on boat's obligations to hold course and speed? If you're right then of course you are right and I will very happily stand corrected, but it is difficult to believe anything other than that the legal argument in point was whether the stand-on ship was culpable when it stopped for the pilot, which surely must be a rule 17(a)(i) point? Lord Alverstone even uses the exact same words as 17(a)(i), namely "course and speed" - those very words have been in prior incarnations of what is now numbered as 17(a)(i) since the 1860's.

Your "no doctrine in interpretation of the COLREGS, that a stand-on vessel has the right to behave as it likes, deviating from course and speed willy nilly if only that is part of some ordinary maneuver which could be anticipated by the give-way vessel" is pure strawman made up by you, with respect. No-one here is saying that and nor did Lord Alverstone. Furthermore the compass adjustment case supports my position and Bedouin's not yours: the courts distinguished Roanoke precisely because a compass adjustment is not an ordinary or expected manoeuvre and so the other ship wasn't at fault for not expecting it - in complete contrast to Roanoke's stopping to pick up a pilot who was visibly there in his pilot boat, and in complete contrast to the case of yachts tacking up a channel scenario which is entirely ordinary and indeed the Dashcam mobo himself had personally witnessed several tacks before the ones where he almost crashed.

Finally your "I am not aware of Windsor-Roanoke ever having been applied as precedent in a case where a sailing vessel tacked under the bows of another vessel" is neither here nor there: caselaw can answer a question of principle without the exact facts needing to be the same. The Lord Alverstone speech is completely pertinent to this Chichester thread and tacking yachts.

I therefore think you are pretty wide of the mark in your post above, but I'm happy to eat my hat if you're correct when I read the full Roanoke judgement.

(PS, and apropos nothing, I have no idea why Cockcroft misspells in his books the title of the country's most senior judge: there is no "b" in Alverstone. Richard Webster was his real name )