Col Regs Questions

[chrisc]

Interestingly ,or perphaps not, I did come across a suituation where this was pertinent.While doing my little cruise in 2002 from baltic to med ,i met a guy who was busily repairing the front of his wooden 35 boat ,must be designated as A MOTOR BOAT because he was going down ,the canals,with his mast down .He had done considerable damage to his boat by driving his boat into the side of the canal at 5Knots in an attempt to avoid a rowing 8 coming down the middle at 10 ?knots.
What was his legal position ?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

he should have been in a postion to stop and possibly move to one side of the navigable channel allowing the 8 to glide past.
if they altered course to hit him hull to hull, or 'attacked him with their oars' then I would have though he would have the right to recompense (although in practice I would simply pass the whole thing to my insurers). Driving into the bank to avoid a collision smacks of being in the wrong per se, although if this was more of a moving over and grounding on an unforseen hazard then these things happen.
This thread seems to be suggesting a differentiation between the treatment of rowing craft by sail or powered craft that others have not concluded - and I like think that the regulation quoted earlier is the guiding principle, and bedoin's example a good one. Equally an 8 should only ever be proceeding at a pace that they can stop from should a hazard of any nature appear...............!

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[ex-Gladys]

As an ex rower, I can guarantee that an eight is MUCH less manouverable than anything else....

<hr width=100% size=1>Larry Botheras

Anderson 26 "Amber"

 

[StugeronSteve]

Well maybe they should proceed at an appropriate speed then. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Think I'll draw some little rabbits on my head, from a distance they might be mistaken for hairs.

 

[peterb]

As another ex-oarsman (and ex-cox) I have to agree about the manoeuvrability of an eight. However, it can stop quite quickly, even from racing speed. If anyone in the crew catches a crab, it's unlikely that he will be able to recover while the boat is still moving; the normal procedure is for the cox to call for the boat to be held, the blades go into the water to stop the boat, the man recovers and there then has another racing start. This might result in the loss of a length (say four seconds).

On the question of vessels under oars in colregs, as bedouin says they are not specifically mentioned. Almost certainly, though, the question has been previously raised and settled in court. The only place I know where such decisions might be found is in a book called (from memory) "Marsden on Collision Regulations". Marsden was a marine lawyer in the late 19th century, who wrote a book on colregs and the resulting court decisions. Although he's obviously now long departed, the book remains and is periodically updated. The only problem is that it costs about £330. My local library seems very reluctant to get a copy! Maybe we should persuade IPC (Kim?) to invest in a copy; should sort out some of the long colregs threads.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[janie]

In practice, the odd gig out practicing can usually be manipulated around, but woe betide anyone who gets in the way of the gigs racing in the Isles of Scilly! I only saw one out in Fowey, so not sure whether there's any racing.

On our river, the sculls, fours and eights tend to get out of the way if they're practicing (and we're racing), but they always let us know about their two races of the year, so we can get out of their way (we always seem to be racing in the same bits of water at the same time!)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DanTribe]

Mr Haddock\'s Misleading Cases

Many years ago there was a TV series based on A P Herbert's book about unusual court cases, with Alistair Simms as the judge.
One case concerned a collision between a rowing dinghy and a car on a flooded road, the plaintiff claiming that the car was a power driven vessel and didn't make appropriate signals. Who has right of way in that instance?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Brian_B]

All

Thanks for all your thoughts on the subject. As we are no closer to resolving this I guess I'll have to get Marsden's book for £330 to kill off my curiosity.
Now I wonder what Amazon's returns policy is?

BB

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[richardandtracy]

Under the 'Safety of Machinery' Directive, 98/37/EC:-
Unless the purpose of a piece of equipment is to alter the CG height (eg hoists), equipment where the prime source of power is manually applied effort is not classified as a machine.
I got caught out by this one as I had a manually operated container that did all sorts of fancy operations, one of which was to slightly lift a heavy component - so had to approve it under the directive (at a cost of 50 hours reading the regs & 3 hours compliance actions).

Anyway, in legally binding terms, oars are not machines.

Regards

Richard.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MedMan]

To be pedantic - an oar in a rowlock is a machine (ask an engineer). So in accurate english a vessel being rowed is being propelled by machinery.

Mmmmmm! Pedantic doen't really come close does it?!!

Anyway - we all know about Engineers:

An Optimist says 'The glass is half full ....'

A Pessimist says 'The glass is half empty ....

An Engineer says 'The vessel is over-specified with a consequent waste of material ...'




<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.yachtretreat.com>http://www.yachtretreat.com</A>