Col Reg's...sorry!

[Joe_Cole]

Col Reg\'s...sorry!

I was under sail last week when another yacht starts overtaking me on my leeward side. When he was on my beam he called across to say that, as he was downwind of me, I should give way. To be honest, I thought it was daft and ignored him; but who was right?

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Oldhand]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

If he was an overtaking vessel on the same tack he had to keep clear and was not in a position to gain rights over you until the overtaking manouvre was fully completed. If he had not been overtaking, as leeward vessel on the same tack he would have had rights over you. At least that is my view of the rules.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[davel]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Agreed

<hr width=100% size=1>Dave L.

 

[NigeCh]

You should have just said ....

"IRPCS: Rule 13 ... Surely you have a copy aboard ???"

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

once he is abeam, he is no longer the overtaking vessel. but why did he want you to give way? had his overtaking manoeuvre put him into danger? there must be some rule to prevent that happening but my irpcs is on the boat.

or was he just being a silly b***er?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[aod]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

My view is that he was the over taking vessel and thus had a duty to keep clear.
(Fact is that once he was in your lea it was obvious that he would lose drive and thus lack the power to complete the overtake).

He cannot then claim rights because he's got himself/herself in a mess indeed as over taking vessel he still has a duty to keep clear until he either completes the over take or bears away in order to complete that manouvre unless of course bearing away would place him/her in danger.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[stephenh]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

" once he is abeam, he is no longer the overtaking vessel"

No.

As Nigel says - IRPCS Rule 13 - para (d) - "keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is past and clear"

"past and clear" - got to be a length surely ???

Stephen

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Thanks folks. That was what I thought.

As well as being a silly b**ger, he was a big b**ger; which I suppose is why he wanted to get passed me.

I had seen him coming and had moved across as much as possible but I didn't fancy bumping the bottom just for his sake. I think he was concerned about his draught and wanted to get into the centre of the channel. Maybe I should have just hogged the fairway and not let him get passed at all.

Regards

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TonyD]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

She is the overtaking vessel until she is " finally past and clear " and has a responsibility to keep clear until then. - Rule 13 (d)

TonyD

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Quite correct - i had forgotten that bit! In fact, it says that "any subsequent alteration of bearing between the 2 vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel" whic would seem to cover your situation exactly - except that a lawyer would point out that rule 15 (the crossing rule) applies to powerdriven vessels. so its "finally past and clear", and you carry on unless rule 17 applies etc etc.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Don't like the term "rights" in respect of Coll Regs IMHO its only use is in racing. I would have politely told the guy that 1) you'd already made room for him 2)He ought to learn some manners and 3) he ought to learn the Coll Regs before taking charge of a boat. I had exactly that situation (harridan) once and it is really annoying partic when the person concerned is absolutely convinced they're in the right. A little knowledge etc... I'm all for a compulsory test of Collregs before someone can take charge of a yacht!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Jimi said ' I'm all for a compulsory test of Collregs before someone can take charge of a yacht! ' <<

hmmmm, I am not a believer in compulsory licensing, but I am sure a compromise could be found here.

What if, the harbour master spot checked people in his launch etc. Asks a few basic but important questions to people on his moorings. Not so much a test, such as if skipper got question wrong or perceived wrong the harbourmaster would then explain it to him/her. If it was deemed that the skipper blatantly had no understanding of the regulations then a 'test' could be imposed. His/her mooring rights could be under question for non compliance.

The test would not have to be difficult, the whole reasoning being that the skipper would have to read and attempt to understand the regulations. For instance this thread was started by someone questioning some actions that happened to them in a channel. This does not qualify for a retest, but would allow said skipper to learn the truth about the situation, the next target for the harbour master being the other boat say?

If the skipper on the other boat blatantly spouted that he believed the faster boat has right of way for instance it would show a lack of understanding and probably that he has never read the col regs even though he probably loves to spout them every time he is near other vessels.

Or would this just be a slippery slope.

Another thing then, when people start a new job the trend now is to sit through a company seminar or H&S / Fire / Electricity at work spiel to inform them of how things are done round here. Maybe this is something that could be picked up by the harbour master, it would only need to be an hour or so per year. Yes this is getting to compulsory, or is it, in an emergency, lets say a massive gas leak is spilling into the harbour, has any one ever seen muster points or the like posted around the HM office.

Just some thoughts, I still do not agree with compulsory licensing though.


<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/Honda_00.html>Honda Formula 4-Stroke racing</A>

 

[Hoaroak]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Yes, its clearly covered by the Colregs, but earlier someone had suggested that at least a boats length would be considered to be 'past and clear'. I would suggest that for small boats-say anything up to 60 feet in length- a quater mile or so would be more realistic, and in some situations even that would not be enough for a new situation to be considered to be arising.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

I really can't see the problem with compulsory licensing, we accept it for car driving and most of the guys shouting the loudest about not needing it are the one's that do'nt need it anyway. I had a work colleague who when his father died inherited some money and decided to buy a yacht ... never having stepped off the shore before. Consequently on his first trip he ran aground on a mud bank at the top of the tide and spent a week marooned before getting off. During the same process he wrecked his engine cos the inlet got plugged with mud., nearly killed his girlfriend when he gybed accidentally, did'nt know about reefing so it was all up until it became all too much ... and collision regs were a closed book. How many more characters like that are around ... and a basic intoductory course would make sailing safer for them and others, a lot more enjoyable and a lot less expensive!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DeeGee]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

It is difficult to pontificate about situations like this from a distance.. but, as pointed out, he stops being an overtaking boat once he passes 135 deg relative heading. As long as he is 'clear' (an undefined term, so make of it what you will), he is now a leeward boat, and the onus is upon you.

Perhaps he felt you were sailing rather shy? He could head up, and wanted to do so, and so called you - to draw attention to his course, rather sharper than yours? Please don't interpret this as some criticism, but all boats sail closer or off thewind differently, and he may have some justification in his call.

>)



<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

With respect, I think that you may be mistaken in your interpretation of the Collision Regulations here. There have been a great many cases involving merchant vessels in this sort of situation and the Courts have always made it clear that a vessel which starts in a position in which, at night, she would see the stern light but not the sidelight, of the other vessel remains an overtaking vessel until she is finally past and clear.

Now, I grant that these are cases involving two power driven vessels, but the Overtaking Rule is a paramount Rule and overrides the windward and leeward Rule, just as it governs the case of a power driven vessel overtaking to starboard and showing her red light.

The leeward boat was not "finally past and clear" when he made his call, because, of course, if he had been he would not have needed to call.

The racing situation is quite different of course. That might perhaps account for the leeward boat's confusion?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

I agree with what the others say about overtaking and being clear. However there may be a fine line when somebody approaches you at a very close angle ie he is sailing closer to the wind and faster than you are in which case he would have the right of way.

For me the best rule is - if not racing - that you do not have rights of way; you can only grant them.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Must admit that I can't quite follow your rationale here, at 136 the guy's got to keep clear then suddenly at 134 he's the stand on vessel ,,, surely not! Think I prefer the collision regs which states that the overtaking boat is the give way vessel until its past and clear! However the stand on vessel is required to maintain course and speed, so the overtaken vessel can't bear away and speed up. If it does I think the overtaking vessel is entitled to shout "maintain course and speed!".
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by jimi on 25/07/2003 17:49 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[chriscallender]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Well I'm no expert but when I did the Coastal Skipper / Yachtmaster theory course over the winter the instructor who was an expert specifically told us the purpose of the "until clear" clause is so that you can't cut in quickly across someone, claiming that the are now the give way vessel for whatever reason.

I'm pretty sure that no court would ever rule that abeam position counted as being clear. The term is undefined because "clear" for a container ship overtaking me would hopefully be a bit further than "clear" for smaller and more manoeverable vessel. If I was overtaking another small boat then I'd not consider myself to be clear until I was a boatlength or two ahead at least...

If his boat was pointing so much better to windward than the boat he was overtaking, then why did he choose to overtake on the leeward side, when he could just have hardened up and overtaken on the windward side?

I agree that we can't really pontificate about this from a distance but my feeling based on the (one sided) facts that I have heard so far is that this guy was a bit of a bully who wanted to get passed ASAP and doesn't understand the overtaking rule fully. Of course there might be a bit more to it, personally I've been in situations where when it gets really busy of being both a stand on and a give way vessel simultaneously, and then everyone needs to be a bit more flexible than the simple 2 boat situations that you get asked about in Yachtmaster Theory.

Chris

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jhr]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

I always get faintly bemused by discussions of this sort, because surely the Col Regs represent guidance about what to do. If you disregard them and cause an accident, you will be held accountable but, similarly, if you pig headedly insist on following them (or your imagined interpretation of them) and cause an accident because of your pig headedness, you will also be to blame because you did not have the wit to take appropriate action even if it contravened the letter of the regs. In this particular case, it seems to me that what matters is, as others have said, that the overtaking vessel must be clear of the vessel in front before attaining a right of way; that doesn't mean a particular bearing or distance ahead, merely that the skipper must satisfy him/herself that s/he is safely ahead and is not going to create a hazard by moving over. What constitutes a safe distance will depend on the circumstances and a number of variable factors such as relative speeds, manoeuvrability and so forth. Similarly, the vessel being overtaken mustn't act stupidly (vide Jimi's point above)

In circumstances such as this, my No 1 rule is the well worn cliche that "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the observance of idiots"

Where's my tin helmet?

<hr width=100% size=1>