Collision Regs Question

[RichardTaylor]

Question is who is the stand on vessel in the following scenario?

Vessel A is a motor vessel cruising at 5kts on a course of 100.

Vessel B is a sailing vessel under sail doing 5.5kts on a course of 97.

Vessel B is closing in on vessel A and will collide with the stern of Vessel A.

Both are pleasure vessels and there is plenty of water to manoeuvre.

Who is the stand on vessel. Motor gives way Sail, but also maybe Overtaking vessel should give way?

(Of course both vessels have to avoid a collision)

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Motor stands on. Overtaking vessel keeps clear regardless of propulsion.

 

[DFL1010]

This might be useful to have on the phone/tablet/laptop/printed out.

 

[awol]

Depends on relative size - Sailing Yacht A (if it was allowed out!) vs a wee rubber dinghy with a 2hp outboard ?
Or if you prefer - read the IRPCS - they are quite clear

 

[RichardTaylor]

Depends on relative size - Sailing Yacht A (if it was allowed out!) vs a wee rubber dinghy with a 2hp outboard ?
Or if you prefer - read the IRPCS - they are quite clear

Similar sized vessels. I believed overtaking vessel keeps clear, the yacht (cruising not racing) believed sail over motor. As I started to doubt myself I took the necessary action to avoid a collision.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Racing, propulsion, size, speed ... in this scenario are irrelevant. IRPCS states this in Rule 13

 

[earlybird]

And "overtaking" means anywhere within the angle of the stern light, ie the135 deg. arc.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

?? I left out the specifics.

 

[DFL1010]

If only someone had linked to the whole colregs doc eh?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

That’s exactly why I didn’t paste the whole lot! ?

 

[awol]

Racing, propulsion, size, speed ... in this scenario are irrelevant. IRPCS states this in Rule 13

A couple of years ago a displacement mobo chugged innocently from behind into a fleet race beating up the Sound of Mull. He got into the impossible position of simultaneously being stand-on and give-way to a wheen of vessels whose interest was focused elsewhere. Some racers who believed they were, and may actually have been, stand-on were less than sympathetic to his situation and those who were now overtaking the obviously confused moboist were encouraging him to hold his course and speed. Reminded me of a motorist who started to overtake the Edinburgh/St Andrews cycle ride with the intention of shortly turning left without realising the peloton was about half a mile long.

 

[LittleSister]

Who is the stand on vessel. Motor gives way Sail, but also maybe Overtaking vessel should give way?

(Of course both vessels have to avoid a collision)

You have overlooked that there is a hierarchy of rules, which tells you which is the relevant one.

Scala's post #5 makes it clear that the means of propulsion is irrelevant in this case

 

[Bowlerhat]

Rule 13 is the most ‘powerful’ of the rules in Part B, sections I and II. Even in a narrow channel (Rule 9) , Rule 13 is reinforced to remind the overtaking vessel of her obligation. People can lose marks in IRPCS exams when a scenario such as the one the OP describes is situated in restricted visibility and the vessels are not in sight. In such circumstances, Rule 19 and not Rule 13 would apply, even if the direction of approach was within the overtaking definition (“when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam”). Rule 19 doesn’t place specific burden of responsibility on an overtaking vessel in the way Rule 13 does.

 

[Supertramp]

The important thing is to understand the rules and if you are the stand on vessel carry on. Changing speed or course if not expected will confuse. The problem comes when the rules are not immediately apparent and you don't want to start reading a book while a situation unfolds. I had this entertaining episode off Holyhead recently while crabbing sideways at 4knts in 3 knts of tide. I was outside the traffic separation zone, trying to cross the ferry route at right angles and under sail so I stood on. All went OK as the ferries took avoiding action (I think...). When the other boats are doing 30knts and 20knts respectively they and you really don't have long to make decision.

 

[awol]

Of course, there is no obligation on the vessel being overtaken to hold its course and speed ............... or is there?

 

[Bowlerhat]

Of course, there is no obligation on the vessel being overtaken to hold its course and speed ............... or is there?

Rule 17 directs that the stand on vessel shall keep her course and speed. She may take action when she recognises that the overtaking vessel isn’t acting appropriately. Verbatim:

(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

Rule 17 goes on to say that “When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.”

The difference between the shall and may are important distinctions in a court.

 

[DFL1010]

Rule 17 directs that the stand on vessel shall keep her course and speed. She may take action when she recognises that the overtaking vessel isn’t acting appropriately. Verbatim:


Rule 17 goes on to say that “When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.”

The difference between the shall and may are important distinctions in a court.

True, but there's also R2(b), the ultimate fallback position:

In construing 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

 

[awol]

Rule 17 directs that the stand on vessel shall keep her course and speed. She may take action when she recognises that the overtaking vessel isn’t acting appropriately. Verbatim:


Rule 17 goes on to say that “When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.”

The difference between the shall and may are important distinctions in a court.

But Rule 13 has "Not withstanding .... etc." which trumps 17 and puts all the onus on the overtaking vessel, doesn't it?

 

[Bowlerhat]

The Rules are written to serve a number of purposes. Firstly, they provide a code of conduct and most of the ‘big’ rules (head on, crossing, overtaking etc), with a good helping of common sense will keep us safe. However, they are also written to provide a solid prosecution and defence in court.

Rule 13 is the dominant Rule, but like many rules, it describes a relationship between a stand on and give way vessel (Rules 17 and 16 respectively). In the scenario described by the OP, the motor vessel should keep her course and speed and expect the sailing vessel to overhaul her. Under Rule 16, the sailing vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear. If the motor vessel doesn’t think she is doing this, she may take her own action. If it looks as though the sailing vessel will collide she becomes obligated to take action. The common sense here is that I doubt any of us would be reaching for the IRPCS if we thought were going to collide. ‘taking such action as will best aid’ would come relatively naturally.

If a collision did occur and it went to court, a lawyer would expand his case beyond Rule 13. Rule 2 could apply, Rules 5 and 6 certainly (lookout and safe speed) and he/she would have an absolute field day with Rule 8 (action to avoid collision). Rules 16 and 17 would also feature. In almost every circumstance, regardless of who looks to be the nailed on villain, blame will in some way be apportioned, because everyone has an obligation to avoid collision.

 

[awol]

The Rules are written to serve a number of purposes. Firstly, they provide a code of conduct and most of the ‘big’ rules (head on, crossing, overtaking etc), with a good helping of common sense will keep us safe. However, they are also written to provide a solid prosecution and defence in court.

Rule 13 is the dominant Rule, but like many rules, it describes a relationship between a stand on and give way vessel (Rules 17 and 16 respectively). In the scenario described by the OP, the motor vessel should keep her course and speed and expect the sailing vessel to overhaul her. Under Rule 16, the sailing vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear. If the motor vessel doesn’t think she is doing this, she may take her own action. If it looks as though the sailing vessel will collide she becomes obligated to take action. The common sense here is that I doubt any of us would be reaching for the IRPCS if we thought were going to collide. ‘taking such action as will best aid’ would come relatively naturally.

If a collision did occur and it went to court, a lawyer would expand his case beyond Rule 13. Rule 2 could apply, Rules 5 and 6 certainly (lookout and safe speed) and he/she would have an absolute field day with Rule 8 (action to avoid collision). Rules 16 and 17 would also feature. In almost every circumstance, regardless of who looks to be the nailed on villain, blame will in some way be apportioned, because everyone has an obligation to avoid collision.

As I read them the Rule 13 "Notwithstanding" overules the other rules of Section I and II and so overules the Give-way and Stand-on rules. Continuing to play with 16 &17 is pointless - they don't apply.

 

[Bowlerhat]

As I read them the Rule 13 "Notwithstanding" overules the other rules of Section I and II and so overules the Give-way and Stand-on rules. Continuing to play with 16 &17 is pointless - they don't apply.

Rule 16 and 17 always apply when one vessel is required to keep out of the way of another. If Rule 17 didn’t apply, it would suggest the vessel being overtaken could alter course as she was being overhauled. Your logic (as I interpret it) would suggest the keeping of a good lookout equally doesn’t apply (it is a Section I rule). Rule 13 is taught as the strongest rule, but it doesn’t mean that every other rule in Sections I and II become irrelevant.