Collision Regs Question

Bowlerhat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wonder why the authors chose the "Not withstanding" wording then - its legal meaning is quite clear and it is not modified by Rule 3. I can't see how you can jump to the idea of "my logic" - all I am trying to highlight is that the IRPCS wording puts all the onus on the overtaking vessel to "keep out the way" of the vessel being overtaken without the provisos of maintaining speed and course. The wording of para (d) precluding the siituation changing to "crossing" implies course changes may, indeed, be made.
I'm not arguing that it is unreasonable to expect course and speed to be maintained, just trying to point out that the pedantic reading of the rules does not put that onus on the vessel being overtaken. I certainly did NOT write the rules.
 
awol said:
I wonder why the authors chose the "Not withstanding" wording then - its legal meaning is quite clear and it is not modified by Rule 3. I can't see how you can jump to the idea of "my logic" - all I am trying to highlight is that the IRPCS wording puts all the onus on the overtaking vessel to "keep out the way" of the vessel being overtaken without the provisos of maintaining speed and course. The wording of para (d) precluding the siituation changing to "crossing" implies course changes may, indeed, be made.
I'm not arguing that it is unreasonable to expect course and speed to be maintained, just trying to point out that the pedantic reading of the rules does not put that onus on the vessel being overtaken. I certainly did NOT write the rules.
Click to expand...
It is not necessarily by accident that the rules can be confusing! However, there are clues in the wording. For example, Rule 13 states that the overtaking vessel shall “keep out of the way”. This term appears regularly in the rules and relates directly to rule 16 which repeats (“every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, as far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear”). Similarly, Rule 17 states that ”where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.”
 
Bowlerhat said:
It is not necessarily by accident that the rules can be confusing! However, there are clues in the wording. For example, Rule 13 states that the overtaking vessel shall “keep out of the way”. This term appears regularly in the rules and relates directly to rule 16 which repeats (“every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, as far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear”). Similarly, Rule 17 states that ”where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.”
Click to expand...
You still don't get it, do you? Rule 17 is negated by "Notwithstanding". I can imagine a circumstance where a vessel is planning a course change for normal passage making reasons - to be prevented from doing so by another vessel overtaking at half a knot speed differential could cause problems. A sound sigmal to indicate intention should put the onus on the overtaker to get out the way.
 
Bowlerhat said:
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.
Click to expand...

...because there are no "give way" and "stand on" vessels in conditions of restricted visibility. Rule 11 is clear that the rules in Part II only apply to "vessels in sight of one another"; Part III concerns "conduct of vessels in conditions of restricted visibility", and contains only Rule 19 mentioned above, which makes no mention of stand on or give way vessels.
 
images.jpg
Hmm, I wonder why we put BIG signs up either end of the Regatta course KEEP to the RIGHT HAND BANK,
I also post on the Broads forums and Facebook that For the Regatta, words to the effect Motorboats keep right and let us do the manouvering..
Note that's just the Yare and Bure White boat fleet, we can have another 8 fleets out in a fortnights time..
For our regatta , 100 sailing boats in 1.5 miles of river

In our case overtaking a motorboat is very common, the overtaking sailing boat has to keep clear because,
A, many motorboats are forward control and Can't see what's behind,
B, many hirers do Not have the faintest Idea of keeping a good lookout. We saw one yesterday ram the bank where it jutted out a bit.
C, most hirers have had if they're lucky 15minutes instruction on a 40ft motor boat.

PS, IRPCS doesn't apply on the Norfolk Broads, but Broads regulations do, similar but not quite the same..
 
Last edited:
Of all the rules, rules 13 is the one that I have most often seen disregarded, and in every case by a Dutchman. Why this generally civilised and charming nation should be unable to understand this rule is beyond me, but their yachtsmen perhaps are proceeding on the basis of the boat with the fewer stripes on its flags should have priority. I have had to evade collision on at least four occasions when a faster yachting motoring in open water has attempted to plough through me, and each time been berated for, presumably, being in their way.
 
Yesterday, ~1500hrs, approximately here, ~2kts on close port reach, full main and genoa, heading ~335. Motor vessel on approximate reciprocal at perhaps 6-8kts bearing 340, so not quite steady relative bearing but close enough to make me pay closer attention. Vessels similar in size, motor vessel slightly larger. What happens next?
 
superheat6k said:
Quite correct - this reply could not be any clearer, but IRCPS threads always stretch to several pages as folks try to offer their own interpretations.
Click to expand...

But I'm all for it. It must lead, overall, to a better appreciation of the ColRegs - informing, clarifying, correcting and refreshing our understanding of them - which can only be a good thing.

Some of us will probably retain some of our misconceptions and 'blind spots', and there are those whose ignorance or prejudices will never be shaken, but overall there must be a net gain.
 
penfold said:
Yesterday, ~1500hrs, approximately here, ~2kts on close port reach, full main and genoa, heading ~335. Motor vessel on approximate reciprocal at perhaps 6-8kts bearing 340, so not quite steady relative bearing but close enough to make me pay closer attention. Vessels similar in size, motor vessel slightly larger. What happens next?
Click to expand...
You are under sail and not overtaking, he is a power driven vessel so you are stand on vessel. You should not have to alter, but if you do bearing away to stbd will also comply with what the idiot on the Mobo will or at least should already have done - make your (in this case his) intentions clear which means make the avoiding manoeuvre early and in good time and in such a manner the stand on vessel can see you have adjusted your course to avoid him.
 
superheat6k said:
You are under sail and not overtaking, he is a power driven vessel so you are stand on vessel. You should not have to alter, but if you do bearing away to stbd will also comply with what the idiot on the Mobo will or at least should already have done - make your (in this case his) intentions clear which means make the avoiding manoeuvre early and in good time and in such a manner the stand on vessel can see you have adjusted your course to avoid him.
Click to expand...
Except the mobo may risk grounding if he bears to starboard sufficiently to drive around the yacht.
The mobo might be better slowing down or stop until the yacht turns.
Or the mobo could turn away to his port and speed up a bit if that's where there is deeper water.
 
Or the mobo could do a complete u turn / go around in a circle . Until a safer means of passing becomes clear.
 
MartynG said:
Except the mobo may risk grounding if he bears to starboard sufficiently to drive around the yacht.
The mobo might be better slowing down or stop until the yacht turns.
Or the mobo could turn away to his port and speed up a bit if that's where there is deeper water.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but taking the available avoiding action remains the obligation upon the Moto in the situation as described (noting prevailing conditions and surrounding situation was not elaborated upon), but still the OP was stand on (with caution) vessel. That means the yacht should not be expected to turn - the rules require him to maintain his course and speed, and only manoeuvre if this is the only way to avoid a collision.
 
penfold said:
Yesterday, ~1500hrs, approximately here, ~2kts on close port reach, full main and genoa, heading ~335. Motor vessel on approximate reciprocal at perhaps 6-8kts bearing 340, so not quite steady relative bearing but close enough to make me pay closer attention. Vessels similar in size, motor vessel slightly larger. What happens next?
Click to expand...
MOD plod told you to get out the way of the submarine coming up behind you
 
The mobo does not need to alter to starboard (necessarily) as this is not a head on situation in accordance with Rule 14 (which only applies between two power driven vessels). However, the burden of responsibility is for the mobo is to keep out of the way (Rule 18), although - as always - there are ‘get outs’. As others have said, Rule 2 could be offered as a defence if the mobo had limited sea room, for example.
 
penfold said:
Yesterday, ~1500hrs, approximately here, ~2kts on close port reach, full main and genoa, heading ~335. Motor vessel on approximate reciprocal at perhaps 6-8kts bearing 340, so not quite steady relative bearing but close enough to make me pay closer attention. Vessels similar in size, motor
vessel slightly larger. What happens next?
Click to expand...
I've never sailed on the Clyde, but from the map provided, this does not look like a narrow channel, so Rule 9 would not apply. You are not overtaking, so Rule 13 does not apply. You are under sail; he is under power, so you are the stand-on vessel. As others have said, you hold your course and speed. If it appears that he is not giving way in time to avoid a close quarters situation, you are to alter course substantially to avoid collision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 52
Replies
0
Views
728
tillergirl
T
B
Halberg Rassey 31
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
ashtead
ashtead

Share this page

Top