Colregs, big mobo/small sailboat, on Hamble and similar

[jfm]

Many thanks for all the replies.

BTW, this is not a CBD situation, as explained correctly in #10 and #15.

In replying I'm debating whether to reply softly softly and leave it at that, or push back against a few trite replies that make a little speech while ignoring the actual question, or make something up (eg that I need to resort to the internet), or suggest the Hamble isn't a narrow channel, or show a shocking mis-reading/mis-understanding of Colregs (not everyone of course, but plenty). I'll go with the former, so many thanks for the replies!

Fascinating to see so much confirmation bias in many replies - people want somehow to say the mobo needs to give way, so they scour the rules for that answer. Post 33 creatively says the Mobo is never RAM, and that the sailing dinghy might too need to be in the channel, both of which are 100% true but utterly irrelevant to the question asked or to the Colregs under consideration here, but serve the confirmation bias well. Post #37 inexplicably just decides Rule 9 isn't relevant here (it favours the mobo, but if it favoured the sailing boat I'm sure it would be re-instated!) Others cite good ole Rule 2 as a last resort to make the mobo the give way guy. Very very interesting reading!

I expect to get flamed Just saying it as I see it

 

[DreadShips]

Rule 2 is the COLREGs having a good old sigh and saying they don't care who started it. What's the problem?

 

[obmij]

No flaming required. It's an interesting question.

As far as I'm aware there is no definition of what constitutes a narrow channel as it depends on the vessel in question. Parts of the English Channel can be considered narrow for vessels of very deep draught but for most of us it's just a massive expanse of water. There is no size of vessel at which any particular stretch of water automatically becomes a 'narrow channel'

Is the Hamble a narrow channel? As I said, it depends on what you're driving. Perhaps it is for you at 30m?Ultimately no-one is going to decide that for you and you will only have to justify your decision if something goes wrong.

I don't really know much about the Hamble but you mentioned 'similar' in your title. Is the Medina similar? I've taken roughly the same size boats in and out of there many a time and the thought of invoking rule 9 has never crossed my mind. It's not a huge area but I've always had space to manoeuvre when necessary.

Personally I would be very wary of relying on this rule in a highly manoeuvrable vessel (irrespective of size) unless you really are having trouble (and I cannot see why this would occur if you are travelling at a safe speed)

If I've misinterpreted the rules I'm happy to have it pointed out by anyone. Every day is a schoolday

 

[jfm]

Thanks. I must say that I can't believe it is correct to say that the Hamble isn't a narrow channel and I doubt any court would decide otherwise.

There is no definition of "narrow" so it takes its ordinary English meaning. I'd think on balance that "narrow" is an absolute description rather than dependant on the boat, but I see the contrary argument. However, even if "narrow" is a relative concept I still think the Hamble is very clearly "narrow" for a 30m boat. Also I cannot see that the English channel is narrow for any ship on the planet, but for deep draft vessels the quite separate CBD rules (which have nothing to do with channel narrowness, and everything to do with channel depth) might come into play (and of course TSS rules are in play itoo).

Now treating "narrow" as a relative concept raises the question of whether a small dinghy is required to submit to the narrow channel rule when the channel isn't narrow relative to the dinghy but is relative to the larger vessel. Another area where Colregs drafting is poor. I think a court would decide that the draftsman's intention was that narrow be looked at through the eyes of the larger vessel, if narrow is even a relative term to begin with.

Medina gets similar to Hamble once you're 1/3rd of the way in from Cowes, I think from distant memory.

I'm not planning to "rely" on this rule 9 - the main thing for all of us is to avoid collision/danger and of course Rules 2, 6, 17b etc apply. But we all know that and it wasn't the question. The questions were whether the sailing boat is give way, and how widely is Rule 9's trumping of Rule 18 known ? The answers seem to be "Yes" and "Not very much".

I'll still proceed with caution, even more so after reading replies on here (and I have spent thousands of hours in sailing dinghies and on larger sailing vessels so can see that POV )

Thanks again for the thoughts.

 

[jfm]

Rule 2 is the COLREGs having a good old sigh and saying they don't care who started it. What's the problem?

There's no problem. Just a question

 

[Mark-1]

There is no definition of "narrow" so it takes its ordinary English meaning. I'd think on balance that "narrow" is an absolute description rather than dependant on the boat, but I see the contrary argument.

Now treating "narrow" as a relative concept raises the question of whether a small dinghy is required to submit to the narrow channel rule when the channel isn't narrow relative to the dinghy but is relative to the larger vessel.

Well that's just blown my mind, thanks for the new perspective.

I've always assumed that Narrow channel meant Narrow relative to the larger of the two vessels involved in the situation, but now you mention it, the rules emphatically don't say that, and it's confusing if it is. (There are channels where there is no universal agreement if they are narrow or not. I've had a dinghy shout at me when I was making my way from a red to a green channel marker on a dog leg. I didn't have the chart to hand and thought it was safer to stay exactly in the channel, but at the time I wasn't *sure* I was in a narrow channel *for me* and clearly the dinghy didn't think I was. I now know the area well and the channel is irrelevant to 99% of users at most states of the tide, yet about 50% of boats stay within it. )

So it would make sense if 'narrow' was an absolute. It would make even more sense if the local authority stated it. "Our river is a narrow channel for rule 9 purposes.".

Despite that, my vote is still for 'relative'. I wonder what Cockcroft has to say about it.

 

[finestgreen]

I don't really know much about the Hamble but you mentioned 'similar' in your title. Is the Medina similar? I've taken roughly the same size boats in and out of there many a time and the thought of invoking rule 9 has never crossed my mind. It's not a huge area but I've always had space to manoeuvre when necessary.

Do you (where practical) navigate on the starboard side of the river? That's an obligation only for water where rule 9 applies

 

[finestgreen]

Rule 2 is the COLREGs having a good old sigh and saying they don't care who started it. What's the problem?

They absolutely care who started it, rule 2 says they also care who finishes it

I think the whole thing is a lot more simple than the number of comments suggests:

Both vessels should maintain a safe speed and good lookout at all times.

The sailing boat is obligated throughout to keep out of the way of the power vessel as far as practical.

The power vessel should stand on (maintain a predictable course and speed).

At the point they doubt whether the sailing boat is taking enough action to avoid a collision, they should make the relevant sound signal.

At the point it becomes clear to them that only their action can avoid collision, they should do so.

If the power vessel takes reasonable action at each of those stages and a collision (or grounding etc) occurs, I'd expect a court to assign a majority of the blame to the sail boat. (I hope they have good insurance)

 

[SaltyC]

Please excuse my ignorance of the Hamble of today. I sailed out of Swanwick in the 70s but recently have only ventured as far as the Harbour masters pontoon.
If I, in an 11m yacht, met a 30m MOBO coming the other way, I would keep closely to my side of the channel with pile moorings in places and narrow channels with shingle banks I may not have a choice, surely it is common sense and follows the rules.
How many 30m MOBO's use the Hamble? I would imagine any that do have professional skippers and as such, realising the nature of the Hamble, would common sense tell them to avoid the busiest times when everyone is entering / leaving and dinghies racing?
You wouldn't expect to meet a super tanker or container vessel in Southampton water at LW.
I appreciate, with many waterborne craft of all varieties, common sense is in short supply, the rules are there to be followed. However from recent experience the morning rush out of Hamble is like joining Lemmings heading for a cliff where many appear (not all) to disregard all rules and proceed as if the only vessel in the river, WAFI & MOBO alike. For me, used to quiet back waters, it is beware of all.

 

[obmij]

Do you (where practical) navigate on the starboard side of the river? That's an obligation only for water where rule 9 applies

Of course. Entering or leaving port contrary to the direction of buoyage would cause all kinds of mayhem. Rule 9 simply states that in a narrow channel you must keep as far to the stbd side as possible. It does not mean that anything goes when the channel is not considered narrow.

I also question your interpretation of the rule in your following post. Rule 9 is not simply about sail giving way to power. Firstly, it only applies when the channel is narrow relative to the vessel in question and secondly, it also applies to power driven vessels albeit those under 20m.

 

[obmij]

Thanks. I must say that I can't believe it is correct to say that the Hamble isn't a narrow channel and I doubt any court would decide otherwise.

There is no definition of "narrow" so it takes its ordinary English meaning. I'd think on balance that "narrow" is an absolute description rather than dependant on the boat, but I see the contrary argument. However, even if "narrow" is a relative concept I still think the Hamble is very clearly "narrow" for a 30m boat. Also I cannot see that the English channel is narrow for any ship on the planet, but for deep draft vessels the quite separate CBD rules (which have nothing to do with channel narrowness, and everything to do with channel depth) might come into play (and of course TSS rules are in play itoo).

Now treating "narrow" as a relative concept raises the question of whether a small dinghy is required to submit to the narrow channel rule when the channel isn't narrow relative to the dinghy but is relative to the larger vessel. Another area where Colregs drafting is poor. I think a court would decide that the draftsman's intention was that narrow be looked at through the eyes of the larger vessel, if narrow is even a relative term to begin with.

Medina gets similar to Hamble once you're 1/3rd of the way in from Cowes, I think from distant memory.

I'm not planning to "rely" on this rule 9 - the main thing for all of us is to avoid collision/danger and of course Rules 2, 6, 17b etc apply. But we all know that and it wasn't the question. The questions were whether the sailing boat is give way, and how widely is Rule 9's trumping of Rule 18 known ? The answers seem to be "Yes" and "Not very much".

I'll still proceed with caution, even more so after reading replies on here (and I have spent thousands of hours in sailing dinghies and on larger sailing vessels so can see that POV )

Thanks again for the thoughts.

I agree with a lot of what you say & I suspect that if presented with the same situation our approach would not be dissimilar. We would both proceed with caution, at a safe speed and without any expectation we would be considered stand on by the majority of other water users.

I also agree that the rules were drafted with the intent that 'narrow' is seen through the eyes of the larger vessel, so if the Hamble is narrow in your eyes then that is what it is.

What I find interesting with your question is that we are able to discuss it at all. The colregs are very precise when they want to be. There is no ambiguity in Rule 19 or Rule 13 and therefore there would be no discussion. Rules 6 & 9 though seem to have been deliberately left open to interpretation and in my opinion this is the correct approach.

My own view is that Rule 9 was drafted with the intention of preventing collision when a vessel cannot safely manoeuvre to avoid it - so if when proceeding at a safe speed I can control my vessel and avoid collision irrespective of who is stand on then I would not consider myself to be in a narrow channel.

Interaction with CBD - I think the two go hand in hand for the most part. My understanding is that the Dover Straights can be considered a narrow channel for some vessels and the reason for this is that they are constrained by their draught. I think this may also be the reason there are no discrete shapes or lights for 'I'm in a narrow channel, watch out'. The rules are not shy of prescribing shapes & lights (3 individual for fishing for example) so it would be surprising if there was no way of indicating you are affected by R9.

 

[Mark-1]

it only applies when the channel is narrow relative to the vessel in question

It doesn't say that. Almost everyone interprets it that way, but that's not what the rule says.

 

[finestgreen]

Of course. Entering or leaving port contrary to the direction of buoyage would cause all kinds of mayhem. Rule 9 simply states that in a narrow channel you must keep as far to the stbd side as possible. It does not mean that anything goes when the channel is not considered narrow.

I'm just saying it's a clue - the strength of your conviction that you should stay starboard and consternation if someone was on the "wrong" side is an indication of how strongly you believe something is a channel per rule 9.

I also question your interpretation of the rule in your following post. Rule 9 is not simply about sail giving way to power. Firstly, it only applies when the channel is narrow relative to the vessel in question and secondly, it also applies to power driven vessels albeit those under 20m.

Right, it was a summary specific to the two vessels given in the example.

 

[Mark-1]

Old versions of Cockcroft + Lameijer have been available as PDF online although I can't find one right now.

However, Google seems quite willing to show us searchable chunks of it:

Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules

Here's what (little) it has (had?) to say about the definition of a Narrow Channel:



It's worth reading in context because there's a fair bit more - it seems that a vessel that can leave the 'channel' is obliged to do so if required - I'm sure someone with more time and better google-fu will be able to find more.

 

[BobnLesley]

You don't seem to grasp that THEY ARE RACING, so have right of way in any circumstances......

How about fitting race dinghies with wheels, or bicycles with floatation tubes? Getting them both sharing the same piece of water/tarmac would make for spectacular viewing, especially the arguments afterwards.

 

[capnsensible]

A few years ago I was coaching my eldest grandson for his Day Skipper certificate. We spent time, as you do, discussing IRPCS. His comment was 'basically, don't crash'.

He will never be a lawyer.....

 

[BobnLesley]

A lot of the frothing comes from people not understanding other people's perceptions of when ' a risk of collision exists'.

... the concept of 'shall not impede' does not mean 'shall allow to operate as if they're the only vessel on the water'...

I'm assuming that you're directing these advisories on attitude towards people sailing 30m mobos and the like?
I've no problem with that, but wonder if you've considered how equally applicable they are when levelled at the dinghy sailors too?
Also, as applies to motorcyclists and cyclists on the road, by making the choice to operate a more vulnerable vehicle than those which surround you, the onus is on yourself to mitigate that risk. 'I was in the right' is a pee-poor epitaph

 

[jfm]

I agree with a lot of what you say & I suspect that if presented with the same situation our approach would not be dissimilar. We would both proceed with caution, at a safe speed and without any expectation we would be considered stand on by the majority of other water users.

I also agree that the rules were drafted with the intent that 'narrow' is seen through the eyes of the larger vessel, so if the Hamble is narrow in your eyes then that is what it is.

What I find interesting with your question is that we are able to discuss it at all. The colregs are very precise when they want to be. There is no ambiguity in Rule 19 or Rule 13 and therefore there would be no discussion. Rules 6 & 9 though seem to have been deliberately left open to interpretation and in my opinion this is the correct approach.

My own view is that Rule 9 was drafted with the intention of preventing collision when a vessel cannot safely manoeuvre to avoid it - so if when proceeding at a safe speed I can control my vessel and avoid collision irrespective of who is stand on then I would not consider myself to be in a narrow channel.

Interaction with CBD - I think the two go hand in hand for the most part. My understanding is that the Dover Straights can be considered a narrow channel for some vessels and the reason for this is that they are constrained by their draught. I think this may also be the reason there are no discrete shapes or lights for 'I'm in a narrow channel, watch out'. The rules are not shy of prescribing shapes & lights (3 individual for fishing for example) so it would be surprising if there was no way of indicating you are affected by R9.

I also agree that the rules were drafted with the intent that 'narrow' is seen through the eyes of the larger vessel, so if the Hamble is narrow in your eyes then that is what it is. - I never said that

The colregs are very precise when they want to be. There is no ambiguity in Rule 19 or Rule 13 and therefore there would be no discussion. Rules 6 & 9 though seem to have been deliberately left open to interpretation and in my opinion this is the correct approach. I very much disagree. Yes Colregs are precise in some places, but they are awfully drafted in other places where its obvious that the shortcomings are poor drafting not things left deliberately to interpretation.

My own view is that Rule 9 was drafted with the intention of preventing collision when a vessel cannot safely manoeuvre to avoid it - so if when proceeding at a safe speed I can control my vessel and avoid collision irrespective of who is stand on then I would not consider myself to be in a narrow channel. Again, I disagree. You are reading things into Rule 9 that are simply not there. The idea that you're not in a narrow channel because you can "control" and "avoid collision" isn't correct imho. Narrow is a function of width of the channel.

Interaction with CBD - I think the two go hand in hand for the most part. My understanding is that the Dover Straights can be considered a narrow channel for some vessels and the reason for this is that they are constrained by their draught. I think this may also be the reason there are no discrete shapes or lights for 'I'm in a narrow channel, watch out'. The rules are not shy of prescribing shapes & lights (3 individual for fishing for example) so it would be surprising if there was no way of indicating you are affected by R9. As I said above, I cannot see that 20 miles wide is ever narrow, and #54 above has Cockcroft saying the same. A vessel might be CBD in a 20 mile channel, but that makes the vessel CBD; it doesn't make the channel narrow. But you're right that the rules contain no way of advertising that you're seeking stand-on status under R9, and that there is conceptual overlap between CBD and R9 which the rules just don't deal with at all well. That's arguably a failing of the rules but it's one of very many, and R9 as a whole is a shambles imho.

Consider for example how the draftsman of R9 seems to forget that the sailing vessel or <20m power vessel might itself only be able to navigate in the narrow channel, and that the boat asserting stand on under R9 does not itself have to be >20m. Therefore you could have two 18m vessels, both only able to navigate in a narrow channel, BOTH asserting R9 stand on status against the other, each correct, ie a total stalemate. What a terrible piece of drafting R9 is. Sure, we all work our way around it and don't crash so I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it's fair to point out what a terrible job rule R9 is. We get along fine and don't crash despite not because of R9 (and a bunch of other awful rules)

 

[jfm]

How many 30m MOBO's use the Hamble? I would imagine any that do have professional skippers and as such, realising the nature of the Hamble, would common sense tell them to avoid the busiest times when everyone is entering / leaving and dinghies racing?

Always amuses me when people assume a professional skipper (ie a guy whose job is to drive a boat) is somehow better/smarter/more common sense-y than someone who drives a boat as a leisure activity

 

[finestgreen]

Consider for example how the draftsman of R9 seems to forget that the sailing vessel or <20m power vessel might itself only be able to navigate in the narrow channel, and that the boat asserting stand on under R9 does not itself have to be >20m. Therefore you could have two 18m vessels, both only able to navigate in a narrow channel, BOTH asserting R9 stand on status against the other, each correct, ie a total stalemate. What a terrible piece of drafting R9 is. Sure, we all work our way around it and don't crash so I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it's fair to point out what a terrible job rule R9 is. We get along fine and don't crash despite not because of R9 (and a bunch of other awful rules)

I don't think this is as problematic as it seems?

Both vessels are required not to impede the other - they should navigate so as not to develop a risk of collision - but the possibilities are limited by its nature as a channel.

If they're in opposite directions they should be on opposite sides of the channel - if there's not enough space for them to pass that's not really a problem colregs can solve.

If they're in the same direction, one is overtaking the other.

If they're crossing, the one going across the channel takes the responsibility not to impede.