Fatality after boat/PWC collision off Menai Bridge

[JumbleDuck]

IRPCS still apply to Jetskis, as they do to everyone else.

How about rowing boats? Not "under sail", not "propelled by machinery".

 

[awol]

How about rowing boats? Not "under sail", not "propelled by machinery".

If a lever is not a "machine" I dinnae ken what is.

 

[Graham376]

I do hope that if the PWC was engaging in the all too common high speed twattery, that he gets a manslaughter charge thrown at him.

I have no idea of the circumstances of this accident but, from what we see every day, many ribs are driven in same stupid manner as jet skis and they often "play" together.

 

[JumbleDuck]

If a lever is not a "machine" I dinnae ken what is.

I believe that it has been established by the courts that the propulsive power has to come from a machine of some sort, so although an oar is a machine, oary boats and paddle boats are not covered by IRPCS.

 

[Mark-1]

If a lever is not a "machine" I dinnae ken what is.

I've googled.

Turns out 'vessel under oars' is mentioned specifically in rule 25 but nowhere else.

That specific use of the term in a single context tells us a rowing boat is *not* a powered vessel (other wise there would be no need for a mention in Rule 25).

Not really conclusively answered in an old thread here:
ColRegs? Boats under oars/sweeps

And nothing useful in the (elderly) free PDFs of Cockcroft and Lameijer I can find.

So yeah, kayaks and rowing boats seem to not be specifically covered in most of the IRPCS. Weird. You'd think if they wanted to exclude them they could have explicitly done so. Apparently they just didn't consider them.

Presumably, all the IRPCS that don't refer to specifically to vessel type still apply as does Rule 25. (Rule 25 tells us that Rowing boats may be treated as Sailing Vessels for Navlights purposes which seems mental to me.)

IRPCS are long over due for a re-write, this is just one more example. (IMHO)

 

[Sandy]

Already discussed if you check the last few posts. I was responding to a suggestion that people should be legally "hammered" for not wearing a kill cord.

Forgive me, it was a reaction to a comment that had been poorly thought out.

During my working life I was involved in Safety Engineering and suspect am more appreciative of the injuries that happen with things go wrong.

As for "hammering" people who are not wearing kill cords, education, education, education. Many years ago while a member of a Mountain Rescue Team a medic was giving a lecture on trauma injuries and placed a bag of mince on the table. Mike, my then regular climbing partner turned green, left the room and vomited! Perhaps the "shock" approach might work for some? Dealing with complex trauma is bloody work.

 

[penberth3]

….As for "hammering" people who are not wearing kill cords, education, education, education.....

Absolutely, with proper training and the right attitude there shouldn't be any incidents to prosecute.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Absolutely, with proper training and the right attitude there shouldn't be any incidents to prosecute.

 

[TSB240]

Kevin Walker has posted on the North Wales FB website
Perhaps we should all respect his wishes.
Rip Jane.

"Some of you people on here are relentless. Do not make this tragic accident an excuse to promote your anti Jetski campaign. This beautiful lady, my wife, was also a jet skier so try having some respect rather than promoting your own bias. Yes there are idiots about, on skis, boats, & cars. I don’t hear you all campaigning to give your cars up. None of you know what happened, and occasionally, just like on the roads, tragic accidents happen. Also don’t presume the people involved don’t know the Strait. Some of you need to get off your keyboards and get a life. This tragic accident has changed my families life for ever, but try and have some respect and stop twisting it to your own agenda when you all know nothing about the incident."

 

[LittleSister]

VESSELS UNDER OARS

I sought advice from the RYA Legal Dept on this matter (as I explained in that previous thread, and others). The RYA's firm view was that vessels under oars are
- subject to the Col Regs;
- are not vessels under power;
- the specific crossing rules (which are explicitly for power and sail) do not apply to vessels under oars;
- all other rules do (e.g. look out, overtaking vessel , narrow channels, etc);
- in a crossing situation between a vessel under oars and any other vessel (regardless of type) both have an obligation to avoid a collision (i.e. there is no stand on vessel).

Until any court rules that any other interpretation applies, I think that can be taken as read.

 

[Mark-1]

Kevin Walker has posted on the North Wales FB website
Perhaps we should all respect his wishes.
Rip Jane.

"Some of you people on here are relentless. Do not make this tragic accident an excuse to promote your anti Jetski campaign. This beautiful lady, my wife, was also a jet skier so try having some respect rather than promoting your own bias. Yes there are idiots about, on skis, boats, & cars. I don’t hear you all campaigning to give your cars up. None of you know what happened, and occasionally, just like on the roads, tragic accidents happen. Also don’t presume the people involved don’t know the Strait. Some of you need to get off your keyboards and get a life. This tragic accident has changed my families life for ever, but try and have some respect and stop twisting it to your own agenda when you all know nothing about the incident."

Link to post to save others the search.

 

[Mark-1]

VESSELS UNDER OARS

As I explained in that previous thread (and others), I sought advice from the RYA Legal Dept on this matter. Their firm view was that vessels under oars are
- subject to the Col Regs;
- are not vessels under power;
- the specific crossing rules (which are explicitly for power and sail) do not apply to vessels under oars;
- all other rules do (e.g. look out, overtaking vessel , narrow channels, etc);
- in a crossing situation between a vessel under oars and any other vessel (regardless of type) both have an obligation to avoid a collision (i.e. there is no stand on vessel).

Until any court rules that any other interpretation applies, I think that can be taken as read.

That would be a common sense interpretation. Certainly the one we all adopt in practice (except perhaps the second and to a degree the last.)

Not sure that guessing what the law might be should ever warrant a 'firm view' and I'm not convinced the RYA have a terrific Lawyer with first class domain knowledge - if they did wouldn't that person be working somewhere that paid significantly more? (I could be wrong about that...)

If they do have a decent expert in the domain then it's astonishing that they don't offer any advice on Colregs on their legal page: Legal Advice | Knowledge & Advice | RYA - Royal Yachting Association - C & J sells for £50 - RYA members must be sufficiently interested in the colregs to warrant a PDF leaflet to clear up all the uncertainties, surely.

 

[LittleSister]

That would be a common sense interpretation. Certainly the one we all adopt in practice (except perhaps the second and to a degree the last.)

Not sure that guessing what the law might be should ever warrant a 'firm view' and I'm not convinced the RYA have a terrific Lawyer with first class domain knowledge - if they did wouldn't that person be working somewhere that paid significantly more? (I could be wrong about that...)

If they do have a decent expert in the domain then it's astonishing that they don't offer any advice on Colregs on their legal page: Legal Advice | Knowledge & Advice | RYA - Royal Yachting Association - C & J sells for £50 - RYA members must be sufficiently interested in the colregs to warrant a PDF leaflet to clear up all the uncertainties, surely.

If you think you know better than the RYA lawyer, then good for you.

In my view, unless and until a court rules otherwise, there is no other interpretation which is logically consistent with the Col Regs as written.

The idea that a vessel under oars is a vessel propelled by machinery, simply because some class a lever as a machine (it gets trotted out every time ) is patent nonsense because (a) Rule 25 distinguishes between vessels under oars and vessels under power, and between vessels under oars and sailing vessels (and others); and (b) a sail boom (and various other parts of sailing rigs) are also levers, so that interpretation would also render meaningless the explicit distinction the ColRegs make between sailing vessels and vessels under power.

If you have an alternative interpretation of how the Col Regs affect crossing situations involving vessels under oars, lets hear both it and the justification of it.

 

[michael_w]

IIRC the Port of London Authority regards RoBos as power driven vessels.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The idea that a vessel under oars is a vessel propelled by machinery, simply because some class a lever as a machine (it gets trotted out every time ) is patent nonsense because (a) Rule 25 distinguishes between vessels under oars and vessels under power, and between vessels under oars and sailing vessels (and others); and (b) a sail boom (and various other parts of sailing rigs) are also levers, so that interpretation would also render meaningless the explicit distinction the ColRegs make between sailing vessels and vessels under power.

Technically, the boom of a sailing yacht is a mechanism (designed to achieve a desired motion) rather than a machine (designed to transmit power. It does, of course, help the transmission of force, but in that respect it's part of a structure.

 

[Mark-1]

If you think you know better than the RYA lawyer, then good for you.

In my view, unless and until a court rules otherwise, there is no other interpretation which is logically consistent with the Col Regs as written.

The idea that a vessel under oars is a vessel propelled by machinery, simply because some class a lever as a machine (it gets trotted out every time ) is patent nonsense because (a) Rule 25 distinguishes between vessels under oars and vessels under power, and between vessels under oars and sailing vessels (and others); and (b) a sail boom (and various other parts of sailing rigs) are also levers, so that interpretation would also render meaningless the explicit distinction the ColRegs make between sailing vessels and vessels under power.

If you have an alternative interpretation of how the Col Regs affect crossing situations involving vessels under oars, lets hear both it and the justification of it.

I could guess all kinds of alternatives, but my best guess was pretty much the same as the RYA guy's. I stated pretty much the same in my first post on this. Pretty much everyone does AFAIK with the possible exception of the second and to a degree the last.

...but to misquote you "If the RYA legal guy thinks he knows better than a panel of three expert appeal judges and at least two other courts, then good for him". So my quibble is with the "very firm" rather than the common sense conclusions themselves.

So we don't know, we can all guess. It's common sense so our guesses are all pretty very similar but we shouldn't be over confident in our guesses.

 

[Mark-1]

The idea that a vessel under oars is a vessel propelled by machinery, simply because some class a lever as a machine (it gets trotted out every time ) is patent nonsense because (a) Rule 25

It's not patent nonsense. We literally don't know. It certainly appears from Rule 25 that the IRPCS consider Rowing Boats closest to sailing boats, at least for lighting purposes. We can't be certain beyond that. Describing an alternative as 'patent nonsense' is a level of certainty beyond the evidence we have. (....and vice-versa IYSWIM)

 

[Seastoke]

Why are you discussing this issue on this post start your own and respect what her husband as said.

 

[awol]

You could argue your stand-on status with .......

 

[AntarcticPilot]

- all other rules do (e.g. look out, overtaking vessel , narrow channels, etc);
- in a crossing situation between a vessel under oars and any other vessel (regardless of type) both have an obligation to avoid a collision (i.e. there is no stand on vessel).

Until any court rules that any other interpretation applies, I think that can be taken as read.

You put a smiley on the overtaking rule, but we should all be aware that racing eights and similar vessels can easily reach 10-15 knots, and have limited ability to manoeuvre. Not likely to find one at sea, but tidal rivers and estuaries are possible locations for them.

Eights carry a ball on their prow for a very practical and gruesome reason, to do with an overtaking accident!