Is the law an ass?

[jamesjermain]

During my afore-mentioned sail on the East Coast, that terrible, mud-spattered, run down, beat up, broken down, builders tip of a radioactive dumping ground, full of rotten hulks and populared by spivs and motor boaters (OK, Vyv, john_c, Mirelle, pvb?), I had an interesting converstion about racing rules.

Many years ago when I did a bit of passage racing and not-very-serious round-the-cans stuff, it was generally accepted that if you were a port tack yacht about to hit rocks or mud, you could call for water over a starboard tack yacht. I assumed this state of affairs was enshrined in the racing rules. Not so - at least not in the current rules

It seems a starboard tack yacht, or more likely, a fleet of them, can force a port tack yacht aground if they feel like it and have the draught to do so. The port tack yacht has only one get-out. He can tack on to starboard and, once settled on the new tack, then claim rights to water. In many cases this would be too late.

Following this up, I tried to think of the section of Colregs which would give the port tack yacht the right to stand on in these circumstances, but couldn't. My copy is on the boat. Can anyone help, or is the port tack cruising yacht in the same positon as his racing brother.

If he is, the law, as they say, is an ass.

JJ

 

[duncan]

Outwith the wonders of racing (in which the skipper shoud clearly avoid getting himself in the (losing) position) any vessel constrained by draught has a 'right' over those more manoeverable, less constrained.
A pleasant request for a little space for manoevre due to shallowing water and a big keel will probably achieve more than a scream of 'water' though. Better still the appropriate sound signal.
And yet again the non racer is less likely to find himself in this position! The rules are there to establish the stand on - stand off vessels so that there is a clear known responsibility for avoidance of collision in the early stages. If none is taken then, again, there is a clear course of action required in taking avoiding action that avoids increasing the risk if the first boat subsequetly and rather later decides to take the course of action required of him.
Jolly fun what

 

[peterb]

Constrained by draught

'Constrained by draught' is defined for power-driven vessels only, and anyway only applies if the vessel is showing the signals of Rule 28.

As far as I can see, the most appropriate rule is Rule 9, Narrow Channels. 9(b) says "A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway." And then you get to one of those bits of ambiguity which seem to crop up in English; does it mean "... narrow (channel or fairway) ..." or is it "... (narrow channel) or (fairway)..."?

Maybe Rule 8(a) might be appropriate, too, since forcing another vessel to go aground can hardly be considered "due regard to the obsevance of good seamanship".

 

[Guest]

Re: Constrained by draught

Go back a bit and think basics.
All vessels have duty to avoid risk to life at sea and collision
A collision is not just between vessels but between vessels and other obstructions.

Vessels be they on port or starboard tack must give opportunity to avoid collision

hence at the start of a race a leward boat cannot luff a windward boat into the committee boat

 

[Guest]

Two racing yachts on Starboard tack approaching an obstruction. The windward yacht can lay the obstruction, the leeward yacht cannot. The leeward yacht has no right to water to tack - the windward yacht can deny water if asked. If the leeward yacht calls for water twice, the windward yacht must give water (in order to avoid a collision) but then is entitled to protest. (Dont have the racing rules to hand - but it is specificaly provided for - or was 10 years ago when I lost a protest on the point).

The overriding objective is to avoid a collision. The racing rules also put safety above all, but penalise the leeward yacht for being there. Cant see why that would be different with boats on opposite tacks - the starboard tack yacht would have to give water and then protest the port tack yacht tacking in its water.

The principles wd apply also to boats not racing - although the protest would probably contain more expletives.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Racing?

If you are about to imperil your vessel by going aground then a call for water must have precidence over all else, racing or otherwise. [Although this can not be used as a tactical ploy for advantage in a race.] Common sense would seem to dictate that any race rule can not force you to wreck your boat, thus any other vessel involved must give way and keep clear to avoid such whether in a race or not.

However amongst the racing fraternity it sometimes seems as though common sense is a rare commodity.

 

[yachtcharisma]

The common sense resolution of this situation would surely be that the leeward boat eases sheets, slows down and then tacks behind the windward boat's stern. Or, if the obstruction is an isolated one, bears away and goes the other side of it.

You may not win the race, but it seems to me to beat trying to explain to the other boat that due to the particular circumstances of your draft and the position of the obstruction you'd like to over-ride his right of way.

Cheers
Patrick

Sailing a Corribee
<A HREF="http://vzone.virgin.net/patrick.fox">vzone.virgin.net/patrick.fox</A>

 

[duncan]

exactly - in racing you know where you are - you got into it! - and you have options when your strategy works out flawed.

People just hate to 'give ground' racing or otherwise!

happy boating

 

[Guest]

Re: Constrained by draught

You need to differentiate between racing and cruising.

When racing you certainly can luff the windward boat right and ideally force it off the start line The windward boat has a clear responsibility to ensure that it does not put itself in a position where it has a collision with the start boat. This situation occurs regularly on the start line, hence the widespread use of barging marks. The only responsibility the leeward boat has is to avoid damage to either boat. When racing you are governed by the racing rules in addition to the colregs.

When cruising it would be a particularly vindictive character that placed another boat into a difficult situation by failing to make a course change, however this is a good example of the need to think about what you are doing ahead of time and not place yourself in these situations, (often easier said than done!!)

 

[Guest]

Is the law an ass? ................. a very interesting question, in many instances it is certainly well beyond my comprehension. However in this instance the rules are at least well defined and clear to all. It may not be ideal that under the existing rules a scenario can develop where a boat which needs water has no right to it, BUT how would you re write the rule in these circumstances? who would have the right to determine exactly when a boat needs water? ............ the person most qualified to make the decision that they now have to overide the port/starboard rule would be the skipper of the endangered boat but how would they communicate this to the stand on boat?

There is clearly a strong case for modification to colregs that "make the law an ass" but I for one would not know how to rewrite them to cater for this problem.

Generally I reckon the colregs have been well written and at least we currently always know if we are the give way or stand on boat.

 

[Guest]

The law an ass? I think we all owe a beer to the judges who decided the Orwell moorings case. A moment's silence in their honour, please.

 

[peterb]

The Orwell judgement

Simon, I have to agree with you. I was at the hearing, and went along again on Wednesday to hear the judgement.

The appeal turned on a whole series of acts, starting with the charter from Henry VIII, then working up through acts which changed the authority, acts which applied to all ports, acts which applied only to Ipswich, acts which consolidated or repealed other acts, acts which in some cases had conflicting requirements..........

Ipswich's case seemed to me to be put forward in such a way as to hide the essential points, rather than to bring them out.

Then on Wednesday we heard the judgement. It was long, and it took one of the judges nearly 50 minutes to read. But it cut through the Ipswich fog. It looked at the development and interactions of all the acts, considered the intentions of Parliament in drafting the acts, and resolved the inconsistencies. I'm certainly no lawyer, and I didn't have all the papers, but I was able to follow the development of the argument with little difficulty. There is a court website on which certain judgements (selected by the judge) are given in full. I think it's most unfortunate that this one doesn't seem to have been selected.

The law may be an ass, but there are certainly three judges that aren't!

 

[peterb]

Communication

You ask "but how would they communicate this to the stand on boat?" Surely this is a case for the manoeuvring signals of Rule 34? One or two short blasts on the foghorn to indicate "I am altering course to starboard/port"

 

[jamesjermain]

Thanks for the suggestions Guys.

I'm still not entirely clear in my mind whether this is a real problem or not. In racing it certainly is, as the latest revision of Eric Twiname's 'The Rules Book' makes clear.

I think cruising yachtsmen, if they ever faced this situation, which I admit is unlikely, would deal with it like the gentlemen they are: ie, by the time they had finished '...after you.' 'No, after you.' -ing they would both be aground.



JJ

 

[Guest]

Re: Communication

The sound signal already has a defined meaning; it signifys the alteration of course, if it could also be construed as "I am altering course ..... and now have right of way" there is still ambiguity and personally I prefer the rules the way they are.