Near Collision

[ParaHandy]

Re: Buggerlug\'s defence.......

Ahm already oan the case, ma brief's being spoken to as we speak ower yer scurrilous comments aboot ma boat...........

Now, there was a solicitor whose defence to a drunk driving charge on Frederick St Edinburgh (c 1970) was that the accident had been caused by the person in front, who claimed to be stopped at the Mound traffic lights, had reversed into him. He got off.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Catch 22

Starting your engine will (my reading) have made you a power driven vessel, not a sailing vessel,and you will have lost your stbd tack rights over B. Lugs.

But maybe you were still navigating in a narrow channel (defined by racing powerboats on one side, and tide swept moorings on t'other)<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Twister_Ken on 07/10/2002 14:35 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: NM23 ??

I'm so glad not to have mislead you - that would have been truly dreadful.

 

[incognito]

Re: NM23 ??

Sorry, did I get something wrong here? You DID mislead. Quoting selectively is the commonest and cheapest way to mislead. (Your true name wouldn't happen to be Archer, or Major...?).

Since we have established that NM23 has nothing to do with the original posting question, which related to ColRegs, one can only assume that you intentionally threw NM23 in to confuse and mislead.

 

[andy_wilson]

1. Nil. You are stand on vessel.

2. 100%. You should not have altered course to ram a moored boat minding it's own business.

If ever there was an argument for hitting the one that caused the problem, this was it. 'Specially it you could arrange to T-Bone him so as to minimise your damage and maximise his.

Caveat

By your own admission you were sailing in constaned circumstances. I assume you were able to release the headsail instantly without drama and haul in the main to avoid a gybe as you manouver into T-Bone mode?

 

[jimi]

Surely not..

Surely not. I presume I'm only a power driven vessel if I'm actually using the engine as a means of propulsion, not as a JIT collision avoidance device, or to charge the batteries etc!!

Jim

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Surely not..

It's a fine point debated here once before - after all, not all supertankers have their engines in gear when underway, but no one would call them sailing vessels.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Re: hangin\' offence

We were out that day - there were no warnings about any race on the VHF. so had no idea until three boats went either side of us at some 100 mph (motor boats dont have Knots do they) one was less than a boat length from us. plain bloody dangerous. the oprganisers need their heads looking at.

2 months earlier in Plymouth there was a powerboat race, and there were c16 warnings every 1/4 hour.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Ah but see below - our lad had turned his engine on 'just in case'.

 

[jimi]

And in fact I did use it to avoid collision, I shoved it to max revs when buggerlugs took the paint off the front of the power boat and he still only missed me by 2 feet, before tacking back in front of the poor power boat skipper !

But in this situation I would argue that I was the stand on vessel using every means within my power(sic) to avoid collision NOT that I had abandoned my rights when switching on the engine.

Jim

 

[jimi]

Re: Buggerlug\'s defence.......

Ach weel we've aye hid a an enlichtened attitude tae drink! The judge maist like didnae trust the other lad if he didnae drink.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Re: Surely not..

Absolutely. Likewise it would not be possible to get out of being a power driven vessel if you're motorsailing along just by slipping the engine out of gear.

From the other guy's point of view it is hard for him to judge whether the engine of the motorsailor is in gear or not. Of course the motorsailor should have a cone up, but in the real world... It is also difficult for the other guy to read your mind as to whether you have started your engine to charge your batteries, so that you can manouevre under engine (as you did) or just because you're in a motory kind of mood. The skipper of the other vessel is not required by the colregs to be telepathic. If you see/hear that another vessel's main engine is running it is reasonable to assume that a vessel with it's main engine running is power driven, whether or not it has sail up.

As for the strict position under the colregs, as you say it was debated in an earlier thread. My view is that the strict letter of the colregs (happily) coincides with the commonsense interpretation, ie. if your main engine is running, then you are a power driven vessel, whether or not it's in gear.

 

[Bergman]

Re:Opportunity Missed

What a pity you didn't T-bone the guy.

Just think of the points that would have been clarified in the subsequent case, with appeals to House of Lords.

Were you a power vessel?
Were you restricted in ability to manouvre?
Were you in a narrow channel?
What is a narrow channel?
Do notices to mariners override Col Regs?
What is relationship between racing and Col-Regs?
Who has jurisdiction if you disregard Nto M but not Col-Regs?
And Vice-Versa.

Must be loads more.

You could single handedly have kept S-butt going for months.

BTW did you have your ensign up ( sorry were you wearing it) at the time of the incident?

Great opportunity missed. Strongly recommend that you go back for another go as soon as possible.

 

[PeterGibbs]

A most interesting case, and totally credible!

Two riders:

1. Do you have manpower enough to go below and bring up a camcorder instant camera?

2. Do you have a frog horn or the like - 5 loud toots (on film, preferably) would strengthen your case, whilst pressing the miscreant "to cease what he is doing".
This could be followed (off film) by the T-bone manoeuvre.

PS If the miscreant was flying the blue ensign, I will add this one to my growing dossier of nutty blue flag-induced incidents!


Peter Gibbs

 

[PeterGibbs]

A most interesting case, and totally credible!

Two riders:

1. Do you have manpower enough to go below and bring up a camcorder / instant camera?

2. Do you have a frog horn or the like - 5 loud toots (on film, preferably) would strengthen your case, whilst pressing the miscreant "to cease what he is doing".
This could be followed (off film) by the T-bone manoeuvre.

PS If the miscreant was flying the blue ensign, I will add this one to my growing dossier of nutty blue flag-induced incidents!


Peter Gibbs

 

[jimi]

Do\'nt be daft

The letter of the law is:

Rule 3(b) The term power driven vessel means any vessel propelled by machinery.
Rule 3(c) The term sailing vessel means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.

Right then what is propelling machinery, It is machinery which propells a vessel.
An engine per se is not. Propelling machinery is machinery which is moving a boat ie turning a propeller. An engine charging a battery is not propelling a vessel. Your argument is that by the push of a lever it is. Extend that argument, by the twist of a key and the push of a lever my vessel becomes power driven. The twist of the key is hardly onerous.
Therefore the logical conclusion of your argument is that any vessel fitted with propelling machinery should be treated as power driven. Wrong thats not what the Co Regs say.

As for saying that evidence of an engine running means a vessel should be treated as under power. Again wrong, the evidence according to the col regs is a motoring cone by day and a steaming light by night.

There are many reasons to have the engine on. I might have a rope round my prop but have the engine on to charge the batteries, run the fridge. Or I often put it on so that if there is the risk of close quarters problems I have it just in case. I should not lose my rights under sail just because I am prudent. In some cases harbour authorities insist that you have your engine on , not that you use it. As far as I'm concerned the normal Col Regs apply then.

Jim

 

[jimi]

Wot's a frog horn, I take it you mean a French Horn.... :0)

Jim

 

[halcyon]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

Think I'm going deaf, never can identify which yacht has it's engine running, normally look for exhaust water. We tend to have more than one yacht at a time our way.

Do I assume all yachts are motoring till proved differant, what range applies to this new assumption.

Brian

 

[andy_wilson]

Fool

Far more important things to be done rather than fumbling around taking his eyes off the target!

 

[Guest]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

No I am not suggesting the various things you think I am. The ins and outs of what the colregs say have been discussed fairly exhaustively in an earlier thread. See http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/s...ber=159649&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1#Post159649
or try typing "propelled by machinery" into the search facility.

The colregs could do with being clearer, but this is how it goes in Q&A form:

"Is a ship's main engine 'propelling machinery'?" - Of course.
"Is a yacht's main engine 'propelling machinery'?" - ditto.
"If it is running, the is it being 'used'?" - yes.

SO, a vessel running its main engine (whether or not in gear) cannot be a sailing vessel under Rule 3(c)

BUT, that doesn't automatically mean it's a power driven vessel because Rule 3(b) uses different terminology - it says "propelled by machinery" not "using" it.

Problem - the vessel is clearly not a sailing vessel, but doesn't easily fit into the definition of power driven vessel. But it must be SOMETHING.

Ken's example of a supertanker points the way to the resolution. Does it seem likely that the intention of the legislator was that a supertanker doing 15 knots ceases to be a power driven vessel just because it puts its engine in neutral for a few seconds? Clearly not. Therefore the legislator intended the words "propelled by machinery" to be given a broad meaning. Assuming that the vessel is under way, it does not matter whether the vessel is using its propelling machinery to accelerate, deccelerate, maintain its speed or to make a cup of tea. The point is whether the machinery is being used.

All that doesn't mean that you were in the wrong. If you start your engine when a risk of collision arises that may not stop you from being the stand on vessel, or that you suddenly become liable. There are also questions as to whether you were restricted in your ability to manoeuvre, in a fairway, etc.

And the colregs are not the be-all and end-all. In determining liability the question is whether you were negligent, and whether you complied with the colregs is only one of the indicators of that. The question is whether you acted a reasonable, prudent and competent skipper should have done in your position. The only prob, with this approach is that ultimately someone has to pay... So liability ends up being apportioned - "X was 30% to blame and Y 70%", etc.