Nice trip up the Ouse spoiled

[jfm]

Welcome home!

+1

 

[l'escargot]

That aint true, both "Spottys" got hit by sailors who clearly couldn't.

I did say most, I've seen plenty of motor boats hit things too.

 

[lisilou]

I have a question, Gary/Lisa, was this an organised race?

It was the Bursledon regatta Nigel so the comings and goings were on going from around 11.30.
L

 

[SpottyDog5]

Completely different disciplines, the art of the game is appreciating that difference.

 

[l'escargot]

Steady l'escargot. First, rule 9a imposes an obligation on the sailboats to keep to starboard if following the channel and rule 9d tells them to keep out of the way if crossing the channel. Those two circumstances cover all the bases don't they? I mean you're either following or crossing the channel, or both (ie diagonally), I think. The obligation in 9b applies to Gary but I do not see he is in breach of it. He must of course observe the overtaking-vessel-gives-way rule if he comes up astern of a slower sailing dinghy but I don't think that point was in dispute (though correct me if I'm missing something there).

I should add ref my post above that I am talking Colregs only. I don't know about special Hamble rules. If there are any local rules that give a different answer then of course I'll eat my words and Gary and I will have to fall back out of love Also, I'm kind of assuming Gary has to be in the fairway - I just don't have enough on depths and so on to comment. But in applying that part of the rule remember there is the word "safely", which is probably within the skipper's reasonable discretion to determine.

I think you misunderstood my post - I wasn't referring to Gary's situation with dinghies, I was referring to your general interpretation to Rule 9 where you seemed to be saying that Gary's boat couldn't navigate safely outside of the channel and that all sailing boats must avoid him on that basis. I was just pointing out that Gary's boat wouldn't qualify throughout the whole of the Hamble as a vessel that can't navigate safely outside of a channel - it can - and that some sailing boats can also claim rights under rule 9.

 

[oGaryo]

You didnt really think I would miss this did you

In a nut shell a sailing boat isnt allowed to impede a mobo in a narrow channel

Hold your course and remember you have an equal duty to avoid a collision, once in the latter stages of avoid a collision situation you are usually exempt from the speed / wash restrictions found in most bylaws . :encouragement:

Oh my lord.. Pete, since our brief exchange of PM's back in May, I've been working tirelessly to bring you back into play. welcome back as said, it's good to have you on board

 

[jfm]

I think you misunderstood my post - I wasn't referring to Gary's situation with dinghies, I was referring to your general interpretation to Rule 9 where you seemed to be saying that Gary's boat couldn't navigate safely outside of the channel and that all sailing boats must avoid him on that basis. I was just pointing out that Gary's boat wouldn't qualify throughout the whole of the Hamble as a vessel that can't navigate safely outside of a channel - it can - and that some sailing boats can also claim rights under rule 9.

Agreed. BTW, I edited my post while you were typing, but no worries I think.

The point not quite reflected in what you write there is that although Gary can only claim the benefit of 9b if he is big enough, we are mostly dealing here with 9a (from the arrows on the picture) and in that circumstance the question of "big enough" doesn't arise. 9a applies to everyone (except 90 degree channel crossers, but that's not what we have here) whether a kayak, Laser or superyacht. Again, see Deleted User's post 56 on the MBM-demise sticky thread.

As a general comment from admittedly limited exposure to the Hamble but in quite a large tricky boat, it would help if the sailing community were educated that the power-gives-way rule is fully trumped by rule9, and therefore there are plenty of scenarios where sailboats are not stand on. It felt to me like many sailors only knew the power-gives-way rule. That is a bit of a broad brush comment of course, but I think it's fair

 

[l'escargot]

With apols for my pedantry, but that isn't correct. The Colregs as a whole are (imo) a terribly badly drafted set of rules, full of ambiguities and in need of a thorough re-write, but you have taken it further and seen what you want to read, not what is written. The definition of a mobo involves "propelled by machinery", and in that case it's clear the draftsman didn't intend that a vessel isn't "power-driven" merely because it is in neutral. But the definition of "under sail" uses different words: it requires that any propelling machinery is not "being used" and doesn't at all use the words "propelled" or "propelled by machinery". You may argue, but you cannot say for sure as you do above, that an engine temporarily in neutral isn't "being used". I'd say that it is "being used", fwiw.

I disagree, as you say it is your opinion but I think it is you seeing what you want to read and not what is written - not me. To say you think they should be rewritten would suggest that you want them to say something different to what they do say. I think that ColRegs on the whole is actually quite cleverly worded.

I think it is well established that an engine for propulsion in neutral is "ready for use" and not "in use". By definition it's purpose is propulsion and if it isn't being used for propulsion it isn't being used for it's intended purpose. A sailing boat with it's engine running is still sailing just as a motorboat at anchor with it's engines running is still at anchor, neither are motoring

The term "propelled" is quite unambiguous and has been used deliberately as opposed to using something like "engine" or "motor" and Rule 3(b) & (c) are quite specific. I don't think there was any intention to define "propelling machinery" that isn't being used for "propulsion" as being used.

 

[l'escargot]

You didnt really think I would miss this did you

In a nut shell a sailing boat isnt allowed to impede a mobo in a narrow channel

Hold your course and remember you have an equal duty to avoid a collision, once in the latter stages of avoid a collision situation you are usually exempt from the speed / wash restrictions found in most bylaws . :encouragement:

Welcome back Pete :encouragement:

But I think you do need to qualify that - no vessel (not just sailing boats but any boat under 20 metres as well as a sailing boat) is allowed to impede any vessel (which includes sailing boats) that can only safely navigate in a fairway

 

[l'escargot]

Agreed. BTW, I edited my post while you were typing, but no worries I think.

The point not quite reflected in what you write there is that although Gary can only claim the benefit of 9b if he is big enough, we are mostly dealing here with 9a (from the arrows on the picture) and in that circumstance the question of "big enough" doesn't arise. 9a applies to everyone (except 90 degree channel crossers, but that's not what we have here) whether a kayak, Laser or superyacht. Again, see Deleted User's post 56 on the MBM-demise sticky thread.

As a general comment from admittedly limited exposure to the Hamble but in quite a large tricky boat, it would help if the sailing community were educated that the power-gives-way rule is fully trumped by rule9, and therefore there are plenty of scenarios where sailboats are not stand on. It felt to me like many sailors only knew the power-gives-way rule. That is a bit of a broad brush comment of course, but I think it's fair

The "get out" for sailing vessels in 9a is "..as practicable". It is established that if they can't stay to the starboard side due to wind direction, then they operate under 9b giving due regard to vessels who qualify under that rule. Vessels that don't, have an obligation to sailing vessels as per the other rules relating to interaction between motor and sail.

I think likewise, as a broad brush, there are motorboaters who believe that they have rights under 9b when they could navigate safely outside of the fairway.

 

[Elessar]

Agreed. BTW, I edited my post while you were typing, but no worries I think.

The point not quite reflected in what you write there is that although Gary can only claim the benefit of 9b if he is big enough, we are mostly dealing here with 9a (from the arrows on the picture) and in that circumstance the question of "big enough" doesn't arise. 9a applies to everyone (except 90 degree channel crossers, but that's not what we have here) whether a kayak, Laser or superyacht. Again, see Deleted User's post 56 on the MBM-demise sticky thread.

As a general comment from admittedly limited exposure to the Hamble but in quite a large tricky boat, it would help if the sailing community were educated that the power-gives-way rule is fully trumped by rule9, and therefore there are plenty of scenarios where sailboats are not stand on. It felt to me like many sailors only knew the power-gives-way rule. That is a bit of a broad brush comment of course, but I think it's fair

Are you sure about the kayak? Serious Q!

 

[jfm]

I disagree, as you say it is your opinion but I think it is you seeing what you want to read and not what is written - not me. To say you think they should be rewritten would suggest that you want them to say something different to what they do say. I think that ColRegs on the whole is actually quite cleverly worded.

With full respect to your view, I disagree. They're far more clumsy than clever imho. Remember, most of the rules existed as practices or rules among seamen long before colregs. All the colregs did was clumsily write up what folks were mostly already doing.

Ref your second sentence, no. The redrafting would not be to change the overall architecture of the ROTR, but to remove (i) the conflicts and ambiguities and (ii) the subjectivities. As but one small example, what is the difference between give way to, not impede, keep out of the way of, keep clear of, not impede the passage of, impede the safe passage of, not impede the navigation of, and so on? All these phrases are used. Then there is the weird half hearted definition in 16 which sort of says that "keep out of the way of" sort of means "keep well clear", but only "so far as possible". And since (iirc) they use keep well clear as well as keep clear, does the latter mean only that you must miss by a small margin? Sheesh!

Worse still, in a case like oGaryo's, as you have recognised in your posts both skippers must decide whether a boat can only operate safely in the fairway, as a precursor to deciding which rule applies. The draftsman seems to forget that two sensible skippers can reach a different answer to that question. Gary has owned the boat 2 years, but the other guy first saw it 3 minutes ago. Sheesh. The rules would be better if things were objective as far as possible not matters of opinion.

As regards lights we have near universal contravention of the pointless rules in Annex1, 3b and d by the world's motorboat manufacturers, but no enforcement afaik in any country, so there is perhaps legitimate expectation that these rules now don't apply? Or is there? Who knows?

There are loads of other things but it would lake ages to list them

I think it is well established that an engine for propulsion in neutral is "ready for use" and not "in use". By definition it's purpose is propulsion and if it isn't being used for propulsion it isn't being used for it's intended purpose. A sailing boat with it's engine running is still sailing just as a motorboat at anchor with it's engines running is still at anchor, neither are motoring

The term "propelled" is quite unambiguous and has been used deliberately as opposed to using something like "engine" or "motor" and Rule 3(b) & (c) are quite specific. I don't think there was any intention to define "propelling machinery" that isn't being used for "propulsion" as being used.

I don't know where it is so established but would be happy to hear. This is yet another of the ambiguities I complain about above. You are making quite a leap to say that it is established that machinery that is "on" and running doesn't give a boat all the advantages of a mobo and that the draftsman didn't intend the vessel then to be treated as a power driven vessel. Furthermore, if you look only at the wording not the intention then note that "in use" isn't qualified by "for propulsion". An engine running to charge the battery is "in use" in the ordinary sense of those 2 words. As I say, we are in ambiguity-ville here, though fortunately most of us manage to keep out of trouble anyway (despite the rules, not because of them ).

 

[jfm]

The "get out" for sailing vessels in 9a is "..as practicable".

Yeah but that get out as you call it will not win the day. A sailboat with an engine can turn it on to overcome the "practicable" problem - there is no exemption from 9a due to merely wanting to sail. If the sailboat is so small it has no engine then it's a dinghy and can tack upwind up the channel using only half the channel's width so leaving loads of room for Gary. (Just to disclose, I am very much a sailor as much as a mobo-ist. I have helmed Mirabella V, a Mirror, and much in between@ 30 to 100 feet. I own a Laser and can definitely tack it up the Hamble leaving enough space for a 30 foot mobo to get by ). In the rare case of a big sailboat with no engine then I agree with you, but that wasn't Gary's or OP's case

giving due regard to vessels who qualify under that rule. Vessels that don't, have an obligation

...which brings us back to the stupid guesswork in this rule. How can a guy who first saw the other boat 3 minutes ago know better than its skipper? Why should the rules ask him to decide?

I think likewise, as a broad brush, there are motorboaters who believe that they have rights under 9b when they could navigate safely outside of the fairway.

Yup. Well, I agree the sentiment behind your broadbrushing, but come to think of it, I think perhaps few mobo-ists are knowledgeable* enough on the switch to rule 9 when in channels and therefore arguably don't assert their rule 9 rights enough. Everyone is taught the general collision rules without being reminded they are sort of "open water" only.

*BTW I should admit that I only bothered to read this in detail because last year I found myself doing the Hamble for first time in many years. The rule stuck in my head because I had the luxury of >20m which meant I was exempted from 9b. So I was (broadly) free to impede others while they were obliged not to impede me. All I had to do was stick to the stb side of the channel! Nice position to be in, though I didn't abuse it (much)

 

[macnorton]

Can you provide a translation please? Oh & there are still no (& never have been any) col reg situations where anyone has "right of way"

You've never heard of "power gives way to sail" then?

 

[jfm]

Are you sure about the kayak? Serious Q!

Yup, I think so, but happy to be corrected if I've missed something. It is another shortcoming in colregs that rowed/paddled boats have no place in the "power gives way to sail" hierarchy so you don't know where you stand, but things like rule 9a apply to all vessels so must apply to kayaks and rowing boats (though not PwCs - there's another glitch). Only if the kayak in question is actually in the fairway or channel of course, rather than in the shallow edges among the bushes

 

[Nigelpickin]

I imagine that the regatta in which Gary found himself caught up was organised and rubber stamped by the local port/river authority and as such may render many of the rules being stated as redundant. Have to say that as an interested observer of this thread I am not Team JFM, there is, (imho), a real need for subjectivity and context when interpreting Colregs. The battle of wits and flexing of muscle is great fun but the danger is that some may take this as some sort of unbendable Dogma. The truth is that rule 9 a,b or z were not created to cater for either the op's or Gary's sitch' and I have to say, any hooha in a 20m yacht barging through our local regatta citing exemption clauses would be on the receiving end of some rather working class language.

I read Gary's post as relating to rudness and perhaps frustration. Fair play to him for keeping his cool and not trying to stream through on the back of a contextually inappropriate rule. What he did it would seem was adhere to the more prudent advice to be found in rule 5.

Do you really think that wholy objective rules would improve this boating life? I think if you take that to its natural conclusion our hobby would become uninsurable at best, unbearable at worst...

But an interesting thread none the less, even if only for the Lazarus like return of a certain forumite

 

[Cozzy]

Fascinating reading this but then again, I am boat less :-/

A couple of things pop into mind here which do not support either side the debate one bit so feel free to pass over my ramblings and get on with it

Regulations are fine but surely it's is common sense and courtesy which should prevail in these situations however, I realise that common sense in not "common" and courtesy is thrown out the window when there is a race to be won

In my previous sport it was common to catch a slower car on a special stage or indeed be caught as the slower car. There is no regulation for this scenario but the sporting thing to do is get out of the way - fast. It is an adrenalin fuelled sport so if you are not courteous you can expect an accidental tap on the backside

I already suggested what I would do in the OPs situation but for the life of me I can't imagine what I'd do in Gary's case. He managed it well IMO as although he didn't receive courtesy he used his to diffuse the situation. I think if I was there I would have just followed the tacking boats until I could pass and ignore the others. I can't see where my rally driving experience could have helped me here

 

[l'escargot]

Yeah but that get out as you call it will not win the day. A sailboat with an engine can turn it on to overcome the "practicable" problem - there is no exemption from 9a due to merely wanting to sail. If the sailboat is so small it has no engine then it's a dinghy and can tack upwind up the channel using only half the channel's width so leaving loads of room for Gary. (Just to disclose, I am very much a sailor as much as a mobo-ist. I have helmed Mirabella V, a Mirror, and much in between@ 30 to 100 feet. I own a Laser and can definitely tack it up the Hamble leaving enough space for a 30 foot mobo to get by ). In the rare case of a big sailboat with no engine then I agree with you, but that wasn't Gary's or OP's case

Possibly not if a collision occurs, rule 2 probably infers an obligation to use an engine to prevent a collision but only when it becomes clear a risk of collision exists not simply to make something practicable or "just in case". I think that may be an example of you reading into the rules something that people helming large boats, and probably many motorboaters, would like to see - that sailing boats use their engines for their convenience, possibly because in some cases they simply just don't understand sailing. There is no obligation under ColRegs to do so for such a purpose - not under rule 9 or any other rule in the ColRegs, although I accept it does sometimes come into local regulations but not in the Hamble AFAIK..

...which brings us back to the stupid guesswork in this rule. How can a guy who first saw the other boat 3 minutes ago know better than its skipper? Why should the rules ask him to decide?

That is unavoidable. He doesn't need to know better than the skipper, just the same, so we have to presume a certain level of competence amongst people on the water - although that is a big ask. When there are two parties, both are needed to make a decision on the application all of the rules. Ultimately, if it all goes wrong, a third party who wasn't even there will also make a decision on the rules and the original two parties will be held to account for their decisions

Yup. Well, I agree the sentiment behind your broadbrushing, but come to think of it, I think perhaps few mobo-ists are knowledgeable* enough on the switch to rule 9 when in channels and therefore arguably don't assert their rule 9 rights enough. Everyone is taught the general collision rules without being reminded they are sort of "open water" only.

I think you could probably say the same about sailors - although then you get into the whole minefield of defining a fairway, channel and narrow channel. Personally, I am basically a lazy sailor and can't be bothered to short tack my boat up somewhere like the Hamble - too much like hard work

*BTW I should admit that I only bothered to read this in detail because last year I found myself doing the Hamble for first time in many years. The rule stuck in my head because I had the luxury of >20m which meant I was exempted from 9b. So I was (broadly) free to impede others while they were obliged not to impede me. All I had to do was stick to the stb side of the channel! Nice position to be in, though I didn't abuse it (much)

Overall I still think the ColRegs are a pretty good solution to open water and they have been revised and updated over the years to introduce changes considered necessary - the powers that be must still consider them fit for purpose. I do think it questionable though whether they are strictly applicable to a situation such as that which Gary found himself in or whether they are intended to be applied in such situations but, I suppose in the absence of any specific local regulations, there is nothing else.

 

[Elessar]

Yeah but that get out as you call it will not win the day. A sailboat with an engine can turn it on to overcome the "practicable" problem - there is no exemption from 9a due to merely wanting to sail. If the sailboat is so small it has no engine then it's a dinghy and can tack upwind up the channel using only half the channel's width so leaving loads of room for Gary. (Just to disclose, I am very much a sailor as much as a mobo-ist. I have helmed Mirabella V, a Mirror, and much in between@ 30 to 100 feet. I own a Laser and can definitely tack it up the Hamble leaving enough space for a 30 foot mobo to get by ). In the rare case of a big sailboat with no engine then I agree with you, but that wasn't Gary's or OP's case

Possibly not if a collision occurs, rule 2 probably infers an obligation to use an engine to prevent a collision but only when it becomes clear a risk of collision exists not simply to make something practicable or "just in case". I think that may be an example of you reading into the rules something that people helming large boats, and probably many motorboaters, would like to see - that sailing boats use their engines for their convenience, possibly because in some cases they simply just don't understand sailing. There is no obligation under ColRegs to do so for such a purpose - not under rule 9 or any other rule in the ColRegs, although I accept it does sometimes come into local regulations but not in the Hamble AFAIK..

...which brings us back to the stupid guesswork in this rule. How can a guy who first saw the other boat 3 minutes ago know better than its skipper? Why should the rules ask him to decide?

That is unavoidable. He doesn't need to know better than the skipper, just the same, so we have to presume a certain level of competence amongst people on the water - although that is a big ask. When there are two parties, both are needed to make a decision on the application all of the rules. Ultimately, if it all goes wrong, a third party who wasn't even there will also make a decision on the rules and the original two parties will be held to account for their decisions

Yup. Well, I agree the sentiment behind your broadbrushing, but come to think of it, I think perhaps few mobo-ists are knowledgeable* enough on the switch to rule 9 when in channels and therefore arguably don't assert their rule 9 rights enough. Everyone is taught the general collision rules without being reminded they are sort of "open water" only.

I think you could probably say the same about sailors - although then you get into the whole minefield of defining a fairway, channel and narrow channel. Personally, I am basically a lazy sailor and can't be bothered to short tack my boat up somewhere like the Hamble - too much like hard work

*BTW I should admit that I only bothered to read this in detail because last year I found myself doing the Hamble for first time in many years. The rule stuck in my head because I had the luxury of >20m which meant I was exempted from 9b. So I was (broadly) free to impede others while they were obliged not to impede me. All I had to do was stick to the stb side of the channel! Nice position to be in, though I didn't abuse it (much)

Overall I still think the ColRegs are a pretty good solution to open water and they have been revised and updated over the years to introduce changes considered necessary - the powers that be must still consider them fit for purpose. I do think it questionable though whether they are strictly applicable to a situation such as that which Gary found himself in or whether they are intended to be applied in such situations but, I suppose in the absence of any specific local regulations, there is nothing else.

Have to say this has become quite interesting and thought provoking. J's interpretation of 9a is quite hardline and whilst I'd wager on him being right in court, it is not how the colregs work in practice in a river, because we do by convention allow people to sail because they want to. Whilst he was technically 100% right in Match and his 5 hoots, some of the words said in his wake would not have been the language of a court.

I do agree though that less ignorance of the rules would reduce stress, some sailors don't even know that sail has to give way when overtaking, leave alone when crossing. As for the stand on mobo that turned to port outside cowes on Saturday as we were closing at 35 knots and I was starting to give way, well that's even more basic.

As for updates, apart from the poor wording, there are increasing examples of the way the colregs are applied are contrary to the rules. (Even before Daka woke back up.) The use of the VHF for collision avoidance is the most stark, and with AIS removing ambiguity there is no reason why this isn't good practice.

 

[l'escargot]

Fascinating reading this but then again, I am boat less :-/

A couple of things pop into mind here which do not support either side the debate one bit so feel free to pass over my ramblings and get on with it

Regulations are fine but surely it's is common sense and courtesy which should prevail in these situations however, I realise that common sense in not "common" and courtesy is thrown out the window when there is a race to be won

In my previous sport it was common to catch a slower car on a special stage or indeed be caught as the slower car. There is no regulation for this scenario but the sporting thing to do is get out of the way - fast. It is an adrenalin fuelled sport so if you are not courteous you can expect an accidental tap on the backside

I already suggested what I would do in the OPs situation but for the life of me I can't imagine what I'd do in Gary's case. He managed it well IMO as although he didn't receive courtesy he used his to diffuse the situation. I think if I was there I would have just followed the tacking boats until I could pass and ignore the others. I can't see where my rally driving experience could have helped me here

I think the bit often forgotten about ColRegs is that most of the contentious rules only come into play once a risk of collision exists - there is plenty of opportunity for common sense and courtesy before that happens and to prevent the need for them to come into play.

However once the rules do come into play, one persons common sense is in danger of becoming the other persons unpredictability - when you are having to base your actions on those of the other person, you are in a far better position if you have a reasonably good idea of what they are going to do (by implementing the rules) than second guessing them. Their idea of common sense might be totally different from yours - having a common understanding of what actions you are both required to take in a specific situation is far better.

In your Motorsport example there was an, albeit unwritten, common understanding that the overtaken car gets out the way. That is the practice that has developed and if rules were to be written in the future that would probably be one of them - pretty much how ColRegs came about.