Daniel5
Well-Known Member
I think both were guilty. Col regs say we are all supposed to take action to avoid a collision.
Sail vs power colreg situation
- Thread starter maxcampbell
- Start date
lw395
Well-Known Member
I don't think he did anything wrong, didn't hit the boat, just dithered a bit before deciding to bear away behind the mobo instead of tacking early. Nothing wrong, just not what I'd have done. It doesn't hurt to say to the mobo driver 'carry on, I'll tack' or somesuch. The last thing you want him to do is a panic stop, you want him to keep going in a predictable fashion and be out of your way soonest.
T
timbartlett
Guest
You are boasting about breaking the colregs. You are apparently encouraging others to do so and to believe that it is quite acceptable to do so. That sounds pretty ASBO-like to me.
Please explain why you think deliberate law-breaking is "showing consideration".
Have I ever suggested that? Can you point out where the colregs say anything about anyone having "right of way"?
Last edited:
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
So the rules can be ignored then, the powerboat couldn't slow down or steer around from the sailing boat and he wasn't aiming for a collision too?
And the fact that it happened on the broad doesn't make it any different either.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
It's pretty clear to me that the powerboat was at fault, but that the dinghy saved the day. No breach of Colregs took place as there was no collision as a result of the sailors actions. 
aslabend
Well-Known Member
Is the positioning of the power boat partly to blame? If it was me faced with a ducking and diving dinghy I think I'd have tried to be more in the middle of the channel for a bit of extra wiggle room. Still think the dinghy showed a remarkable lack of sense. Nothing there should result in a slanging match.
onesea
Well-Known Member
OK Stand on vessel...
Sorry about a little slip in terminology..
So again you are telling me the following are correct:
Continue on a Starboard Tack into a racing fleet or do you just throw a tack in and let them past?
Sail under the bow of a ship because you are sail stand on vessel or do you make clear concise adjustment before a situation develops and let them passed?
Seeing a group of ships proceeding down a TSS that you want to cross, do you stand on into TSS or slow down let them pass before crossing?
Do you continue to sail at the boat practising MOB because you have to? (yes I have asked this before).
I probably will carry on with my "interpretation" of the rules, go on give me an ASBO.
Except maybe for sailing schools dropping MOB drills in front of me, I do find sailing round these rather tedious, at this point the rules will apply...
Apologies to any instructors out there...
lustyd
Well-Known Member
The thing is, the moment you tack the rules cease to apply since there is no longer a collision risk therefore you're right in all cases.
T
timbartlett
Guest
But it wasn't "a little slip in terminology" it was symptomatic of a very serious (but very common) misunderstanding of the colregs in general and Rule 17 in particular. The colregs do not give anyone "rights" over anyone else. They impose obligations. And one of the most important of those is the obligation to stand on when the rules tell you to do so.
It is just as much a part of the collision regulations as the requirement to keep a lookout, show the appropriate lights, or keep to the starboard side of a channel.
Continue on a Starboard Tack into a racing fleet or do you just throw a tack in and let them past? Not enough information..
Sail under the bow of a ship because you are sail stand on vessel or do you make clear concise adjustment before a situation develops and let them passed?No. But the question indicates your ignorance of Rule 17.
Seeing a group of ships proceeding down a TSS that you want to cross, do you stand on into TSS or slow down let them pass before crossing?Not enough information.
Do you continue to sail at the boat practising MOB because you have to? (yes I have asked this before).Yes
Apology accepted. Now go and read a book about the colregs and come back so that we can have a sensible discussion.
PS: Feel free to answer my questions first:
- Please explain why you think deliberate law-breaking is "showing consideration".
- Have I ever suggested that [Do you sail under the bow of a ship because you are sail and have right of way]?
- Can you point out where the colregs say anything about anyone having "right of way"?
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Ah. Now.
The purpose of the Col Regs is what?
Is to lay down a legal framework by which to avoid the chance of a collision between vessels?
If by altering course you obviate the chance of a collision, then the Col Regs no longer apply.
So the choice lies with the mariner as to whether he (or she) places themselves in a situation in which Col Regs may apply.
Again I say, the possibility of a collision between a motor cruiser and a dinghy reaching a court of law is so far beyond the realms of probability that if you wish to invent some hypothetical situation in which it may occur, then you have lost the sense of wonder that being a sailor engenders.
If you find that you are constrained entirely in your sailing by the threat of impending legal action then I suggest you take up knitting. Much safer.
T
timbartlett
Guest
I thought I was pretty cynical about some legislation, but I'm afraid that makes me look like a real starry-eyed idealist.
Not all legislation exists for the sole purpose of exacting punishments and collecting penalties. Some of it is to make life better.
So call me naive, but I believe the purpose of the colregs is exactly what the name says -- to prevent collisions. Obeying the colregs is no more onerous than deciding to drive on the left hand side of the road, and most of the time it involves very little more conscious thought. If a collision occurs then clearly something has gone wrong, but whether it subsequently goes to court or not is beside the point: the possibility of legal action is certainly not what makes me think colliding with other vessels is likely to be less fun than avoiding them!
I'm guessing from the context that "If by altering course you obviate the chance of a collision, then the Col Regs no longer apply" is yet another excuse for why small craft should (in your opinion) be exempt from Rule 17. But it doesn't work that way.
The steering and sailing rules (with one exception) specify that in a potential collision situation, one vessel is obliged to manoeuvre so as to keep clear of the other. If both vessels manoeuvre independently, then there is a distinct possibility that the efforts of one will cancel out the effect of the whatever the other has done. In very simple terms, if they are heading towards each other, and one alters to starboard while the other alters to port, then the only thing they have achieved is that they collide in a different place.
I really don't see why that is so difficult to understand. We see it in supermarket aisles and on footpaths and doorways every day. One way to prevent it is by defining the action to be taken by both vessels (as in the rule for power driven vessels meeting head on) The other is to insist that one vessel stand on and allow the other to manoeuvre round it.
I agree that Rule 17 doesn't seem to make much sense in isolation, but it is essential if the other steering and sailing rules are to be effective.
The really funny thing is that although plenty of people seem quite happy to argue that Rule 17 shouldn't apply to them, or openly boast of ignoring it, none of them seem prepared to admit that by doing so they are choosing to break the law. Why is that, I wonder? Are you the exception? Are you brave enough to admit that you knowingly and deliberately flout the collision regulations? Or do you obey Rule 17 just like any other?
onesea
Well-Known Member
Just avoid the situation...
Just be careful cause once you are amongst the racing fleet or near the traffic you do HAVE TO follow the rules...
Personally I try and avoid that situation
less traffic and pleasant sailing...
onesea
Well-Known Member
It is sad the attitude that has prevailed here and in a personnel email received.
If it is such that vessels should not consider common seamanship practices. So that instructors/ examiners expect yachts to be carved up there MOB drills/ lessons. There students subsequently learn that is what is expect.
It is little wonder that the sailing community (WAFI's) is held in such low regard in professional marine circles...
When have I suggested people deliberately break the law? I have only suggested that by being realistic it is often possible to stop the Risk of collision developing in the first place, in the practice of good seamanship.
No you just insist that a vessel must stand on as soon as risk of collision is deemed to exist.
I apologized and corrected myself already for this slip but you seem determined to hammer the point… It does not it says stand on vessel…
And you still have not sold me on buying your book
Last edited:
lustyd
Well-Known Member
I wonder Tim, are you one of those people who cuts accross my bows in order to pass to starboard?
All mariners are aware that vessels change course quite often. Since the colregs only apply where there is a risk of collision that is then subjective as to when a risk exists. A dinghy sailor won't consider collision a possibility until 5 feet from my hull, and I don't consider it a collision risk until I'm 100 yards or so from someone. This isn't because I'm a risk taker, it's because I know that boats can turn and miss each other quite easily. If I tack when you think I'm the stand on vessel therefore, perhaps it's because I KNEW I wouldn't hit you and therefore the colregs don't apply at all. This is demonstrated by the fact that I have yet to hit anyone despite tacking out of their way when I am the stand on vessel.
The trick is to make your change of course obvious enough and big enough that the other party recognises the fact. Tacking falls into this category. Before tacking you should obviously look at what they are doing, if they have not made a drastic course alteration then you will be fine!
All mariners are aware that vessels change course quite often. Since the colregs only apply where there is a risk of collision that is then subjective as to when a risk exists. A dinghy sailor won't consider collision a possibility until 5 feet from my hull, and I don't consider it a collision risk until I'm 100 yards or so from someone. This isn't because I'm a risk taker, it's because I know that boats can turn and miss each other quite easily. If I tack when you think I'm the stand on vessel therefore, perhaps it's because I KNEW I wouldn't hit you and therefore the colregs don't apply at all. This is demonstrated by the fact that I have yet to hit anyone despite tacking out of their way when I am the stand on vessel.
The trick is to make your change of course obvious enough and big enough that the other party recognises the fact. Tacking falls into this category. Before tacking you should obviously look at what they are doing, if they have not made a drastic course alteration then you will be fine!
T
timbartlett
Guest
Whether you choose to buy my book or not makes no difference. You have made it abundantly clear that you regard yourself and anyone else as free to flout the rules whenever it suits you to do so, so it extremely unlikely that you would ever have considered buying it anyway.It is sad the attitude that has prevailed here and in a personnel email received.
If it is such that vessels should not consider common seamanship practices. So that instructors/ examiners expect yachts to be carved up there MOB drills/ lessons. There students subsequently learn that is what is expect.
It is little wonder that the sailing community (WAFI's) is held in such low regard in professional marine circles...
When have I suggested people deliberately break the law? I have only suggested that by being realistic it is often possible to stop the Risk of collision developing in the first place, in the practice of good seamanship.
No you just insist that a vessel must stand on as soon as risk of collision is deemed to exist.
I apologized and corrected myself already for this slip but you seem determined to hammer the point… It does not it says stand on vessel…
And you still have not sold me on buying your book
I am not going to go back through every one of your posts: the over-riding theme throughout all of them hs been the all-too-common attitude that you obey the rules only when it suits you, and claim that it is "common sense" or "good seamanship" to disobey them whenever you feel like it.
Of course, if you can prevent a risk of collision developing by good seamanship, then it makes perfect sense to do so, and -- despite your implication to the contrary -- there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing so. But once a risk has developed, you must act in accordance with the rules.
Yet again, in this post, you have suggested that it is "good seamanship" to deliberately flout the rules -- particularly so, it seems, if you are doing so in front of a boat full of impressionable (?) students. For the umpteenth time, please explain why you consider deliberate law-breaking to be "showing consideration" -- particularly when -- when you are around -- a student practising MoB also has to contend with a boat that is behaving completely unpredictably.
Re WAFIs -- yes: held in low regard because of attitudes such as yours, which say it's OK for amateurs to break the rules that every professional mariner is has been trained to respect since their very first day at sea/nautical college.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
OK Tim, this may be a lack of knowledge on my part but how close must you be for it to be considered a risk of collision, and how do you know when the other skipper deems it to be a collision risk which is the point at which you must adhere to the rules?
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
according to Tims previous posts, 6nm.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Ah sorry hadn't read the whole thread
That's odd though, I'd always considered Tim to be a quite clever bloke based on his books. 6NM would mean that everyone in the Solent would always be subject to colregs. Given that at least half of them would be stand on vessels that means half of them would never be allowed to turn!!!
lw395
Well-Known Member
Ah sorry hadn't read the whole thread
That's odd though, I'd always considered Tim to be a quite clever bloke based on his books. 6NM would mean that everyone in the Solent would always be subject to colregs. Given that at least half of them would be stand on vessels that means half of them would never be allowed to turn!!!
That's the thing with the colregs, it is very clear about 2 boats approaching from over the horizon, less clear with more boats altering course at shorter ranges.
Litotes
Well-Known Member
To bring consistency and predictability to bear when a risk of collision exists.
Of course there are the occasional "hard cases" when the situation is confused, but they are relatively rare, although I concede that they may be more common in the Solent, which is crowded tends to attract more "occasional" sailors than other places. I agree with Tim Bartlett. In practice, the regulations are not hard to apply and the default position is clear - apply them.