Sail vs power colreg situation

[lotusman]

+1 Lakesailor

 

[l'escargot]

Well, for me, if overtaken, the stand on vessel should keep its course. So tacking alters its course, and there is already a fault.

But bottom line, in this kind of case, is rule 2 from Colregs (and this is also in answers to recent previous posts). It is not because you're the stand on vessel that you should not try to avoid collision. If a collision happens, and if you could have prevented it, then you're clearly guilty.



So in my opinion, the issue lies here with the dingie sailor. Even if the mobo didn't try to take any action and is also guilty to some extent. But it could be the case that he was suprised by the manoeuvre of the dingie in all honesty.

And this is from a yachtie point of view....

The dinghy complied with rule 2 and avoided the collision when the motorboat didn't take any action.

 

[LePacha]

Damn... I knew while typing that I was mispelling dinghy in my previous posts, but I wouldn't have suspected I was "that" far away...

Anyway, as said by l'escargot and lakesailor, true, no collision, so nothing really to complain about. I was more speaking in the case where a collision would have happened.

Truth to be told, who has never done something on the water that other boats couldn't interpret correctly?

 

[John.edwards]

I think there is something in the analogy with road use.

Huge reduction in safety when one user deviates from accepted rules and waives a pedestrian accross or invites another driver to take an unusual priority.

Being at sea is a bit like driving or walking through a supermarket car park - as a driver you know the rules and should respect the vulnerability of pedestrians, and possibly that they lack knowledge of the complexities of driving a vehicle.

I agree. I REFUSE to take on a waved instruction from another road user who wants to be **nice** if doing so means someone in another lane must also be **nice** or also know what is going on. At sea, we should all use sound signals more to alert others to our intentions....even a hail is a good idea, especially in the case starting this thread

 

[timbartlett]

Actually YES if in doubt I think most of us would as pedestrians, bike riders or drivers... I want to atleast believe they have intention of stopping before I pull out/ walk. They might not of seen the lights change, they might not have seen you, they might be jumping the lights. You might not wait for them to stop but you will check they are slowing...

You routinely and automatically stop at green traffic lights? Really?

Then there is no hope. Anyone and everyone must simply stop whenever they see another vehicle or vessel for fear that it might hit them. We might as well screw up the highway code and the colregs.

I hope this helps explain from another point of view...

So you believe that you have the right to deliberately disobey the colregs because you think other people might? Seems a very odd sort of argument, to me. What would happen if everybody thought the same way?

 

[timbartlett]

Well, comparing boats to cars might work for mobos (and even there, only to some extent), but that's about it. It is a little bit more complex. I don't say harder to "drive", but complex. And if you didn't have roads, but just a full area where everybody could drive "freely", then you would have the same issues. No trafic lights out there for us...

I'm afraid you are missing the point.
On the roads, we generally work on the assumption that other drivers will obey the rules. Of course good defensive drivers are aware of the possibility that other road users might not, but no-one (surely?) bases their entire driving/riding strategy on the assumption that every other driver will definitely break the rules. Life would become impossible:
- look, there's a bus coming towards me.
- the rules say we must all drive on the left
- but I know that he might break the rules
- so he might cross over onto the right
- eek! that will put him on my side of the road
- I will cross over and drive on the right just in case

That, I'm afraid, is exactly the kind of logic that is being used by those who say that they always give way to ships even when the rules require them to stand on. The only difference is that I suspect most of us are a lot more familiar with the rules of the road than we are with the Colregs.

 

[Fire99]

I guess you mean that nobody has "Right of Way". Sort of the opposite of "Give Way".

Richard

Sorry, yes that's what I meant... I was nearly accurate.

No-one has absolute right of way.. My understanding of the rules is that the 'Stand On' Vessel does exactly that so as to avoid confusion and boats all 'avoiding' only to end up actually causing a collision.

But, if the other vessel doesn't do their bit, get out of the way!!

 

[Talulah]

On the roads, we generally work on the assumption that other drivers will obey the rules. .....

The road analogy has one slight complication.
If a motor boat was being impeded by a dinghy the motor boat could open up the throttles and create a safe distance.
Apply logic and do the same in a car and you can guarantee a speed camera will have been installed at that very location.

 

[LePacha]

I'm afraid you are missing the point.
On the roads, we generally work on the assumption that other drivers will obey the rules. Of course good defensive drivers are aware of the possibility that other road users might not, but no-one (surely?) bases their entire driving/riding strategy on the assumption that every other driver will definitely break the rules. Life would become impossible:
- look, there's a bus coming towards me.
- the rules say we must all drive on the left
- but I know that he might break the rules
- so he might cross over onto the right
- eek! that will put him on my side of the road
- I will cross over and drive on the right just in case

That, I'm afraid, is exactly the kind of logic that is being used by those who say that they always give way to ships even when the rules require them to stand on. The only difference is that I suspect most of us are a lot more familiar with the rules of the road than we are with the Colregs.

But I am expecting other people on the sea o apply the rules, but I just don't trust them. Just go and watch a channel to the entrance of a marina for an hour, and you'll understand what I mean. I am playing by the book, and this gives us all some kind of general "idea" of what should be happening. But bottom line is "use your brain and don't trust any other boat". When going at sea, I have 95% of the time passengers on board, and most of them are just coming for a day on the water; they wouldn't be impressed if I was sticking to my gun in a situation saying "I an the stand on vessel, they should give way". It is just common sense. And same on the road. In order to progress/troll this thread, would you go then in some "bad" areas wearing jewellery, your wallet full and expensive clothes, and not expecting to get mugged because "this would be criminal beahviour and against the law" ?You might go, but you would be paying attention to your surroundings and on your guards... It doesn't mean that people wouldn't know the rules or wouldn't abide by them, but you also have to use basic common sense in order to avoid danger.

As for the road, I am 75% with you. The only difference for me is that driving on a road is almost a one dimensional issue (going backward or forward; not that much you can do really to avoid anything that would be bigger than 2 yards wide). Where while sailing, this is 2 dimensional (back.for/ward, but also left/right). There is no proper lane and hence more uncertainties.

 

[timbartlett]

But I am expecting other people on the sea o apply the rules, but I just don't trust them. Just go and watch a channel to the entrance of a marina for an hour, and you'll understand what I mean. I am playing by the book, and this gives us all some kind of general "idea" of what should be happening. But bottom line is "use your brain and don't trust any other boat". When going at sea, I have 95% of the time passengers on board, and most of them are just coming for a day on the water; they wouldn't be impressed if I was sticking to my gun in a situation saying "I an the stand on vessel, they should give way". It is just common sense. And same on the road. In order to progress/troll this thread, would you go then in some "bad" areas wearing jewellery, your wallet full and expensive clothes, and not expecting to get mugged because "this would be criminal beahviour and against the law" ?You might go, but you would be paying attention to your surroundings and on your guards... It doesn't mean that people wouldn't know the rules or wouldn't abide by them, but you also have to use basic common sense in order to avoid danger.

As for the road, I am 75% with you. The only difference for me is that driving on a road is almost a one dimensional issue (going backward or forward; not that much you can do really to avoid anything that would be bigger than 2 yards wide). Where while sailing, this is 2 dimensional (back.for/ward, but also left/right). There is no proper lane and hence more uncertainties.

Oh dear. As soon as I see the words "common sense" in a colregs thread, I just know that they are going to beused to explain why the colregs shouldn't apply to that particular person.

And all to often the excuse is that "I must disobey the colregs because I can'ttrust anybody else to obey them"

That kind of thinking, I'm afraid, is a vicious circle. A can't trust B to obey the colregs, so he decides that he won't obey them C sees A and B ignoring the colregs, so he decides that he will use the same kind of "common sense" and ignore them as well. D, E, F, and G are new to boating, and are keen to do everything right, so they pick up tips from the internet, on which they read posts by A, B, and C explaining that it is "common sense" to ignore the colregs.

And so we go on.

Why is it so difficult to to ask people to read the rules? Think about them. Understand what they are telling you to do. And then just do it?

PS Please tell me you don't really decide to ignore the colregs because you think obeying them won't impress your passengers.

 

[fireball]

Oh dear. As soon as I see the words "common sense" in a colregs thread, I just know that they are going to beused to explain why the colregs shouldn't apply to that particular person.

And all to often the excuse is that "I must disobey the colregs because I can'ttrust anybody else to obey them"

That kind of thinking, I'm afraid, is a vicious circle. A can't trust B to obey the colregs, so he decides that he won't obey them C sees A and B ignoring the colregs, so he decides that he will use the same kind of "common sense" and ignore them as well. D, E, F, and G are new to boating, and are keen to do everything right, so they pick up tips from the internet, on which they read posts by A, B, and C explaining that it is "common sense" to ignore the colregs.

And so we go on.

Why is it so difficult to to ask people to read the rules? Think about them. Understand what they are telling you to do. And then just do it?

PS Please tell me you don't really decide to ignore the colregs because you think obeying them won't impress your passengers.

The colregs say to avoid a collision - most of us manage to do this every time we go out - despite others best efforts to the contrary - therefore we have obeyed the colregs ... simple init ...

 

[LePacha]

Oh dear. As soon as I see the words "common sense" in a colregs thread, I just know that they are going to beused to explain why the colregs shouldn't apply to that particular person.

To be honest, I never said I wouldn't apply them.

And all to often the excuse is that "I must disobey the colregs because I can'ttrust anybody else to obey them"

Sorry if this is the impression I gave. I wanted to say that I do apply them, but I am not trusting other boats when it comes to colregs. And this thread (and the others) are just a good example of what I meant. Apparently, we have divergent opinions on how to interpret the rules (which is a major issue that I didn't suspect at first; most of the time, I thought people were ignorant, but this even worst). Basically, I do apply colregs, but I am always careful about other boats and expecting them to do something wrong. So always ready to have to react quickly.
Same when I used to have a motorbike. You are playing by the same rules as cars, but most of the time, they won't see you, and you have to be ready/prepared to do the manoeuvre that could save your life. I am not saying this is right, but this is reallity.
I don't say that common sense should replace colregs. But when you see that some other people don't seem to share the same understanding, better use then your common sense before it's too late. Common sense could be just depowering your sails to let other overtake you and give you more space.

That kind of thinking, I'm afraid, is a vicious circle. A can't trust B to obey the colregs, so he decides that he won't obey them C sees A and B ignoring the colregs, so he decides that he will use the same kind of "common sense" and ignore them as well. D, E, F, and G are new to boating, and are keen to do everything right, so they pick up tips from the internet, on which they read posts by A, B, and C explaining that it is "common sense" to ignore the colregs.

Sorry again, see above, this is not what I wanted to convey. There shouldn't be any "personal" interpretation when it comes to colregs. That being said, I refuse to sink my boat or die because somebody is not able to "think".

And so we go on.

Why is it so difficult to to ask people to read the rules? Think about them. Understand what they are telling you to do. And then just do it?

100% agreed.

PS Please tell me you don't really decide to ignore the colregs because you think obeying them won't impress your passengers.

I am abiding by the rules. Now as a skipper, what is important is the safety of my passengers. And believe it or not, as a skipper you have a responsibility to the safety of your crew. Saying "I followed the colregs" is not enough and won't exhonerate you.

I think this is all a big mistake really, as I do agree with most of your post. Let's say that not being a native contributes to the poor way I am expressing my views on the matter.

 

[onesea]

Another fantastic ColReg thread which once again shows that everyone has their own, unshakeable opinion on what is correct. All at odds with one another.

It's taken 2 days to disagree on this simple non-incident. Something that the helms of both boats had 20 seconds to agree on, without communication.

As others have said. It didn't happen. No-one was hurt, no boat was damaged.
The dinghy sailor would have lost much less time and boat speed by being gentlemanly and tacking early instead of holding onto his perceived status.

The videographer deserves to be prosecuted for befouling the calm peace of the river with his disgusting language

THink I am about to get ignored by a few
Its great isnt it, I have not even seen the video will not be able to for 4 weeks. Has made me smile though... Interesting some of the points that can get raised

You routinely and automatically stop at green traffic lights? Really?

Then there is no hope. Anyone and everyone must simply stop whenever they see another vehicle or vessel for fear that it might hit them. We might as well screw up the highway code and the colregs.

Lovely miss quote here more a case of I want to be shure the other car will has stopped before I will put my self in front of a moving object when the lights have change... I tried to make that clear...

So you believe that you have the right to deliberately disobey the colregs because you think other people might? Seems a very odd sort of argument, to me. What would happen if everybody thought the same way?

Its not about disobey its about interpret...

Allot comes down to a simple question...

When is risk of collision deemed to exist?

 

[timbartlett]

The colregs say to avoid a collision - most of us manage to do this every time we go out - despite others best efforts to the contrary - therefore we have obeyed the colregs ... simple init ...

No. Many people clearly do not obey the colregs. Many openly boast about not doing so, and hurl all sort of insults at those who do. I'd say that they have avoided collision partly through luck and partly through the skill and judgement of those who have managed to avoid them despite their erratic behaviour

That being said, I refuse to sink my boat or die because somebody is not able to "think".

There is absolutely nothing in the colregs that requires you to do so. Unfortunately, there are many here who boast that they do not apply the colregs because it is "common sense" not to do so.

That, IMHO, is quite different from applying the colregs and then using one of the permitted escape routes if things go wrong.

...Let's say that not being a native contributes to the poor way I am expressing my views on the matter.

Possibly -- but I wouldn't like to try discussing the colregs in a foreign language! And my interpretation of what you are saying may be coloured by some of the opinions I've come across expressed by native english speakers!

Its not about disobey its about interpret...

Allot comes down to a simple question...

When is risk of collision deemed to exist?

There are plenty of people on here who seem to think that Rule 17 should not exist and therefore it is OK to ignore it. That, IMO, is "disobey". I find it difficult to interpret "Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed." as meaning anything remotely resembling
"Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall alter course or speed at will"

As for the simple question: "such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;"

Did I mention that it would be a good idea to read the rules for yourself?

 

[onesea]

"Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed." as meaning anything remotely resembling
"Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall alter course or speed at will"

As for the simple question: "such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;"

Did I mention that it would be a good idea to read the rules for yourself?

So the weather is clear I am in open waters beating in my sailing boat thinking another 30 mins I will need to tack to make port for dinner...

I see on the horizon a ship, I take a serious of compass bearings they remain constant... The ship is still a good distance away, the compass bearings are not changing appreciably, a risk of collision is deemed to exist.

I must now stand on into the path of vessel? Even though I want to tack and make port safely in another direction from the the vessel?

If ship had already altered to avoid me and compass bearings where changing then yes I probably would he has altered course for me.

Lets be sensible... If we all did this no one would reach there destination... Particularly when you consider multi boat situations..

As for Col Reg's I have got as copy or 2 and may of even read them once or twice.

 

[timbartlett]

So the weather is clear I am in open waters beating in my sailing boat thinking another 30 mins I will need to tack to make port for dinner...

I see on the horizon a ship, I take a serious of compass bearings they remain constant... The ship is still a good distance away, the compass bearings are not changing appreciably, a risk of collision is deemed to exist.

I must now stand on into the path of vessel? Even though I want to tack and make port safely in another direction from the the vessel?

If ship had already altered to avoid me and compass bearings where changing then yes I probably would he has altered course for me.

Lets be sensible... If we all did this no one would reach there destination... Particularly when you consider multi boat situations..

As for Col Reg's I have got as copy or 2 and may of even read them once or twice.

Then read them again, and stop trying to think of imaginary situations in which you might be able to concoct an excuse for arguing that they shouldn't apply to you.

Why are you so keen to break the colregs anyway? Is it something like sink estatate teenagers bragging about their ASBOs? -- middle-class yotties swaggering around the sailing club swilling lager and shouting at their mates "Hey, guess what? I broke a colreg today. Tacked under the bows of a container ship and there wasn't a thing he could do about it".

 

[onesea]

Then read them again, and stop trying to think of imaginary situations in which you might be able to concoct an excuse for arguing that they shouldn't apply to you.

I made up a simple imaginary scenario's there, but these things happen every day in busy waterways round the world...

Do you continue on a Starboard Tack into a racing fleet or do you just throw a tack in and let them past?

Do you sail under the bow of a ship because you are sail and have right of way 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 have kept this in terms of sail as it is a sailing forum but it could apply to many types of boats ships around the world...

I think more often than not as comes out of these discussions a little consideration for other vessels goes a long way.

Why are you so keen to break the colregs anyway? Is it something like sink estatate teenagers bragging about their ASBOs? -- middle-class yotties swaggering around the sailing club swilling lager and shouting at their mates "Hey, guess what? I broke a colreg today. Tacked under the bows of a container ship and there wasn't a thing he could do about it".

If you read what I have written that is quite often the exact opposite to what I am stating... A little more consideration and a little bit less ASBO like behaviour...

 

[James_Calvert]

Please forgive naughty word near the end, but not my vid so can't bleep it.

This is my brother helming our dinghy, recklessly, in my view.

I don't think the mobo is constrained by draft, but I still blame the raggy for the near miss - does the panel agree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE-HTjYBkAg

I've been following this and the related thread, but only now looked at the video.

I had thoroughly convinced myself that the motor cruiser was totally in the wrong, either from the power gives way to sail or the overtaking rule, whatever. But in the video it's obviously the sailor at fault. Whatever the rules say, it was the sailor who had the realistic options to avoid the t-boning once he'd tacked. And I don't see what the powerboat could have done differently, given where it was in the river. After all you wouldn't expect a sailor to aim for a collision would you?

But I've never sailed in the Broads, so maybe I'm wrong..

 

[Lakesailor]

You're just sensible. Unlike many who are posting from the their fundaments on the matter.

 

[Chrusty 1]

You're just sensible. Unlike many who are posting from the their fundaments on the matter.

What makes me smile is all the "interpretations" of the colregs The colregs are not there to be interpreted, they are there to be obeyed to the letter, why is that so hard for some of these contributors to understand?

I thinks it's akin to people that see a 40mph sign, and "interpret" that to mean they can travel at 50 or 60 mph. Or is it more akin to the arrogant attitude of "rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men".