Sunken yacht in Solent

[Stemar]

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of not using an anchor ball, suffice it to say that I use one, but on insurance, a company might be considered within their rights not to pay out if not using an anchor ball or, especially a light was relevant to the claim, though I would be surprised. In Mark-1's case of being twatted by a RIB at 30 knots on a dark night, I would certainly would expect it to be considered contributory negligence.

Just be glad you don't live in the US, where I understand the small print that says you've got to keep your boat seaworthy was held to mean that an out of date extinguisher was ground for refusing a claim for something as totally unrelated as a failed seacock.

Always remember, insurance companies aren't doing it because they love you, they're doing it to make money out of you.

 

[Boathook]

Just out of curiosity, how many of the average jet skiers would know the significance of the anchor ball if they saw it?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you have a very good lawyer !

 

[Bouba]

You could deny it…for example (and I don’t recommend this) you can say you were putting up the ball when it fell overboard…so you stayed anchored to search for it

 

[Chiara’s slave]

You could deny it…for example (and I don’t recommend this) you can say you were putting up the ball when it fell overboard…so you stayed anchored to search for it

You could say the dog ate it.

 

[Never Grumble]

Ostrich springs to mind, these scams are for money if there is an opportunity they will test it, it's the world we live in today.
Don’t give opportunity, you won't be inconvenienced and have your day ruined.
As John says, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't.

the cash for crash scams in cars are done 1. because its a relatively cheap entry point to buy a victim vehicle for only a few hundred pounds. 2. The action of crashing in a car in a way to apportion the blame on the person being scammed is easy to arrange and 3 work if the person being scammed isn't able to prove their actions. So most of this doesn't apply with the cost of a jet ski/rib/responsibilities under the IRPCS and with most boats carrying some sort of modern electronics which if they are at anchor they could demonstrate this by tracking info on their chart plotter or tablet or an AIS track. Perhaps every time I anchor I should take a picture of my ball, which I always display.

 

[GEM43]

Notwithstanding the aforementioned insurance argument the practical reality is that there are no real consequences from not displaying an anchor ball. Therefore people don’t bother with it. Some aspects of IRPCS are policed - try sailing the wrong way down a shipping lane, but thankfully, there are no anchor ball police. So, one either chooses to comply or not. I choose to adhere because it’s the law and generally I guess I’m a law abiding punter. I MoT the car, I pay my taxes, I don’t nick stuff. I comply with IRPCS. I even bring the ensign in at 21.00 or earlier……

 

[wonkywinch]

I'm nearly 70 years old. In my lifetime I have been in courts several times both as the defendant and as a witness. I've made several insurance claims and been on a few legal responsibilities courses.

From all this, I've learned not to mess with authority or the rules, or think for one moment they don't apply to me or that the small print won't be examined when it's time for someone to write a cheque.

I even fly my ensign according to tradition (but don't dip for HM ships).

 

[Bouba]

I'm nearly 70 years old. In my lifetime I have been in courts several times both as the defendant and as a witness. I've made several insurance claims and been on a few legal responsibilities courses.

From all this, I've learned not to mess with authority or the rules, or think for one moment they don't apply to me or that the small print won't be examined when it's time for someone to write a cheque.

I even fly my ensign according to tradition (but don't dip for HM ships).

Is that because you are a lawyer or a career criminal ?….or are they the same ?*
*asked with love

 

[Mister E]

Where would you put an anchor ball on a jet ski or a small rib?

 

[john_morris_uk]

Where would you put an anchor ball on a jet ski or a small rib?

When was the last time you anchored a jet ski? They’re often moored temporarily just off a beach but I don’t remember seeing one at anchor.

Good point re ribs. If we anchor the small rib that we use as a tender it’ll be either just off a beach in wading range of the shore and I’ll carry that risk or more frequently. We anchor the stern away from a jetty with the bow tied to the jetty so that it doesn’t scrape and bump against the concrete/woodwork with the wash of other boats etc.

 

[ylop]

Where would you put an anchor ball on a jet ski or a small rib?

There's no requirement to show an anchor ball on a vessel <7m in length, unless it's anchored somewhere "unusual".

 

[Bouba]

There's no requirement to show an anchor ball on a vessel <7m in length, unless it's anchored somewhere "unusual".

That’s the point of vessels under 7m…that you can anchor them somewhere unusual…it’s why they make good tenders

 

[Mark-1]

There's no requirement to show an anchor ball on a vessel <7m in length, unless it's anchored somewhere "unusual".

It says "not in or near a narrow channel, fairway or anchorage, or where other vessels normally navigate". I'd say that's pretty much anywhere an open Powerboat would typically anchor, especially in the Solent Area.

Certainly it must be shown in an anchorage and I don't buy the idea that an anchorage is somewhere unusual to anchor.

Moreover, I don't think the fact something is not required by the IRPCS is a reason not to do it. If it gives a significant benefit, it's better to do it regardless of the rules.

 

[Bouba]

It says "not in or near a narrow channel, fairway or anchorage, or where other vessels normally navigate". I'd say that's pretty much anywhere an open Powerboat would typically anchor, certainly in the Solent Area.

Certainly it must be shown if you're in an anchorage.

I would say in summer…´near’ an anchorage means you got there early

 

[Stemar]

the cash for crash scams in cars are done 1. because its a relatively cheap entry point to buy a victim vehicle for only a few hundred pounds. 2. The action of crashing in a car in a way to apportion the blame on the person being scammed is easy to arrange and 3 work if the person being scammed isn't able to prove their actions. So most of this doesn't apply with the cost of a jet ski/rib/responsibilities under the IRPCS and with most boats carrying some sort of modern electronics which if they are at anchor they could demonstrate this by tracking info on their chart plotter or tablet or an AIS track. Perhaps every time I anchor I should take a picture of my ball, which I always display.

There's also no equivalent expectation that the stand on vehicle should take appropriate avoiding action if the give way vehicle doesn't.

I reckon that collisions between two vessels under way where it's found that the "innocent" vessel doesn't bare some of the blame are pretty rare. Not non-existent - if I manage to get myself run down by a big bugger off Cowes, I don't reckon claiming that big bugger made no attempt to miss me would do me any good.

 

[Kwik Decision]

There's also no equivalent expectation that the stand on vehicle should take appropriate avoiding action if the give way vehicle doesn't.

While is isn't stated as an explicit rule, the highway code says the following in the preamble to the General Rules, techniques etc section (rules 103 - 158)...

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

 

[ylop]

It says "not in or near a narrow channel, fairway or anchorage, or where other vessels normally navigate". I'd say that's pretty much anywhere an open Powerboat would typically anchor, especially in the Solent Area.

Certainly it must be shown in an anchorage and I don't buy the idea that an anchorage is somewhere unusual to anchor.

Moreover, I don't think the fact something is not required by the IRPCS is a reason not to do it. If it gives a significant benefit, it's better to do it regardless of the rules.

Ah you are right. I remembered that as “in an anchorage or away from where other vessels normally navigate and not in a narrow fairway or channel” but that is not what it says.

 

[noelex]

The only practical reason to display an anchor ball is the legal implications, but personally I find this reason compelling, This particularly applies when traveling to different countries where the judicial system may not be the same as developed countries. Hence, we always display an anchor ball.

Insurance has been frequently mentioned, and this is an important consideration, but of greater concern are cases where severe injury or death occurs as a result of a collision at anchor. In these circumstances, you do not want any portion of the blame. Obeying all the required regulations removes the risk that in these criminal cases a portion of blame can be assigned to your actions.

Just my 2c.

 

[Bouba]

The only practical reason to display an anchor ball is the legal implications, but personally I find this reason compelling, This particularly applies when traveling to different countries where the judicial system may not be the same as developed countries. Hence, we always display an anchor ball.

Insurance has been frequently mentioned, and this is an important consideration, but of greater concern are cases where severe injury or death occurs as a result of a collision at anchor. In these circumstances, you do not want any portion of the blame. Obeying all the required regulations removes the risk that in these criminal cases a portion of blame can be assigned to your actions.

Just my 2c.

You’re are right....there are worse things than insurance disputes

 

[capnsensible]

Unclear? No it isn't. They'd still pay out.

I'm going quit this futile argument now and leave the last words for others.

If someone wants to post a few cases where claims have been rejected because a vessel has collided with an anchored vessel failing to show a day shape then great, I'll rejoin at that point.