Collision today

[Daveinet]

I think it is critical to point out that the first hand account stated that the sailboat tacked just prior to collision. It would be reasonable to assume the sailboat took evasive action, just as unfortunately required. From the power boat perspective, if he had a plan to evade contact, and the sailboat changed course, it matters not why the sailboat changed course, but that change in course may have been the final cause of the accident. Did the Colregs actually cause the accident???

 

[Stu Jackson]

Did the Colregs actually cause the accident???

I am sure you meant this in humor.
Regulations don't cause accidents, people do.

 

[Davidasailor26]

I think it is critical to point out that the first hand account stated that the sailboat tacked just prior to collision. It would be reasonable to assume the sailboat took evasive action, just as unfortunately required. From the power boat perspective, if he had a plan to evade contact, and the sailboat changed course, it matters not why the sailboat changed course, but that change in course may have been the final cause of the accident. Did the Colregs actually cause the accident???

The COLREGS say the give way vessel should
"Take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel." If the powerboat didn't take the early action to provide safe sea room to the sailboat, that doesn't make subsequent action by the sailboat the fault of the rules.

 

[Daveinet]

The COLREGS say the give way vessel should
"Take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel." If the powerboat didn't take the early action to provide safe sea room to the sailboat, that doesn't make subsequent action by the sailboat the fault of the rules.

But if the sailboat did not follow the rules, and maintained course, the accident would not have occurred. (assuming the power boat intended to miss the sailboat, based on the original course of the sailboat)

 

[jviss]

that doesn't make subsequent action by the sailboat the fault of the rules.

...whatever that means.

 

[JohnShannon]

Is this a case of "power over sail"? Appears to be so

 

[Stu Jackson]

Davidasailor26 said: ↑
that doesn't make subsequent action by the sailboat the fault of the rules.


...whatever that means.

Actually it makes perfect sense. A few posts ago we mentioned the regs and people. This logically follows, no pretzels.

 

[Stu Jackson]

A first hand witness account:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2702143#post2702143

Hypotheticals and "information not in evidence" earlier surmised by altogether too many on this topic notwithstanding.

 

[Captmayhem]

he changed tack? bastard, hang him!
Not sure that post can be used in testimony,but it hangs the stink pot
turned on the vhf? are you kidding me

 

[Benny17441]

The insurance companies will settle it according to insurance guidelines. There were no injuries so the USCG will close the case. next!

 

[PotomacDaysailer]

Not quite. As I read the rules the obligation is to hold course until just before it's too late - a time when action is necessary based on demonstrated inaction of the other boat.

[...]

I think that Scott's point, with which I agree, was and is that "hold course until just before it's too late" is such a subjective standard, so easily second-guessed or manipulated after the fact to mitigate blame on the at-fault party, that it shouldn't be codified at all, as it apparently is by including the language in the regs. In a 50/50 situation the argument may have merit but in a 99/1 if not 100/0 situation such as all available information indicates this collision was, it's pointless to say the 1% guy shares some of the blame.
By the way what if the sailing vessel skipper had put his helm hard over at the last minute ("just before it was too late") and the other skipper had looked up at the same moment, said "holy crap!" and reflexively thrown his helm hard over too? (How do we know that didn't happen?) At any rate then the sailboat skipper would still earn 1% blame by the last-minute maneuver when he should have stood on, is that not so?

 

[jviss]

At any rate then the sailboat skipper would still earn 1% blame by the last-minute maneuver when he should have stood on, is that not so?

That is not so. At the point where you are maneuvering to avoid a collision you are not obligated to stand on. Pretty simple, I think.

By the way what if the sailing vessel skipper had put his helm hard over at the last minute ("just before it was too late") and the other skipper had looked up at the same moment, said "holy crap!" and reflexively thrown his helm hard over too?

The colregs call for both to turn to starboard in this situation, and if the powerboat had it presumably wouldn't have hit the sailboat, and the sailboat would have been presenting a smaller target than broadside.

 

[Daveinet]

There is still a problem. If the sailboat turned, how did the power boat T-bone him? Before contact, both boats must have been traveling in a near head on collision. Prior to the sailboat turning down wind, the power boat would have only needed to make a small correction, or possibly no correction at all, depending on the timing. The sailboat turning downwind would have accelerated.

 

[Will Gilmore]

This thread has grown so fast that I haven't been able to follow all the action after about page 5 or 6.
I've been hoping someone would eventually point out that the regs specifically state that the stand on vessel has an obligation to hold its course and speed. If that is not possible avoid collision, the stand on vessels must adjusts its course in such a way that there is no doubt of the stand on vessel's intent. This is to make for an easily predictable heading and speed so the give way vessel doesn't inadvertently turn into the stand on vessel.

I agree that there is some exaggeration or errors in judgment around wind speed and boat speeds. I don't know about modern commercial charter boats today, but the ones that look like that one, I grew up around, could rarely exceed 20 knots. However, that's plenty fast. To have ridden up over the J boat like that and hit her on the windward side without knocking her over, she couldn't have been heeling much at all. This means no wind.
To me, of I'm ghosting along and I see a powerboat like that heading for me a mile out, I'd assume she saw me, she's fast maneuverable and has excellent visibility. If she doesn't appear to see me, by the time I've decided I need to raise her on the radio, I think there wouldn't be time for any action.

That powerboat had every reason to keep away by at least 1/4 mile. It shouldn't have even been close.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[jviss]

There is still a problem. If the sailboat turned, how did the power boat T-bone him? Before contact, both boats must have been traveling in a near head on collision. Prior to the sailboat turning down wind, the power boat would have only needed to make a small correction, or possibly no correction at all, depending on the timing. The sailboat turning downwind would have accelerated.

I don't recall reading anywhere that the sailboat turned, other than a comment here.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I don't recall reading anywhere that the sailboat turned, other than a comment here.

It was in that Cruisers forum account by "Winch". That was posted much earlier and I read the entire thread. He said that somebody on the fishing boat said they saw the sailboat tack. It is basically hearsay since it wasn't 1st hand. We also can't know by the description if the tack (if it even occurred) was mere seconds before the collision or just a minute or so before the collision. There really is no conclusive evidence just yet, as far as I can tell.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I think it is critical to point out that the first hand account stated that the sailboat tacked just prior to collision.

Except that it was hearsay … the writer heard it from another passenger. It's also hard to know if the tack was mere seconds before the hit or perhaps a minute or so before the hit. Perhaps the passenger noted the sailboat from a quarter mile away and saw a tack. So it's hard to know, if there was a tack, why the tack would have been made., or if it even makes a difference.

 

[kloudie1]

I don't understand why the powerboat didn't go behind him.. would make a tack irrelevant .. Same kind of obtuse, irresponsible, unconscious dolt that races around you in traffic then slams on brakes and slows and turns.. (rant over)

 

[JamesG161]

The insurance companies will settle it according to insurance guidelines.

That is what will happen! USCG out of it!

Not sure about the license of the Powerboat Captain.
I suspect it will be the same as your commercial Landlubber license.
Accidents, your fault or not, do affect your insurability.
Jim...

PS: It will be even easier if both boats have the same Insurance carrier.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I think that Scott's point, with which I agree, was and is that "hold course until just before it's too late" is such a subjective standard, so easily second-guessed or manipulated after the fact to mitigate blame on the at-fault party, that it shouldn't be codified at all, as it apparently is by including the language in the regs. In a 50/50 situation the argument may have merit but in a 99/1 if not 100/0 situation such as all available information indicates this collision was, it's pointless to say the 1% guy shares some of the blame.
By the way what if the sailing vessel skipper had put his helm hard over at the last minute ("just before it was too late") and the other skipper had looked up at the same moment, said "holy crap!" and reflexively thrown his helm hard over too? (How do we know that didn't happen?) At any rate then the sailboat skipper would still earn 1% blame by the last-minute maneuver when he should have stood on, is that not so?

Yes, that's exactly my point. If the circumstance is as clear as the photograph portrays, I don't know how anybody in this forum could hold the captain of the sailboat partially to blame. Yet, there are numerous folks in here that apparently do. That's precisely why I have a problem with that single clause in the Colreg. It apparently leads many people to assume that blame has to be placed on both parties when there is a collision.
If that were the case, what would be the point of all the rest of the Colregs? If there is simply one clause that contradicts all the rules that are so carefully laid out to describe which boat "must not impede" and which boat "must not be impeded" then why should any of the rules be taken seriously?
(from the descriptions of many boater's experiences, apparently the rules are not taken seriously - perhaps the Colregs could do better? )