Where did this collision occur? Really, isn't life too short to carry grudges?
Collision today
- Thread starter DAVA390
- Start date
jssailem
SBO Weather and Forecasting Forum Jim & John
- Oct 22, 2014
- 22,330
Great place to start. If we only have the photo as fact then it would appear that the Powerboat T-boned the Sailboat, and case is closed. Why closed. Well the belief is the Powerboat is more able to maneuver around the sailboat. The sailboat is a big target. The powerboat was facing the sailboat. All of this may be true but are all guesses. There are no facts to support these guesses. So the photo is not enough.
Thus there are the Colregs to help us understand the rules (decided by National Treaty so that the Nations can get along while their maritime commerce goes on).
What are the "Colregs" a "Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" If all comply with these rules then the hope is we won't have to conduct wars to resolve the issue of who hit who and who needs to pay.
That is an understandable position based on the photo. The great big power boat is sitting on the sailboat.
The Colregs are a tool to how this sharing of blame is applied.
First the rules are laid out so that you start with Rule 1 the highest in priority. Kind of like a "First commandment". You then work down from there. Yet you cannot ignore any of the rules. Rule 1 is always covering all the others.
Rule 1: Application
(a). These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by
seagoing vessels.
The rule goes on but for the purpose of this opinion, bold section pertinent.
Rule 2: Responsibility
(a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
These 2 rules identify the reason that both masters, owners, and crew can be held responsible for the actions taken or not taken while on waters that come under regulation of these rules.(a). These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by
seagoing vessels.
The rule goes on but for the purpose of this opinion, bold section pertinent.
Rule 2: Responsibility
(a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
If you continue reading the rules they identify the Application to all conditions of Visibility, Require all boats to keep a Lookout, etc. When in court, both masters will be tasked to answer to all of the rules even though it would appear in the photo that the answers are evident. If the sailboat master can not identify facts that demonstrate they adhered to all of the rules or took special actions that are against the rules but deemed needed to avoid collision there will be an element of responsibility for the event apportioned.
If you take the objectionable clause in isolation I can understand your issue. But as indicated above you cannot.
I do not see the clause causing the assumption of blame, It is human nature that is the culprit. In reading and applying the rules in the Colreg you must ignore your human nature and limit yourself to the rules as stated and the facts as identified.
Not an easy task for most of us, well maybe lawyers. Professor Kingsfield in the Paper Chase captured the concept. "You come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer. " I did not graduate from Law School, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once.
Very good point.
Very wrong point.
Again, you miss the point. More pretzels. The rules don't make accidents, people do. For example, the stand on vessel STILL HAS THE OBLIGATION to avoid a collision.
Have you ever read Colregs?
This the right way to read the rules.
The subparts are also in the order of precedent too. Exception to those would be noted.
Rule 1 is superior to Rule 2. Subpart a) is superior to b)
The only key here is that the two vessels did not pass safely using good seamanship.
Jim...
That is all very well said. I have to consider that my objection to the clause is based on how I think other people are interpreting that clause. I am basically reacting to many of the comments in this forum and within the cruisers forum where they were commenting on what the sailboat captain should have done.
I'm not considering how the colregs are interpreted by the authorities whom actually make these determinations of fault, which may be entirely different and in a stricter sense of hierarchy.
I have to say that this incident has led to some pretty strong discussion, which is never a bad thing. It's clear that we don't know all the facts. We can only base our discussions on a little bit that was reported, and the photograph, which paints a pretty graphic picture! Perhaps we will learn more about this collision in the future. I feel bad for the parties involved. I'm not sure that either of them should be condemned inordinately harshly. I think that in some cases, accidents may even happen to good people. It's hard to know about this one, yet.
jssailem
SBO Weather and Forecasting Forum Jim & John
- Oct 22, 2014
- 22,330
And I'll ask again: Did you read the first CF link about Colregs that I posted? It is over 11 pages long, quite detailed, and addresses all of the concerns you repeatedly express.
Scott, please, please, please, read it all. I only posted a snippet of the entire thread in my post with that link.
You're a smart guy. Take this opportunity to get smarter. You're not sailing on a lake anymore.
I understood that. Even though it may look like I am placing blame on the sailboat, I am only doing so as devils advocate, showing what could be possible and how the rules cause confusion, rather than making it clear what each boat should do. The definition of both boats doing everything to avoid collision is undefined and confusing, as it can be in contradiction to specific navigation rules.
If the sailboat was pointing up wind, and the power boat was approaching at 10 degrees of the starboard side, it could very well be that the power boat would have crossed well in front of the sailboat. If in fact, the sailboat turned downwind, that puts the sailboat directly in the path of a boat that would have otherwise been missed. I sail on the busiest lake in the country. As such, I deal with power boats constantly. Many will wait till they are within a hundred feet before temporarily changing their course. I often give a friendly wave, so I know they have seen me, if they wave back.
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
Number one rule for ALL skippers is to do anything possible to prevent a collision. If you do not, you can be held partly at fault. We're all making assumptions about various aspects of this mess. To me, it would appear the sailboat, knowing he was on a collision course, could have turned soon enough to avoid a collision. I have had plenty of experiences where the other guy was apparently playing chicken and I clucked. Better safe than fried.
Number one rule for ALL skippers is to do anything possible to prevent a collision. If you do not, you can be held partly at fault. We're all making assumptions about various aspects of this mess. To me, it would appear the sailboat, knowing he was on a collision course, could have turned soon enough to avoid a collision. I have had plenty of experiences where the other guy was apparently playing chicken and I clucked. Better safe than fried.
All this is really fairly simple. Humans need rules to guide our behaviors so we can live in a social world. One of those worlds is on the water and thus we have Colregs.
Colregs tell us what to do in various situations. We humans, being human, sometimes forget the rules, sometimes don't know them, sometimes don't care about them, and sometimes don't understand the rules. The end result is that the rules aren't/weren't followed.
The "last man standing rule" covers any of those 4 situations, if for whatever reason a collision is about to occur and it can be avoided even by breaking the rules, then the rule says avoid the collision.
As for this particular accident, we just don't have the facts presented under oath with appropriate examination and cross-examination. There are an infinite number of possible explanations and the Trier of Facts will be obliged to sort through them and come to a conclusion. When that happens we can discuss whether we agree with the trier of facts decision. Until then, what we know is a power boat traveling at a great speed hit a sailboat and landed on top of her.
Colregs tell us what to do in various situations. We humans, being human, sometimes forget the rules, sometimes don't know them, sometimes don't care about them, and sometimes don't understand the rules. The end result is that the rules aren't/weren't followed.
The "last man standing rule" covers any of those 4 situations, if for whatever reason a collision is about to occur and it can be avoided even by breaking the rules, then the rule says avoid the collision.
As for this particular accident, we just don't have the facts presented under oath with appropriate examination and cross-examination. There are an infinite number of possible explanations and the Trier of Facts will be obliged to sort through them and come to a conclusion. When that happens we can discuss whether we agree with the trier of facts decision. Until then, what we know is a power boat traveling at a great speed hit a sailboat and landed on top of her.
I hear you … I've been all over the chain on power boats. I'm guessing you've never made it to Blarney Island on your sailboat.
You know, it seems that scene hasn't changed in decades!
You know, for many it could be that they just don't get it. They don't understand the colregs, they don't understand the underlying legal and logical principles, and in response they don't say, 'gee, maybe I should try to figure this out,' they say 'it's confusing, undefined, unclear.' I have seen similar reactions by people presented with mathematical and physics concepts.
Please know that this colregs thing isn't some abstract set of rules dreamt up by detached lawyers and bureaucrats, it is a system that has been worked out over hundreds of years and in place worldwide by way of international treaty. It existed in local, mostly unwritten form for centuries until about 170 years ago when, with the advent of steamships, nations started writing regulations and coordinating with other countries. Thousands upon thousands of cases have been examined in light of these rules, millions upon millions of losses at stake have been reconciled, and hundreds upon hundreds of deaths examined in context of these rules. This is not something put into place lightly.
Just because someone doesn't get it doesn't mean it's wrong or lacking or confusing. It is probably that they just don't get it.
Last edited:
It could well be very, very true. jviss's post is superb.
I encourage ALL of you to re-read my CF link in post #145 on page 8 of this thread. Here it is again:
Scott, you may be interested in reading this (Dockhead sails his 54 foot yacht to the Baltic every summer from Cowes. He has written extensively on navigation and Colregs issues.)
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f57/thread-for-basic-colregs-questions-189778.html
The PURPOSE of this link is to expose those who are truly interested in this subject to read what I consider an excellent discussion of almost identical issues. I say almost identical because Dockhead, when he goes to the Baltic from Cowes each summer has to cross the North Sea, which involves MULTIPLE crossing situations, many at the same time. It gets VERY COMPLICATED.
If you reads that link, you'll find the rules are very, very CLEAR. Not confusing.
Used properly, they mitgate collisions. No rule will eliminate them, because, well, people are involved.
Without the rules, as Dockhead says, pandemonium would occur.
Please, please, please, instead of spending the time you have arguing about these rules, read the link and then read the actual Colregs.
IIRC, they are available for free on the web.
Please.
BTW, the US Inland Rules are essentially Colregs with one or two minor modifications for river systems.
That's not fair and it's extremely condescending. Questioning various concepts in a discussion group doesn't demonstrate a lack of understanding. I think this response is just defensiveness for not being able formulate a convincing argument. As Peggie says in her quote (something like) "If you can't explain it to a 6-year old, you probably don't understand it yourself"
I was arguing over a single clause in the Colregs. That hardly qualifies as a "lack of understanding" of the colregs. I'll give you credit for forcing me to identify that clause. Once there, I thought we were getting somewhere, but then it stalled … possibly because your condescension got in the way when you began to label my thinking.
jssailem used just 4 sentences in a single paragraph to convey with complete clarity that he understood my argument and he rebutted it with an argument that influenced me to understand why the clause has validity. Just 4 sentences … I might say that he was just lucky
but that would be a lie!
It was not condescending, or intended to be condescending. It was not personal, either. I'm sorry you took it that way.
It was motivated by the statements of folks who apparently refuse to attempt to understand the principle, the philosophy of the rules, and instead reject them.
It was motivated by the statements of folks who apparently refuse to attempt to understand the principle, the philosophy of the rules, and instead reject them.
Yep Lucky John, he does have the Luck of the Irish , but dont sell @jssailem smarts short either.
Diplomat extraordinaré. A true plenipotentiary.
Jim...
PS: BTW Pretzel logic works too. Just follow the dough.
jssailem
SBO Weather and Forecasting Forum Jim & John
- Oct 22, 2014
- 22,330