Collision today
- Thread starter DAVA390
- Start date
Methinks some of us are taking this defensive driving principle way past the extreme. The powerboat skipper’s negligence was so egregious that I for one think the sailor’s “he came out of nowhere!” reaction was perfectly reasonable.
No, I believe you are misinterpreting this rule (and I also think there's a typo in your response, but I think I can read past it).
You say "[m]eaning no blame can be passed on to the sailboat as a result of the failure of the power boat to not deviate coarse." That is an incorrect application of the rule in this case. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that exonerates a vessel from responsibility, and that goes for ALL VESSELS! Including both parties to a collision.
The Rule in this case is basically saying the even though you may be the stand on vessel, you still have a responsibility to mitigate the circumstance of an impending collision. You still have to follow the other rules, Rule 5, Rule 34(d), etc.
All parties to an impending collision have a responsibility to mitigate the circumstances of the collision, regardless of who's "right" or "wrong."
You should avoid attempting to interpret the rules according to your own sense of fairness or morality, and just read the rules!
If you see a collision happing, and you just sit there and let it happen, you bear some responsibility. Hence this sailboat, which failed to maneuver, and failed to make a collision signal (Rule 34(D)) is partly responsible.
That is an exceptional case. Note that the colregs call for whistle signals for boats within 1/2 mile of each other. On your lake the whistles would be constant (though I doubt there's much commercial traffic that actually uses whistle signals).
I think there are TWO points here: One, the power boat CAUSED to crash, Two, the sailboat did not AVOID the crash that he saw coming.
What was missing from the news article containing the sailor's account was the report from the powerboat that the sailboat tacked into his path before the collision. Depending on if/when that tack occurred will be pivotal in determining the allocation of responsibility.
Based upon both accounts it appears that had at least one of the two boats been skippered prudently and properly this collision was avoidable … which in the end I think is the whole point of Colregs the more I've learned from this thread (learning I am very grateful for by the way … thank you).
Based upon both accounts it appears that had at least one of the two boats been skippered prudently and properly this collision was avoidable … which in the end I think is the whole point of Colregs the more I've learned from this thread (learning I am very grateful for by the way … thank you).
Here is the quote from the first-hand account by "Winch1995": "For the life of me, I cannot understand how this happened. Broad daylight, Captain was not drinking, etc. One guy said that he thought the sail boat changed tack."
So we have a second-hand reference to something "one guy" was unsure of ("he thought"), in the context of trying to explain away the simplest conclusion, namely, that no one was looking. Strange that nobody else saw the sailboat at all until seconds before the impact, yet this "one guy" observed a maneuver which conveniently shifts blame.
You have no basis to conclude that the sailboat skipper was not behaving prudently and properly. As even some of the posters who are now vocally taking the opposite view said in the beginning, at a closing speed of 50' second there is very little time to do anything. Go stand at the goal post of a football field and look at the opposite goalpost - that's 6 seconds. Can you get out of his path in 6 seconds? Maybe sitting in your armchair thinking about it at leisure it's easy enough but in the moment, not so much.
Yes he does, based on the testimony of the sailboat skipper!!! He said he saw the powerboat coming from "a way off," and yet he did not maneuver to avoid the collision. And, he did not sound a collision warning (Rule 34(D)).
I am completely puzzled as to why people like you cannot see this, don't understand this. I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse.
Let me ask you: is there any circumstance at all in which this sailboat could share the responsibility for this collision? If not, you don't understand the colregs.
A quote on the paper that may or may not be in context isn't quite testimony. If it's totally in context and he really did ignore a collision course then I agree he should share some (not all or most) of the responsibility.
jviss, you yourself said it, on this very thread (post #70) before you changed your mind:
To answer your question, yes, I can envision circumstances where the sailboat shares some small portion of responsibility. I just happen to think it's possible, in fact probable, that he doesn't bear any appreciable blame in the actual circumstances that occurred.
(Emphasis added by me). So who's being deliberately obtuse? I happen to agree with your initial assessment. I congratulate you on having the presence of mind to turn toward the oncoming powerboat at the last minute, but failing to do so does not render the sailboat skipper imprudent and improper, even if he did see the powerboat heading in his general direction from way off. It's the final seconds when you realize - or don't - that he is just oblivious that matter, and then it may very well be too late to do anything. In my opinion.
To answer your question, yes, I can envision circumstances where the sailboat shares some small portion of responsibility. I just happen to think it's possible, in fact probable, that he doesn't bear any appreciable blame in the actual circumstances that occurred.
I take a bit of an exception to the tone of your comments as they suggest that perhaps I am not speaking from experience but from an armchair … but I'll chalk it up to discussion board tone and stick to the facts as I understand them …
The boats were crossing (from the picture it was damn close to 90 degrees). Letting go of the helm to wave your arms at an oncoming powerboat is not an effective nor prudent strategy. Turning 60 degrees to starboard (perhaps starting the engine depending on conditions) and pointing at the powerboat's stern at 250-500 yards (15-30 seconds out) is an effective and prudent strategy.
Assuming that the powerboat was traveling at 30 kts and the sailboat was traveling at 3 kts (there was light wind), in the last 30 seconds the powerboat would have travelled 500 yards, but the sailboat would have traveled 50 yards (it might have been as much as 100 yards if the sailboat was making 6kts). That means that the sailboat skipper had 1/2 - 1 full football field of distance to make a course correction that would have cumulated to a difference of about 25 ft (half the length of the sailboat and one fifth the width of a football field) in a 30 second period. That is more than enough time and it is what he should have done.
I'm comfortable saying this because I have to do a variation of this numerous times every weekend.
The angle of approach would have been pretty much amidship from within 100-250 yards … so the oncoming powerboat should not have been hidden by the sail. If the boat was indeed hidden by his genoa, the skipper belonged either personally looking under his genoa or appointing someone else to do that.
Do I feel bad for the sailboat … yes, do I think what the powerboat did was wrong … yes … might I have reacted quickly enough ... maybe not … but we all have a first duty to avoid collision and both skippers failed to do that (evidence is the collision) … and both are on record in their own words indicating that they did not do what they were supposed to do … I am not judging … I just can't accept anyone suggesting that because we fly sails we abdicate our responsibility to avoid collision.
As a community we have a responsibility to each other to raise ourselves up and improve … not make excuses and abdicate responsibility … in this case the skipper was inches away from having to attend his friend's funeral … the stakes don't get much higher.
Sorry for the tone, I do not mean to impugn your experience.
I still can't grant that the fact that a collision occurred is in and of itself prima facie evidence that both parties are necessarily culpable. While we can propose scenarios where the sailor could have avoided the collision, to then say he is not prudent or proper is too much of a stretch, IMO. We all make minor errors of judgment, being human, but even so I think it is entirely possible for the gross negligence of one party to cause a collision in spite of all due prudence on the part of the other party.
It's kind of like saying that because his reaction was not perfect, it was incompetent.
A final thought for the night …
1. Prudent and proper doesn't require perfect and their absence certainly does not suggest incompetent. We are all human. But not unlike pilots, when we take the responsibility for other people on our vessels on the water, we are held to a higher standard. It is our job to keep our cool under pressure and to avoid collision. So in this case, while difficult, prudent and proper would have been a significant turn to starboard early enough and significant enough to avoid collision and therefore avoid the risk of injury of the people on his vessel. This is the point of Colregs.
If you look back a few pages, you will note that I posted that this past weekend I screwed up a similar crossing … but the point is that I know I screwed up and I'm taking steps to avoid that same mistake in the future. I would never suggest that I was being prudent and proper when I confused stand-on and give-way. That doesn't make me a bad person … it means that I wasn't being prudent and proper in the moment.
I know I won't change your mind or the minds of others who don't agree … but perhaps I can plant enough doubt so that if you are faced with a situation like this in the future you'll turn sooner than you otherwise would and return home in one piece safely. I say this because we will all have close calls at one time or another if we do get out of the armchair.
1. Prudent and proper doesn't require perfect and their absence certainly does not suggest incompetent. We are all human. But not unlike pilots, when we take the responsibility for other people on our vessels on the water, we are held to a higher standard. It is our job to keep our cool under pressure and to avoid collision. So in this case, while difficult, prudent and proper would have been a significant turn to starboard early enough and significant enough to avoid collision and therefore avoid the risk of injury of the people on his vessel. This is the point of Colregs.
If you look back a few pages, you will note that I posted that this past weekend I screwed up a similar crossing … but the point is that I know I screwed up and I'm taking steps to avoid that same mistake in the future. I would never suggest that I was being prudent and proper when I confused stand-on and give-way. That doesn't make me a bad person … it means that I wasn't being prudent and proper in the moment.
I know I won't change your mind or the minds of others who don't agree … but perhaps I can plant enough doubt so that if you are faced with a situation like this in the future you'll turn sooner than you otherwise would and return home in one piece safely. I say this because we will all have close calls at one time or another if we do get out of the armchair.
In that you've been successful. Without any doubt I'll be thinking more about collisions and how to avoid from now on. I know I've spent more time thinking about collision avoidance on the water the past few days than in the previous several years.
Amen, and well said.
Fair winds!
Yes, I did change my mind! This thread has been a valuable learning experience, if for no other reason than to prompt critical reading of the Colregs.
That said, although one might be a sitting duck in a sailboat, the difference between a hit or a miss is by definition less than a boat length.
A safe assumption is that an unresponsive powerboat is on autopilot, and will hold its track.
This seems to be a point, if true, that the sailor missed through inexperience. If I see a boat on an unwavering course, I assume it is on autopilot and may not change. Most of the time the pilot is sitting at the wheel and will make an adjustment some distance out, but it won't be last second. I see this all the time with big power cruisers. I've even seen this with Bay charter boats.
Inside the last minute I'm pretty sure he's not looking and I will make adjustments.
That said, without more information on wind and GPS tracks there isn't enough information. I will be watching even more closely in the future. I've had a few crossings over the years that were too close. I also suggest keeping an air horn close at hand. That might have helped. I've used one a few times to wake someone up. MUCH better than yelling or waving.
Always! I know exactly where mine is, and I know it has a full charge of CO2 and it's operational. Important piece of safety equipment.
"...at least five short and rapid blasts..."
About that whistle. I believe an air horn falls int the whistle definition. Regardless, if under 12 meters, which is 39.36', you needn't have a whistle, but "shall be provided with some other means of making an efficient signal."
Rule 33 - Equipment for Sound Signals
(a) A vessel of 12 meters or more in length shall be provided with a whistle, a vessel of 20 meters or more in length shall be provided with a bell in addition to a whistle, and a vessel of 100 meters or more in length shall, in addition be provided with a gong, the tone and sound of which cannot be confused with that of the bell. The whistle, bell and gong shall comply with the specifications in Annex III to these Regulations. The bell or gong or both may be replaced by other equipment having the same respective sound characteristics, provided that manual sounding of the prescribed signals shall always be possible.
(b) A vessel of less than 12 meters in length shall not be obliged to carry the sound signaling appliances prescribed in Rule 33(a) but if she does not, she shall be provided with some other means of making an efficient signal.
(a) A vessel of 12 meters or more in length shall be provided with a whistle, a vessel of 20 meters or more in length shall be provided with a bell in addition to a whistle, and a vessel of 100 meters or more in length shall, in addition be provided with a gong, the tone and sound of which cannot be confused with that of the bell. The whistle, bell and gong shall comply with the specifications in Annex III to these Regulations. The bell or gong or both may be replaced by other equipment having the same respective sound characteristics, provided that manual sounding of the prescribed signals shall always be possible.
(b) A vessel of less than 12 meters in length shall not be obliged to carry the sound signaling appliances prescribed in Rule 33(a) but if she does not, she shall be provided with some other means of making an efficient signal.
Last edited:
Then this thread has been extremely worthwhile.
Where can I get one of those "AH-oo-GA" DIVE, dive", like on subs?