Rules of the road

[Tom]

I,ll Take a stab at it..Fault 90% Sail 10% Motor

I agree with alot of what "Been There" had to say. I don't know admirality law.....but common sense (I know that doesn't always count in courts) says that the sailboater did the worst thing....abandoned the helm in a situation where it was imperative to maintain absolute control of the vessel....Well thats my guess....What did the judge say?

 

[Bob Gravenstine]

Forgot to give the total percent fault.

Here is the results of my post as a percentage of the total faults of both vessels:Power Boat 60%Sail Boat 40%Just my guess. Looking forward to the real legal verdict.Bob s/v Gravyboat

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

Last call to test your knowledge of the Rules...

I'll post the answers on Sunday.

 

[Lisa Woodburn]

Great question, Peggie!

Peggie,I felt like an idiot after my question abouts reg's regarding someone at the helm! I meant "in control" of the boat. (Duh, I singlehand sometimes and my stern lines are "at the helm" when I'm not - but never in that close a proximaty to another boat!)You are right about state reg's not being enough - but some of our states, like AZ, with no coastal waters, may have inland lake reg's stricter than the fed's you quoted. (and yes - I will admit, I'm not an expert on the Fed reg's) For example, out here no one can operate a PWC within 60 ft of another watercraft above wakeless speed. I see that all the time.Can't wait for your answer tomorrow! It may help before sailing tomorrow!Lisa

 

[Lisa Woodburn]

Stupid question not related to Peggie's good one..

Is there any reg against a sailboat whose motor won't go into reverse (until parts arrive after the holidays)?

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

Lisa...

In answer to your question about a motor that won't go into reverse--no, there is no reg against it. However, it would be wise to use forward VERY judiciously...'cuz without reverse you don't have any "brakes."Re your question about whether states can have more stringent regulations than Federal regs: No state or political subdivision thereof (i.e. county, municipality etc) may enact ANY laws which supercede federal laws. They can choose not to enforce federal laws (let people get away with violating 'em), but they can't pass laws that are stricter than federal law. Even when it appears that they've done so--for instance, when RI declared statewide "no discharge"--all they've really done is take advantage of a section of federal law that prescribes what a state has to do get federal approval called for by the federal law. Based on the answers given so far to my little quiz, it looks like a LOT of folks need to take a boating safety course!

 

[R.W.Landau]

I hate a quiz but it's better than the real thing.

Peggy , I would like to evaluate your scenario as you gave it, then respond to the rules violations.A crowded channel would normally resort to traffic patterns passing port to port.Putting the motoring sailboat or sailing vessel in a crossing situation.rule 10j. This is a good place to use a horn, Rule 34a.The sailboat motoring off the port bow would make it in the give way vessel,rule 15. The 10 to 15 yard crossing pattern of give way vessel should have thrown a red flag to the stand on vessel.A good time for another horn blowing, rule 34d.The helm being unmanned does not qualify the sailboat to be classified a vessel not under command, rule 3f.The situation of the sailboat heading for the powerboats midship could have been a manuever to pass astern of the powerboat.Again a case of horn would help to clarify, rule 34d. The stopping of the powerboat could possibly have created a collision if the sailboat was going to manuever to the stern of the powerboat. The powerboat did make a quick an unpredictable change. Questionable rule 8. Peggy, I believe most of the wrong doing was by the sailboat. The biggest violation by the powerboat was the lack of horn signals when caution was first realized when the sailboat was still 200 yards off or any time there after.I know I am guilty of not keeping a horn in the cockpit, and your story will help change that. All in all I believe the sailboat to be60% in the wrong and the powerboat to be 40%. Looking forward to your answer.r.w.landau

 

[Bob Gravenstine]

Was this a narrow channel?

I thought Peggie said this was a wide channel and took that as being the trick to the question. Then again as a fairway I yeild to RWL.I guess we will have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

Channel very wide, Bob...

In fact, it's prob'ly a misnomer to call it a channel. Lake Lanier is quite deep, not requiring marked channels of the type found in other places...our channel markers are on outcroppings on the shore (a few are on islands), and are only there to identify the various creeks and the main channel of the river. This particular incident happened at the wide--at least a quarter mile wide--mouth of one of those creeks...one of the largest marinas on the lake--withover a 1000 slips is there...a launch ramp is on the other side of it...and the YC where I keep my boat is about mile up that creek. Depth shore-to-shore is 60-90'. At certain times of day--the times when boats are typically going out or coming back in, it's a high traffic area...congested compared to open water, but there's plenty of room to manuever. It just gets choppy as hell with boats of all sizes and types coming and going in every direction. Since most of you prob'ly aren't familiar with rpms vs speed on powerboats: dead idle--about 2-3k--is 800 rpms...planing speed requires about 3000...it was making about 1200-1400. If you know how to calculate hull speed on a 34' boat--and it doesn't matter whether it's a powerboat or a sailboat--1200-1400 rpms would put it moving at about 3/4 hull speed. Answers after 5 pm today.

 

[Pete]

Lisa/Peggy

Lisa/Peggie, In response to Lisa's guestion about no reverse there might not be a specific regulation covering no reverse however I feel that it would fall into the broader regulation of maintaining a safe vessel and not acting prudently as the operator of the vessel. I would urge Lisa not to use the boat until fixed and or if using the boat increase her safty zone by 10x normal.

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

Btw...I recommend...

That you read ALL the posts in this thread--at least from the "scenario" forward--before deciding upon your answers...my answers to questions about it may help you. Read the scenario several times...there are no "trick" elements in it, but it does require careful reading to make sure you don't miss or misread any of the elements. And if you have more questions, post them...I'll check back several times today and will be glad to answer them.

 

[R.W.Landau]

Try again.

Peggy,With a 1/2 mile wide channel, I would like another chance.By the rules this time.Rule 2a 50/50 It was both parties responsibility to avoid the collision.Rule 5 50/50 The sailboat had no lookout. The powerboat, though having a lookout chose to ignore the initial appraisial.Rule 7a 50/50 The sailboat totally missed this but the powerboat chose to neglect this until it's final uneffective maneuver.(assuming they result was collision)Rule 8 50/50 Neither boat made corrective action in "ample time".Rule 14 c 50/50 The sailboat again totally missed this. The powerboat waited too long to acknowledge this.Rule 15 100 for the sailboat Though no one was at the helm. If the sailboat had anyone looking out, they may have figured that the sailboat would pass astern. ( Peggy, please clarify)Rule 17 a(i) 100% sailboat Though I believe that the sailboat was wrong when the sail went up. I believe that he is still the give way vessel, I can't prove itbut would be in violation of 17a(ii). The sailboat in such close proximity made a radical change thus becoming the stand on vessel. Then violates rule 17 a (i).And thus violates 17b.Rules 34 a and b 50/50 The sailboat again miised the whole situation and the powerboat chose to ignore it.This is a good one Peggy. I thought I knew this stuff but this is challenging. By the way, My thinking would have been differant if in the short time frame that it took place.I commend your avoidance of the collision while as an "after thought" correct you for the lack of horn notification.Happy New Year!r.w.landau

 

[Scot]

Local supercedeence of Fed law?

Peggy wrote: "No state or political subdivision thereof (i.e. county, municipality etc) may enact ANY laws which supercede federal laws"Is this statement something that is codified with regard to maritime regulations? I know it is absolutely not the case with regard to other areas of law. I doesn't really matter much, but is an interesting point of information.By the way, congrats to you, Peggy on a great topic. Can't wait for the answers later today.Scot

 

[Wynn Ferrel]

How does a 34' Powerboat go 6-7 knots

at 100 rpm? Must have a gigantic prop and engine or there was one hell of a current pulling the boat along. Not so terribly ridiculous if one knows that Lanier is a Corps lake and possibly they were dropping the level of the lake and the powerboat got caught where it should not have been in the first place --- too close to the dam --- if I am to take the facts "exactly as described."Okay, I'm being a smart***, aren't I? Sorry, Peggy. But, I did read it closly. Now, I'll leave it to the wiser and more experienced to get the correct answers.Wynn Ferrel

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

Clarification for R.W.

Until the sailboat suddenly raised sail, he was on a course that would have presented no problem for the powerboat, whether he changed course while under power to cross the powerboat's stern or continued across the powerboat's bow. If he'd maintained the same course he'd have crossed the powerboat a good 15-20 yards (45-60') ahead of it...had he turned to starboard and maintained control of his vessel, he'd have taken a path that wouldn't have aimed him straight at the powerboat. Remember...he was funning under power and making a steady 4-5 knots. Even had the powerboat misjudged the crossing distance, all the powerboat would have had to do to let him cross was back off the throttle to idle or neutral...I've never been much of a stickler for claiming ROW if it's just as easy to let the other guy go.But instead of doing either, when he was less than 100'--no more than 20-30 yards--from the powerboat, the sailboat completely abandoned his helm...his crew raised sail while he was bent over his outboard. In just a second or two, the sail was up enough for the wind to catch it, veer the sailboat off course and accelerate it--with no one at the helm--straight at the powerboat--not enough time for the powerboat to do more than say "oh $#!" and grab for throttles and shifters--a pair of each on each side of the wheel- while trying to assess how to avoid what appeared to be an inevitable collision. A 10-15k wind can move a small boat VERY quickly!

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

State regs vs federal

Scot, that applies to all federal laws, not just marine. If that weren't true, it would be total chaos.

 

[Peggie Hall/Head Mistress]

Ooops...that should read 1200 rpms, Wynn, not 100*

.

 

[Rob]

Readjust

I'm going to readjust my split to 70/30, with 70 on the sailboat, 30 on the powerboat. Since draft is no problem for sailboat, and powerboat is at manuevering speed, then it appears the sailboat raised it's sails for no other reason than to change from Give Way to Stand On Vessel, and in doing so lost control of his ship (which is evident by the collision). Like RW Landau said, and I mentioned earlier, a horn would have established communication and avoided collision. I carry one in my cockpit combing for this very reason.Powerboat got 30 percent because it failed to signal and power up/give way until it was too late. Can't wait to hear the answers!P.S. - Peggy - recently used KO in the holding tank - you couldn't be more correct on that stuff. Great product.

 

[Tom]

Peggy, State regs vs federal laws ?!?

As for federal laws overriding state laws, et. al. I'm not a lawyer, and maybe you are. But I have read many times over the years that it is unwise to compare admirality & maritime laws with general laws of the land. There have many interpretations of laws on the water that have completely different basis for review or interpretation than on land. (e.g. search and seizure). As you probably know, the laws that are based on Admirality Law are much older (and many times conflicting) with the constitution, amendments and bill of rights.

 

[Peggie Hall/Head MIstress]

The Answer

Here's how the legal beagles called it:There are 6 elements/Rules at work in this scenario:The first is the "first rule of boating:" Always maintain a proper lookout. By abandoning his helm to turn off and raise his outboard, the sailboat failed to do that. The powerboat did maintain a proper lookout, as was demonstrated by its efforts to avoid the collision.The second: he failed to maintain control of his vessel. The rules don't require anyone to physically be on the helm...he could have lashed his tiller or--more properly, he should have headed up to raise sail. It's because the wind will catch the sail and send the boat--literally--wherever the wind blows it that sailboats DO head up to raise and drop sail. The powerboat was under control and moving at a safe speed for the conditions.The third: The sailboat was to port, and under power, making it the give-way vessel. He failed give way to powerboat, which was the stand-on vessel.The powerboat acted correctly: it was the stand-on vessel, it proceeded on the assumption that the give-way vessel would give way until the give-way vessel made it obvious that it wasn't going to.The fourth: The Rules require both the give-way and the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed in a crossing or passing situation until both vessels are completely clear of each other. The sailboat failed to do that. That he raised sail in the midst of the crossing makes no difference--you can't change the "rules of the game" once "the game"--in this case, a crossing or passing situation--has started. The powerboat acted correctly, maintaining course and speed until forced to do otherwise.The fifith: The Rules require both the stand-on and the give-way vessel to do everything possible to avoid collision. The sailboat did nothing to avoid the collision. The powerboat acted correctly--it too prompt and evasive action as soon as the danger of collision became apparent.The sixth: The Rules require that a "danger" signal of 5 short horn blasts be given when the danger of collision exists. Both vessels failed to do this. Had a collision occurred, the maritime judge (who btw was a customer of ours at the time--that's how happened to know one) would have first divided 100% by the six Rules involved, which would assign 16.666% of the fault to the powerboat for failing to sound a warning, the remaining 83.333% to sailboat. However, when weighting that against the other Rules violations, he would reduce the powerboat's responsibility to 10%, and it would be unlikely that the powerboat would have to bear any of the financial burden for damages or injury. I objected to being assigned ANY of the fault, on the grounds that in the time available I had a choice of either blowing the horn or doing everything possible to avoid to the collision--'cuz both hands were on the throttle and the shifters, and I couldn't reach the horn button on the dash with my nose. My objection was overruled.