Apparently AIS & RADAR not Adequate Substitute for Lookout

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Snore

The “C” in COLREGS stands for convention.

Therefore, I do not believe any one country can unilaterally alter COLREGS.

Originally Posted by StuM

No, the COL in COLREGS stands for Collision.
The full name is "The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea"

COLREGS - International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea - Articles of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972

Article I - General obligations
. The Parties to the present Convention undertake to give effect to the Rules and other Annexes constituting the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”)


The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs) are published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and set out, among other things, the "rules of the road" or navigation rules to be followed by ships and other vessels at sea to prevent collisions between two or more vessels. COLREGs can also refer to the specific political line that divides inland waterways, which are subject to their own navigation rules, and coastal waterways which are subject to international navigation rules. The COLREGs are derived from a multilateral treaty called the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

Although rules for navigating vessels inland may differ, the international rules specify that they should be as closely in line with the international rules as possible. In most of continental Europe, the Code Européen des Voies de la Navigation Intérieure (CEVNI, or the European Code for Navigation on Inland Waters) apply. In the United States, the rules for vessels navigating inland are published alongside the international rules.

The Racing Rules of Sailing, which govern the conduct of yacht and dinghy racing under the sanction of national sailing authorities which are members of the International Sailing Federation (ISAF), are based on the COLREGs, but differ in some important matters such as overtaking and right of way close to turning marks in competitive sailing.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Montanan

COLREGS - International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea - Articles of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972

Article I - General obligations
. The Parties to the present Convention undertake to give effect to the Rules and other Annexes constituting the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”)


The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs) are published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and set out, among other things, the "rules of the road" or navigation rules to be followed by ships and other vessels at sea to prevent collisions between two or more vessels. COLREGs can also refer to the specific political line that divides inland waterways, which are subject to their own navigation rules, and coastal waterways which are subject to international navigation rules. The COLREGs are derived from a multilateral treaty called the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

Although rules for navigating vessels inland may differ, the international rules specify that they should be as closely in line with the international rules as possible. In most of continental Europe, the Code Européen des Voies de la Navigation Intérieure (CEVNI, or the European Code for Navigation on Inland Waters) apply. In the United States, the rules for vessels navigating inland are published alongside the international rules.

The Racing Rules of Sailing, which govern the conduct of yacht and dinghy racing under the sanction of national sailing authorities which are members of the International Sailing Federation (ISAF), are based on the COLREGs, but differ in some important matters such as overtaking and right of way close to turning marks in competitive sailing.

Yes! My understanding is that COLREGS are LAW in all the countries who have signed onto the Convention - which is pretty well every country with a saltwater coastline.

I worry about people who make general statements that laws are only guides and can be broken when convenient. Murder? Rape?

[goboatingnow]

Certainly here in Ireland , it’s law the statutory instrument doing so was last update in 2012

[Montanan]

United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 30 - INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA
Sec. 1608 - Civil penalties
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

§1608. Civil penalties
(a) Liability of vessel operator for violations
Whoever operates a vessel, subject to the provisions of this chapter, in violation of this chapter or of any regulation promulgated pursuant to section 1607 of this title, shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation.

(b) Liability of vessel for violations; seizure of vessel
Every vessel subject to the provisions of this chapter, other than a public vessel being used for noncommercial purposes, which is operated in violation of this chapter or of any regulation promulgated pursuant to section 1607 of this title, shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation, for which penalty the vessel may be seized and proceeded against in the district court of the United States of any district within which such vessel may be found.

(c) Assessment of penalties; notice; opportunity for hearing; remission, mitigation, and compromise of penalty; action for collection
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may assess any civil penalty authorized by this section. No such penalty may be assessed until the person charged, or the owner of the vessel charged, as appropriate, shall have been given notice of the violation involved and an opportunity for a hearing. For good cause shown, the Secretary may remit, mitigate, or compromise any penalty assessed. Upon the failure of the person charged, or the owner of the vessel charged, to pay an assessed penalty, as it may have been mitigated or compromised, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to commence an action in the appropriate district court of the United States for collection of the penalty as assessed, without regard to the amount involved, together with such other relief as may be appropriate.

(Pub. L. 95–75, §9, July 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 310; Pub. L. 96–591, §6(3), (4), Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat.

46 U.S. Code § 2302 - Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation

(a)A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 in the case of a recreational vessel, or $25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
(b)A person operating a vessel in a grossly negligent manner that endangers the life, limb, or property of a person commits a class A misdemeanor.
(c)An individual who is under the influence of alcohol, or a dangerous drug in violation of a law of the United States when operating a vessel, as determined under standards prescribed by the Secretary by regulation—
(1)is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000; or
(2)commits a class A misdemeanor.

[LittleWing77]

I think everyone is forgetting that the entire incident turns on whether the fishing boat was actually fishing or not.

If fishing gear was in the water, Boris would have been required to alter course.

If the fishing boat was just steaming, however, the fishing boat would be considered a power vessel required to give way to a sailboat under sail.

The interesting part to me is that if the fishing boat was fishing with its gear in the water, the likelihood would have been that the AIS would have been on. Fishermen in the English Channel with gear out are often fishing in a pattern, so they set their autopilot + AIS and stay on deck working the lines, etc., because they know everyone else has to give THEM right-of-way.

In this case, very possibly it was: no fishing, no AIS, therefore no alarm (at least on Boris' boat); consequently, the fishing vessel would have been in the wrong for not giving way to a sailing vessel under sail...

[Adelie]

Not if the sailing vessel was overtaking.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

I think everyone is forgetting that the entire incident turns on whether the fishing boat was actually fishing or not.

If fishing gear was in the water, Boris would have been required to alter course.

If the fishing boat was just steaming, however, the fishing boat would be considered a power vessel required to give way to a sailboat under sail.

The interesting part to me is that if the fishing boat was fishing with its gear in the water, the likelihood would have been that the AIS would have been on. Fishermen in the English Channel with gear out are often fishing in a pattern, so they set their autopilot + AIS and stay on deck working the lines, etc., because they know everyone else has to give THEM right-of-way.

In this case, very possibly it was: no fishing, no AIS, therefore no alarm (at least on Boris' boat); consequently, the fishing vessel would have been in the wrong for not giving way to a sailing vessel under sail...

No, sorry, the incident doesn't turn on that at all.

Whether or not the fishing boat was stand-on or give-way, doesn't change at all the overall responsibilities. The yacht was required to keep a good lookout by sight and by hearing at all times -- fail. Even if the fishing boat was give-way, the yacht was required to take action itself, at the latest, at the point when the fishing boat could not prevent the collision by its own actions alond -- fail.

There is not any question about the egregious fault of the yacht. The key thing is that even if the fishing boat WAS indeed at fault for failing to give way, in case it was in fact the give-way vessel, this does not excuse the yacht from keeping a proper watch under Rule 5, or from maneuvering to avoid the accident under Rule 17(b).

[LittleWing77]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, sorry, the incident doesn't turn on that at all.

Whether or not the fishing boat was stand-on or give-way, doesn't change at all the overall responsibilities. The yacht was required to keep a good lookout by sight and by hearing at all times -- fail. If the fishing boat was give way, the yacht was required to take action itself at the latest, at the point when the fishing boat could not prevent the collision by its own actions alond -- fail.

There is not question about the egregious fault of the yacht.

Sure it does. The fishing boat has just as much responsibilty as the yacht to avoid a collision.

And it was not an overtaking situation, the bow of the fishing boat hit the starboard side of the racing vessel...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

Sure it does. The fishing boat has just as much responsibilty as the yacht to avoid a collision.

And it was not an overtaking situation, the bow of the fishing boat hit the starboard side of the racing vessel...

No, sorry. The fishing boat had as much responsibility as the yacht -- yes, and in any case. Likewise, the yacht had just as much responsibility as the fishing boat -- in any case. Therefore, the incident does not turn on whether or not the fishing boat ever had its gear in the water. That changes precisely nothing.

Give-way, stand-on is only applicable during a certain phase of a crossing. It is out the window once you are in extremis. The yacht's guilt is not changed by whether or not the fishing boat was ever give-way.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

I think everyone is forgetting that the entire incident turns on whether the fishing boat was actually fishing or not.

If fishing gear was in the water, Boris would have been required to alter course.

If the fishing boat was just steaming, however, the fishing boat would be considered a power vessel required to give way to a sailboat under sail.

The interesting part to me is that if the fishing boat was fishing with its gear in the water, the likelihood would have been that the AIS would have been on. Fishermen in the English Channel with gear out are often fishing in a pattern, so they set their autopilot + AIS and stay on deck working the lines, etc., because they know everyone else has to give THEM right-of-way.

In this case, very possibly it was: no fishing, no AIS, therefore no alarm (at least on Boris' boat); consequently, the fishing vessel would have been in the wrong for not giving way to a sailing vessel under sail...

In this lengthy discussion of who is right and who is wrong in this (or any other such) situation, I think people lose sight of the fact that, in Maritime Court, unlike in Criminal or ordinary Civil Court, blame is rarely assigned 100% to one party. Usually it is apportioned. We had a case of a speed boat at night running over an unlighted pontoon boat and killing one of the occupants. Blame was apportioned 50-50: one for not having the required lights on, and the other for not keeping an adequate look out and operating dangerously at night.

Or the ferry captain who was found 33% responsible for running over a small boat (again killing two people) when threading his way through the pleasure boat fleet off Horseshoe Bay. The small cabin cruiser was drifting while the captain (he survived, his wife and one son didn't) was looking at the chart deciding which way to go around Bowen Island. The ferry hooted. The small vessel skipper made up his mind in a hurry and gunned the boat to scoot across the bow of the ferry - not realizing that large vessels look like they are going much slower than they actually are. He didn't make it. The ferry skipper was found partially responsible because he didn't allow enough maneuvering room between him and the pleasure boat and not slowing sufficiently (which he would have had to do a couple of miles out).

If the accident that started this thread ever comes to Maritime Court I expect both vessels will be apportioned blame - maybe 50/50 - but maybe not.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

There sure has been a lot of condemnation of Herman's lack of remorse about injury or damage to the fishing vessel... but no one has shown that there was ANY such outcome of the collision. I've no info, but it seems pretty likely that the much larger steel vessel suffered only paint scratches and that there were no crew injuries whatsoever.

Before one condemns his arrogance and unfeeling nature, it would be good to have some facts in hand... lest one be accused of arrogance oneself.

Jim

Good point Jim. I bet a lot of people here dont like the idea of self driving vehicles. That should provoke some good discussion here.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, sorry. The fishing boat had as much responsibility as the yacht -- yes, and in any case. Likewise, the yacht had just as much responsibility as the fishing boat -- in any case. Therefore, the incident does not turn on whether or not the fishing boat ever had its gear in the water. That changes precisely nothing.

Give-way, stand-on is only applicable during a certain phase of a crossing. It is out the window once you are in extremis. The yacht's guilt is not changed by whether or not the fishing boat was ever give-way.

Yes. agreed.

[kmacdonald]

Bad things happen when multiple things go wrong. One boat not having a watch in not enough to cause an accident, it takes two. After waking I have my coffee before even thinking about taking a look around. Sometimes I wait till after breakfast. If you are a stickler for the rules you have nothing to worry about.

[chrisr]

sorry but i'd like to inject some facts into the debate

until i retired few years ago i was a director of a shipping company. one of our vessels came into collision with a fishing boat, a bit east of tasman island (near hobart). the fishing boat ran into our stb side ie we were give way vessel. nobody injured / fair bit of damage to F/B and a few paint scratches for us.

the mate on watch & the lookout were charged and pleaded guilty to failing to keep a proper lookout.

collision liability and costs were settled on 50/50 basis, as everyone on the F/B was asleep !(nb : we felt very hardly done by because the F/B were not charged with failing to keep a proper lookout as well, but that's what you get when a local collides with a foreign flag).

cheers,

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Yes! My understanding is that COLREGS are LAW in all the countries who have signed onto the Convention - which is pretty well every country with a saltwater coastline.

True, but potentially misleading, it's not the signing that makes them law.
"The Parties to the present Convention undertake to give effect to the Rules..."
There is one further step which makes them law beyond signing the treaty. Countries have to enact legislation giving COLREGS the force of law. But I am not aware of any signatories that have not done so.