Overtaking Vessel Wanting you to Speed Up

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

I gotta side with OldFrog 75 on this... yes you are the 'stand on' vessel but it is incumbent on BOTH skippers to avoid collision if possible. Manys the time over 50 years at sea where I gave up what would be construed as 'my right' under maritime law and cloregs to accommodate who considered to be a complete idiot to avoid a problem. Just not worth the candle imo. Phil

Reminds me of the old joke about two cars getting caught facing each other on a single lane bridge. One drive stuck his head out the window and screamed "I never back up for an idiot". The second driver put his car in reverse and whispered under his breath "I always do".

Problem for me is lots of FWC officers who always seem to be enforcing speed limits at the wrong time and if a boat has to exceed the posted speed limit to maintain control maybe they should not be in a place where there is a speed limit.

One thing I have not seen mentioned is what time this happened. I know several times I have assisted ungainly boats going to the water dock and we always try to do it at 6:30 AM when traffic is normally very light. Also seen folks get on CH68 and announce I am a burdened vessel and will be hogging the channel. The St. Franciss 50 always does that when leaving the dock.

Avoiding problems works in both directions.

[Saltysailor2]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

I gotta side with OldFrog 75 on this... yes you are the 'stand on' vessel but it is incumbent on BOTH skippers to avoid collision if possible. Manys the time over 50 years at sea where I gave up what would be construed as 'my right' under maritime law and cloregs to accommodate who considered to be a complete idiot to avoid a problem. Just not worth the candle imo. Phil

There was never a risk of collision.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by OldFrog75

I'm curious what most CF members call the very narrow body of water inside a marina between docks which has slips on either side of it?

As I look at the satellite photo provided by SS, I would call the water between the breakwater and the docks a fairway, and the water between the docks fingers, all of which are contained in the Marina and there is no channel.

I would avoid the term "fairway" as this is a charted term - Singapore has several fairways - They are like channels in that have separated directional lanes, crossing rules and rules while in them. Unlike channels, they may not necessarily be bounded by bouys or land. They also may have rules on how to enter and exit the Fairway - I like to think of fairways as "Freeways"

I suppose I would call the water between the breakwater and docks the "main marina channel" - the channels between two finger docks, "side channels" or "finger dock channels"

Finger docks to me are generally floating docks extending perpendicular from fixed docks with finger slips as depicted at this marina.

I don't know if my terminology is correct but it seems descriptive enough to get eh point across...

[JPA Cate]

tmfl:

Another alternative you could have suggested to DH: change props. It's just that the autoprop has so many advantages for his boat, he would not want to change it......

A.

[JPA Cate]

Everybody,

The OP has written several times that due to the state of the tide, he did not have room to move off to the right hand of the channel.

A.

[Saltysailor2]

Hindsight is 20/20

So in hindsight both boats returned to the dock safely. Neither boat appeared to be having trouble maneuvering.

But just to mix things up a bit here in this forum here is a hypothetical scenario I would like your thoughts on:

Situation:

Location: A very crowded marina on the last day of a holiday weekend.

Tide: Low

Wind: from the North

A sailboat under power (boat number 1) is moving slowly through a main narrow channel of a marina headed due West. Moving slowly with a lookout on the bow who is checking the smaller channels (fingers) from boats leaving into the main channel. Larger boats make it hard to see into the smaller channels (fingers).

A power boat towing a tender (boat number 2) comes behind boat number 1. The operator of boat number 2 whistle and then shots "move it!" to boat number 1.

Boat number 1's operator knows the rules of the road and knows he has no obligation to move any faster. But as a friendly gesture slightly increases his speed. There is no room to allow boat 2 to pass.

Meanwhile another power boat (boat number 3) is exiting the smaller channel heading south and entering the main channel. This boat has the wind to his stern. With no mast she remains hidden within the smaller channel (finger).

Boat number 1 and boat number 3 see each other at the at the last moment. Boat number 1 tries to reverse but still has headway. Boat number 3 has the wind to her stern and can not stop the boat in time either.

They collide bow to bow causing some damage to boats number 1 and 3.

Question number 1: From a rules of the road perspective only which boats are at fault? (use international rules).

Question number 2: Rules of the road aside which boat operators should pay for the damage (leave insurance out of the equation)?

Thoughts?

[psneeld]

Realistically the difference between a knot or two in 40 something boats unless you are one REALLY heavily ballasted sailboat shouldn't matter that much...

But whether you sped up or not and had a collision it would be partially your fault...the real facts to be determined...saying you sped up when you had no real obligation to wouldn't at first look right...but invoking rule #2 that you were helping out someone else does carry a tiny bit of weight in my eyes...but then again even at 5 knots most boats I know with decent engines can stop in a boatlength or two so the collision should still be avoidable.

You know your own boat better than us..answer it in those terms.

[StuM]

Boat 3 should not be entering the main channel in such a manner that they cannot avoid running into another boat moving at a legal speed in the main channel.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

tmfl:

Another alternative you could have suggested to DH: change props. It's just that the autoprop has so many advantages for his boat, he would not want to change it......

A.

Point taken.

[markpierce]

Thankfully, perhaps (but with disappointment), most all boats in my marina never leave it. As evidence, I've never passed or been passed by a boat in my marina.

Perhaps people need to sound horns even though they think it's impolite.

At the minimum, I sound an honest four-second horn when leaving/entering the marina unless the tide permits seeing over the breakwater.

[Jammer Six]

I've sailed out of Shilshole, in Seattle for ten years.

I don't think I've ever heard any boat of any type or size use a horn in or near the marina.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

I've sailed out of Shilshole, in Seattle for ten years.

I don't think I've ever heard any boat of any type or size use a horn in or near the marina.

Feedback from liveaboards the first time: "what the hell was that?!"

From a senior member of the local power squadron: "appreciate you making proper signals."

From another boat owner "is he showing off?" Response from a neighbor "he's following the rules."

Some people confuse proper maritime behavior with impoliteness.

[OldFrog75]

Originally Posted by Saltysailor2

They collide bow to bow causing some damage to boats number 1 and 3.

Question number 1: From a rules of the road perspective only which boats are at fault? (use international rules).

Question number 2: Rules of the road aside which boat operators should pay for the damage (leave insurance out of the equation)?

Thoughts?

I was taught the onus is on the boat entering the fairway from the fingers/slips to post a lookout, give a warning signal (whistle, horn, etc.), proceed at a slow enough speed to avoid a collision, and ultimately yield to boats already in the fairway, similar in concept to vehicles proceeding up an on-ramp to a freeway yielding to cars already traveling on the freeway.

That said, I think Inland and International rules are pretty clear that a boat nearing a channel or fairway where other boats may be obscured by obstructions (boats in slips) are required to sound one prolonged (4-6 second) blast. Although I have never experienced or witnessed a collsion in this situation, it is my understanding that if you do not properly sound this signal and get into an accident, the failure to observe this rule would most likely result in liability for damages.

In your scenario, without giving the appropriate sound signal, boat #3 is at fault.

If, on the other hand, boat #3 could prove it had sounded appropriately according to the rules and the signal was egregiously disregarded by boat #1, I would venture a guess that boat #1 would be at fault and liable for damages.

Obviously in your scenario boat #2, who witnessed the whole thing, would be called upon to testify and help determine where the fault lay.

[StuM]

>If, on the other hand, boat #3 could prove it had sounded appropriately according to the rules and the signal was egregiously disregarded by boat #1, I would venture a guess that boat #1 would be at fault and liable for damages.

Sounding a warning signal doesn't absolve the boat entering the fairway from its responsibility to enter the fairway in a safe manner.

[OldFrog75]

Originally Posted by StuM

>If, on the other hand, boat #3 could prove it had sounded appropriately according to the rules and the signal was egregiously disregarded by boat #1, I would venture a guess that boat #1 would be at fault and liable for damages.

Sounding a warning signal doesn't absolve the boat entering the fairway from its responsibility to enter the fairway in a safe manner.

I agree and I'm not suggesting sounding a warning entitles boat #3 to power up and throw all caution to the wind when entering the fairway but it does serve to warn other boats already in the fairway or channel and prepare them to take appropriate evasive action if necessary to avoid a collision with a boat they cannot see when they first hear the warning, thereby shifting more of the responsibility toward them than might otherwise be the case were no warning signal sounded at all.

That said, I'm not a lawyer or a judge but the OP asked for thoughts and those are mine...for what they're worth.