Originally Posted by CR38
While departing Annapolis
Yacht Basin after our Sailboat Show weekend we encountered a J boat sailing through the anchorage and mooring field. I slowed to allow it to pass in front of my bow. The J then tacked and cut in front of me again and continued on a tack that eventually forced another sailing vessel under power to alter course in a dangerously crowded area. A boat under sail normally has right of way but what about when sailing in an anchorage or mooring field where larger boats have limited maneuverability?
Stupid Boat Tricks - YouTube
Watched the video. We had a similar discussion in a thread with Tacoma Sailor, who was tacking up a narrow channel.
Looking at this one - you are correct. He is under sail and you are under power. He is the stand on vesel and you are the give way vessel.
Watching the video - I can't see that he "forced" the other boat to take evasive action.
Firstly, the other boat is entering your channel, both you and the Jboat are coming from his starboard side, meaning he is the give way vessel (regardless of whether or not you are under power or under sail) Rule
15. Considering the Jboat is under sail - the blue boat must give way (Rule 18)
The Blue boat apparently ignores the Jboat, does not give way as he is supposed to and the Jboat is forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision
. (Rule 9 states:Ships must not cross a channel if to do so would impede another vessel which can navigate only within that channel.)
We can argue (as was done in the Tacoma thread) that the Jboat should have given way to the other boats since he is tacking up a channel and may therefore present an obstruction (Rule 9)
However this is clearly falsefied by your actions when you put the pedal to the metal and passed him. So obviously there was enough room to overtake him.
So the Jboat was doing what he should have been doing and the skipper
of the blue boat doesn't know his colegs.
Flogging round the fleet for the skipper
of the blue boat for not knowing his colregs
If all parties here had adhered to Rule
2, then there would have been no discussion
[Rule 2 is sometimes referred to as the "General Prudential" rule and provides for non-conformance with stated rules to prevent a collision
, because what is paramount is to avoid or minimise the damaging effects of a collision, as opposed to blindly following the rules to the letter. The overall intent is to minimise actual collision taking place rather than rule compliance in and of itself, per se.]