All about the Colregs no 3 - single handed sailing and keeping a look out

[CSY Man]

. The thing I find offensive about all these type threads is its always some 'gatekeeper' trying to stop others enjoying sailing.

Aye, no Mark. At least not moa.
Keep sailing any way you want.

MY objection is to folks sleeping with nobody on watch or lookout.
You are putting others in danger: What if I had lost steering and was a Vessel Not Under Command, or Restricted Maneuvering.
All my lights, including strobes would be on, rockets fired.
Oh no, some ******* on an ego trip, like Dodge Morgan or some other solo-around-the-world trying to set a new record are sleeping soundly below while their 50 foot racer is doing 11 knots towards a collision with me or some other poor guy unable to steer clear.
Or I was in a life raft shooting flares, but the sleeping sailors don't see them, or don't care. (The lookout requirements are also to look for emergency signals)

Yes, I have also sailed solo, but from anchorage to anchorage or to dock.

If a solo sailor in the middle of the ocean need to take a nap: Heave to, stop the boat. Put out numerous lights and be a Vessel Not Under Command....?

[Sardean]

Ps. Jessica Watson, record-breaking circumnavigation solo sailor, had a collision on her first night at sea. From memory she had taken a nap in a shipping lane and her little vessel came off second best with a container ship. No penalty or prosecution as far as I know. She aborted the attempt, had her boat repaired and started again, successfully this time

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Oh no, some ******* on an ego trip, like Dodge Morgan or some other solo-around-the-world trying to set a new record are sleeping soundly below while their 50 foot racer is doing 11 knots towards a collision with me or some other poor guy unable to steer clear.

Yes, I have also sailed solo, but from anchorage to anchorage or to dock.

I dunno, sounds to me like the odds of finding yourself in the same patch of water as a guy like ol' Dodge might be pretty slim...

Even when he was alive :-)

Hey, at least Morgan somehow managed to avoid sinking AMERICAN PROMISE after a collision with a tug and barge, as her crew of 12 US Navy officers and midshipmen did one night on the Chesapeake, after she had been donated by "that *******" to the Naval Academy...

:-)

Dodge Morgan American Promise | Navy Sailboat Hits A Barge And Sinks - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

[CSY Man]

. I dunno, sounds to me like the odds of finding yourself in the same patch of water as a guy like ol' Dodge might be pretty slim...

Hope so.

If the ego maniacs wants to do make their own rules and sail wherever they want in the blind, they should find another planet.

[DerekKelsall]

Hi,

I hope we will never see the day when single handed sailing is banned, though it clearly goes contrary to the spirit of the rules. For me, it was a great experience - in 'Folatre', OSTAR 1964. A tri which looked like a slightly smaller version of Crowhurst's tri in 68. Giants like Alain Colas's 1976 Club Med, 4 masted, 235 ft. 250 tonne came along and did not help the argument that only the sailors were taking the risk. The number of solo sailors who have paid the risk is a long one - including Colas.

When I heard of another Golden Globe, I thought - a good idea, but was disappointed to read the restrictions. The 68 event , for every designer, was really more about multihulls than anything else. Nigel Tetley's was an amazing result. I went on to design and build his next - a 60 tri., originally planned for 68 but he failed to find a sponsor. If the next race included multihulls, I believe we would see self righting multi's in it and performance to match. Sail on from a capsize is not some wild dream - and this is not entirely arm chair talk either. Design does not stand still but no one knows where it might lead.

Happy boating,

Derek.

[Rustic Charm]

Dockhead, did you read my post 27? Or did you just respond to this one only?

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is not exactly true -- at best.

The COLREGS ARE law. NO, they are not 'law' and are certainly not 'laws'. It's a 'treaty' as you have indicated and whilst the states are 'obliged' as you have stated, they are not mandatory as 'laws' are.

The 1972 convention which created the present version of the COLREGS is a multilateral treaty by which the participating states obligated themselves to implement the rules in their own legislation in EXACTLY the form agreed.

Firstly, If you read my post 27, I stated quite clearly that the 'participating states are obligated themselves to implement the rules'. That's
article 1 - General Obligations.

Secondly, The very first 'RULE', rule 1 (b), Nothing in these rules shall interfere with special rules .... etc.. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules. - There's no imposition that it must be EXACTLY as you state.

Every state has its own constitutional procedure for doing this, but it works much the same everywhere. In the US, Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution -- the Supremacy Clause - makes treaties to which the US is a party the "supreme law of the land", overriding state or local law. Whether or not an enabling act of legislation is required or not to incorporate treaty obligations into domestic law varies by state, but this doesn't matter - the COLREGS are the law of the land in every signatory state, as required by the 1972 Convention, and have the force of law everywhere.

No they don't. They are 'rules' not laws!

The COLREGS don't specify penalties for violations, which is left to domestic legislation, but as far as I know, there are criminal penalties everywhere. No there are not. I'm perhaps being a little pedantic with the legal jargon, but in most if not all places throughout Australia the Colregs are placed in legislation that created 'offences' of petty jurisdiction, I think the yanks call them misdemeanour's (not sure of that one). There are some 'offences' that are 'indictable', particularly some Federal crimes that come from the Colregs, and they could be referred to as crimes.

In the US, these are found in 33 USC 1608, Penalty Provisions, Violations of International Rules and Regulations, which provides for fines of up to $5000 for every violation of any part of the COLREGS, and for seizure of the vessel involved.

Again, read my post 27. I'd contend that it's not the Colreg's that they are violating. It's the 'members' legislation which includes the basis of the Colregs. Again, the Colregs have absolutely no provision for prosecution of anything.

The text of the COLREGS does not appear in either USC (official compilation of federal statutes), nor in CFR (official compilation of federal regulations). Yet the COLREGS are the law of the land, and you can be fined for up to $5000 for violating them. See: Untitled 1.

I've already answered this. The term 'law of the land' is not something I'd dispute, but it's not 'literal' LAW. It's colloquial language.

Now to use your link above. It states, 'depending on where the vessel is operating, either the inland or international navigation rules will apply'. And this statement, "The fact that the COLREGs themselves do not appear in either the U. S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations presents a problem in terms of deciding how best to cite an alleged violation of the COLREGs." and this, "Section 1602 does not require compliance with the Colregs or include any other requriement that a person could violate".

This entire link is explaining exactly what my post 27 was emphasising. That it's not the Colregs you are fined over for breaching, but it's local legislation, depending on where you are.

The situation in the UK is quite the same. Here is how the RYA legal department explains it:

"One of the biggest misconceptions about the COLREGS is they are a guidance document, something to help skippers understand who has ‘right of way’ in potential collision situations. Wrong! They are the law and you have to comply with the lot.

Well, again, it's colloquial to help explain the situation. They are not 'literally' Laws. They are in fact Rules. But not Laws.

"No boat has absolute ‘right of way’ under the COLREGS - even the stand on boat is obliged to take avoiding action in some circumstances. The COLREGS determine who should do what at what point to prevent a collision from occurring. I'm really not sure why you through this in again. All about the Colregs thread 2 was about this. And as I've always argued, and emphasised, it's the term 'absolute' that is relevant to that particular argument. Something you have previously objected to.

"Failure to comply with the COLREGS – and by that it means a collision doesn’t even need to have occurred, (agreed) simply that the regulations have been breached – is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine determined by a Law Court, depending on the severity of the incident."

For reason's I've stated above, it's not a 'criminal offence' everywhere NO. And it's not one's failure to comply with the Colregs that is the 'offence' or crime if you like. It's the failure to comply with a piece of legislation that has enabled the Colregs. Local legislation! As your first link in the case of the US so clearly explains.

Understanding COLREGS | Up to Speed | e-Newsletters | News & Events | RYA

Your referral to this link surprises me greatly, because in the past you have been absolutely adament that articles like this are just 'dumbing down' the Colregs and are not 'authoritive'. Even when I listed a long list of every Australian 'Authority' to explain the term 'right of way' on the water, you rejected every single one of them claiming they have no authority. And now you are using this link? Regardless, I'll make use of it.

This link, refers to the Colregs as the 'Highway Code of the sea'. So now it's a code. No problem with that, but it's hardly LAW is it. Then, to explain that the Colregs are not a 'guidance document' as is commonly 'one of the biggest misconceptions', the RYA claims 'they are the law and you have to comply with the lot'. . . well that's pretty clear it's colloquial again. What you have said you previously hate when organisations like this 'dumb down' for the sake of easily being understood. In this case it's an RYA article to help in 'Understanding Colregs'. It's emphasising that people should always follow the Colregs. Something you and I both fully and completely agree about.


Don't mess with the COLREGS in UK waters!

What does this mean for single handers? It means you might have a very good argument that sleeping with no one on deck is allowed under YOUR interpretation of the COLREGS, but if the Coast Guard chooses a different interpretation and chooses to throw the book at you, and the judge assigned to your case agrees, and your lawyer can't find contrary precedent or other authority, you might find yourself even in prison. I think that responsible single handing is widely tolerated, and I think it should be tolerated. However, this tolerance can't be found anywhere in the law, so do it at your own risk.

Well, whether you find yourself in prison will depend on the 'Law' in the place you have transgressed. Which is exactly my point. In many places prison would not even be entertained as the various Acts and Regulations of the 'member states' of the IMO, have maximum penalties and jail is not one of them in most western nations.

I think what has happened is you did not read my post 27. Because we agree in the main emphasis that the Colregs are put into legislation by the member states and their own legislation. We also agree that ALL of the Colreg's should be followed. But I don't agree with is your claim that the Colreg's are LAW and it is the Colreg's you get prosecuted by for infringing.. It is not a piece of legislation. It has no persecution ability. It has no penalty ability either.

What I do find is helpful, is that if you are persecuted (which occurs under local jurisdiction and local laws), that court also has to refer to the Colreg's to prove the case. And a person so charged can refer to the Colreg's to dispute the charge. The courts of all member states have to concede to the Colregs in determining the case. So it works both ways.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Exile

Perhaps a good example of the 99.9% of cases you cite where both skippers are at fault was the case off the US Carolinas awhile back when a singlehanded sailor was run down from behind by a large commercial freighter. It was undisputed that the freighter had failed to maintain an adequate watch. But it was also undisputed that the singlehanded sailor was asleep down below at the time of the incident (he survived, apparently). Given the undisputed absence of a proper watch on the freighter, along with the fact that the sailboat was run down from behind, the sailor brought a civil suit against the shipping co. The suit failed, with the court finding that both skippers were at fault under the Colregs for failing to maintain an adequate watch. In other words, and as Dockhead has explained, the court reasoned that if either skipper had been maintaining a proper watch, the collision could have been avoided. This fact pattern & result may seem counterintutitive to a layman's sense of "fault," and it is possible that the respective liabilities were subsequently apportioned, but it struck me as a good illustration of how the Colregs are designed to work.

As an aside, and given Dockhead's previous explanation about how the Colregs are implemented by signatory states, my guess (without having read any opinion which may have been published on the case) is that private parties to a lawsuit do not have direct enforcement powers under the Colregs, but that authority is bestowed instead on signatory states as delegated to their regulatory agencies, for e.g. the USCG. It is more likely a civil court would merely reference the Colregs as evidence of a standard of care on the high seas in order to determine whether individual parties have negligently violated those standards. This is different from the sorts of fines (and jail time, obviously) that only a govt.'l body can lawfully impose.

You are entirely correct.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jongleur

Dockhead said:

A collision simply cannot take place without violations on BOTH sides. That is why both skippers are always at fault when a collision takes place at sea...

Please consider this (among many other possible
circumstances):

I'm keeping a proper watch on my boat with no
engine but let's say radar and AIS and we become
fogbound with no wind, thus no maneuverability.
A singlehander who went to sleep before the fog
set in rams my boat. How is it that I'm at fault?

All boats underway must have an operator who
is not asleep. Pretty clear to me.

You are correct. There are instances, depending on the circumstances where both sides are not to blame. Another is where a person runs into a boat at anchor.

But, Dockhead's literalness aside, he is right in emphasising that in MOST cases, blame is on both sides, proportionately.

I had a similar discussion with someone recently following another CF post. I was heading up a river on the right side, but I was getting really confined to my draft as there is a lot of mud and I was on the far starboard side of the river. A large motor boat coming head on to me was not budging at all. Now, I could have stuck to my guns, impossible to move over any further and I would have run aground or have collided with the Motor Boat. Whilst he was initially in the wrong for not moving over, I would definitely have been in the wrong to have maintained my course. Instead before getting to that point I moved across his bow and passed him starboard to starboard. AS we passed he yelled a lot of abuse at me for using sound signals he clearly didn't understand.

[monte]

Thanks for breaking the ground (sea) for some of is to follow in your wake Derek


http://sea-to-summit.net/2014/12/04/...derek-kelsall/

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

My statement was what it was and my statement ended where it ended. What followed was your assumptions, not mine. You can assume whatever you want, just please do not claim what you are assuming is somebody else's logic. This would be one assumption too far.

If you want to label bizarre things you hear from someone who studied the maritime law and who holds a merchant navy deck officer rating then you are free to palmhead till the end of this thread.

Have a fine day,
b.

Well, why don't you explain your statement of "When there is no collision (and no risk of collision), they do not apply".

To me it seemed like you were referring to only the Collision regs and ignoring everything else in the Colregs? So, what were you referring to?

[CSY Man]

Why are some of you guys trying to pick the Colregs apart and trying to find a loophole or an intent that was never there?

Pretty basic: Keep a lookout at all times.

That is it....

I have earned my bread as a lookout in the Merchant Marine for thousands of miles:
My job was usually the 4-8 watch and my only duty was to look for lights, traffic, whatever.
You guys on small boats in big oceans should appreciate that some of us took the job seriously.
The radar would not usually pick up small boats, especially wood or fiberglass. It was tuned to echo steel ships and back then sensitivity was not all that great. (70s-80s)

[jackdale]

As a matter of interest, in Canada Colregs fall under the Canada Shipping Act. Contraventions can result in fines of up to $1,000,000 and 18 months in prison.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As a matter of interest, in Canada Colregs fall under the Canada Shipping Act. Contraventions can result in fines of up to $1,000,000 and 18 months in prison.

Exactly! It's the Canada Shipping Act which you contraven.

[Rustic Charm]

From the IMO website.
How does IMO implement legislation?

It doesn't. IMO was established to adopt legislation. Governments are responsible for implementing it. When a Government accepts an IMO Convention it agrees to make it part of its own national law and to enforce it just like any other law.

IMO | FAQs

Shouldn't IMO have some sort of police function?
It is sometimes said that IMO should have some sort of authority to enforce its regulations. This seems to imply the creation of a team of inspectors and a fleet of patrol boats crewed by officials with the right to board any ships they suspected of contravening IMO regulations. In practice, the creation of such a force would be financially enormous - it would mean recruiting hundreds, probably thousands of people - and politically impossible: most Governments would never agree to allow ships flying their flag to be boarded in international waters and any attempt to introduce a system of penalties and punishments would be even more unacceptable.

The "IMO" police force would duplicate the work being done already by individual Governments and there is no guarantee that it would make a significant impact on safety and pollution, certainly in relation to the cost involved. IMO has however been given the authority to vet the training, examination and certification procedures of Contracting Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978. This was one of the most important changes made in the 1995 amendments to the Convention which entered into force in 1997. Governments have to provide relevant information to IMO's Maritime Safety Committee which judges whether or not the country concerned meets the requirements of the Convention. The result is a List of Confirmed Parties to STCW.
The mandatory IMO Member State Audit Scheme, from 1 January 2016, will also give IMO a role in carrying out audits of Member States

[sailorchic34]

[QUOTE=jongleur;1844305Please consider this (among many other possible
circumstances):

I'm keeping a proper watch on my boat with no
engine but let's say radar and AIS and we become
fogbound with no wind, thus no maneuverability.
A singlehander who went to sleep before the fog
set in rams my boat. .[/QUOTE]

Hum, if your boat is adrift due to no wind, odds are the singlehanders boat would also be adrift. Of course most single handers will have radar and ais too with a loud alarm to wake them up before they were within miles of you.