This Is Why People Get It Wrong

[seamaiden]

Exactly!

Originally Posted by boatman61

If in Doubt.. GTF outa the way..

Rule 8 : Action to avoid collision

(a) Any action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

[valhalla360]

Right of way vs Stand on is a discussion for in the court room after an accident happens. These discussions tend to bring out the amateur lawyers arguing the finer points of law, when it really makes no difference in practical terms on the water.

It's very similar to approaching a traffic signal. If you are approaching a green light and see a semi at full speed with no sign of it slowing down on the cross road, it's irrelevant that you have right of way...Only a true idiot would purposely challenge the semi because they have "right of way" and explaining to someone who doesn't grasp that is unlikely to have any impact.

In the same way, if you are too stupid to realize that container ship isn't going to turn and go behind you as you drift along in light winds a 2kts in front of it, the detailed legal definition isn't going to matter.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The difference is the mental inertia that landlubbers bring with them.

Legally "Right of Way" is strictly a road thing anymore. If you are driving in your lane and somebody changes lanes into you causing a collision they are 100% at fault legally.

This is false. It's actually the exact same situation. If you see a potential accident and have the ability to safely avoid it but purposely continue to claim your right of way.... You most certainly can be found at fault.

An easy example: traffic is backed up thru a signal and it changes to green for you (ie: you have right of way). You have plenty of time to stop but you just barrel thru and t-bone a car sitting in the intersection.

The issue is most scenarios are not nearly as easy to prove unless you made an obvious move that is clearly notable to an outside observer and there just happened to be a police officer watching (ie: If you sped up so your lane changer example couldn't get in, it's often he said/she said and the cop will often resort to right of way in determining who to hand the ticket to)... If you rob a bank and never get caught, you still broke the law even if the law doesn't catch you.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I've been saying this here for years, and you always get the "gross tonnage" crowd insisting big ships "won't see them" "can't turn" "want them to keep out of the way" etc etc. You should post a link to the video.

Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In the same way, if you are too stupid to realize that container ship isn't going to turn and go behind you as you drift along in light winds a 2kts in front of it, the detailed legal definition isn't going to matter.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Exhibit A:

I never said they couldn't see you. And in a great majority of cases, expecting large ships to divert around you is pure stupidity, so finding one example heard 3rd hand doesn't change anything.

[S/V Adeline]

I believe I have posted this before, but it seems appropriate. A few decades back the first step in acquiring a vessel endorsement was a 2-3 minute video. A wife was recording her husband being a guy on a pwc (sorry guys, but it was a hold my beer and watch this moment). He never left an area of approximately 25ft x 25ft just doing tricks. Into the video we start hearing an obnoxiously loud marine horn, multiple blasts then solid wail, 6-8 seconds of warning before a huge cabin cruiser entered the screen and killed the pwc rider.
PWC is the give way vessel, cabin cruiser was stand on. One died, one negligent homicide(if memory serves), one has the memory of recording her spouse's death.
Stand On is NOT *right of way*, on the water or in a court of law if the unthinkable should happen. (At least in the U.S.)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

I believe I have posted this before, but it seems appropriate. A few decades back the first step in acquiring a vessel endorsement was a 2-3 minute video. A wife was recording her husband being a guy on a pwc (sorry guys, but it was a hold my beer and watch this moment). He never left an area of approximately 25ft x 25ft just doing tricks. Into the video we start hearing an obnoxiously loud marine horn, multiple blasts then solid wail, 6-8 seconds of warning before a huge cabin cruiser entered the screen and killed the pwc rider.
PWC is the give way vessel, cabin cruiser was stand on. One died, one negligent homicide(if memory serves), one has the memory of recording her spouse's death.
Stand On is NOT *right of way*, on the water or in a court of law if the unthinkable should happen. (At least in the U.S.)

I seriously doubt understanding of the technical legal difference in terminology would have changed anything during that 6-8 seconds...Sounds like there were 2 stupid people piloting boats.

It was the lawyers nitpicking legal terms after the fact and courts tend not to bother convicting the dead when both are at fault.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I seriously doubt understanding of the technical legal difference in terminology would have changed anything during that 6-8 seconds...Sounds like there were 2 stupid people piloting boats.

It was the lawyers nitpicking legal terms after the fact and courts tend not to bother convicting the dead when both are at fault.

The captain of the stand on vessel entered the defense that he had the legal right of way, as the stand on vessel. In truth he had the legal responsibility to avoid a collision. The whole point is there is no *right of way* and his belief in it cost him dearly. The federal officers who administered the course emphasized his immediate statement of having the right of way. I don't see it as nitpicking.

[seamaiden]

Well said! Your position is applicable everywhere, not just sailing in the Caribbean. Coast Guard are rarely on the scene and there is a vast gulf between the "law" and being able to enforce the law and then being able to get justice.

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Stand on or not, you are required to take all means to avoid collision. My wife and I are well aware of the rules. We are both Masters. Four years cruising in the Caribbean with skippers from all over the planet, many non English speakers has demonstrated the need for defensive avoidance just like defensive driving a car. Get into the other guy’s head and make decisive clear action before you cannot escape. Do it decidedly and telegraph or radio your intentions. There is no fixing your boat in many places and there is no law, no coast guard and no justice. Early on we assumed everyone was playing the same. NOT SO. Expect the worst and be pleased with competence. Playing chicken over stand on vessel in the Caribbean often results in shouting and a very forceful single digit salute. You may find yourself anchored later in close proximity. I’d much rather smile, avoid, and enjoy sundowners with them later.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I never said they couldn't see you. And in a great majority of cases, expecting large ships to divert around you is pure stupidity, so finding one example heard 3rd hand doesn't change anything.

It wasn't meant that all three conditions had to be met - I gave three examples of "insert stupid comment here" - you should have gotten that from the "etc, etc" at the end.

In the great majority of the cases where risk of collision even comes remotely close to having had existed, the big ship has already taken action miles back to avoid the sailboat, and unfortunately in the "great majority" of the cases the dumbf**k WAFI cocks it all up by not following the Rules.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

The captain of the stand on vessel entered the defense that he had the legal right of way, as the stand on vessel. In truth he had the legal responsibility to avoid a collision. The whole point is there is no *right of way* and his belief in it cost him dearly. The federal officers who administered the course emphasized his immediate statement of having the right of way. I don't see it as nitpicking.

You missed my point.

What you describe is the after the fact trying to justify what happened in court. If that was the official response in court (I'm betting it's not), he had lousy lawyers who didn't coach him on the technicality while testifying but I certainly don't believe his thought process on the water was anything close to...I have right of way, so I'm going to run down that jetski unless he gets out of my way.

I'm betting he was surprised or distracted and just didn't react quickly when the jetski popped out in front of him. I doubt he is he understood the technicalities of the definition, he would have reacted differently. Probably had enough thought to hit the horn but then froze in terms of taking more action.

Do you have a link to more details about the case?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

In the great majority of the cases where risk of collision even comes remotely close to having had existed, the big ship has already taken action miles back to avoid the sailboat, and unfortunately in the "great majority" of the cases the dumbf**k WAFI cocks it all up by not following the Rules.

If the ship took action "miles back", while not a bad thing, the idea that the other boats will notice what you did and hold course for 20 minutes without you communicating with them is idiocy. Really more than a couple miles out, you are only in the preliminary stages of a crossing in most cases.

Of course, if it's open water, there is no reason to be getting within 1/2 a mile of a ships course and in restricted waters, you can typically stay either outside the commercial channel or at least hug the edge of it. It's only the rare situations where it's questionable where you need clarification and then picking up the radio to discuss reasonably is a far better option than getting pissy because you made your own expectations far before it became a crossing sitatution.

[capt jgw]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Racing rules of sailing.

https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/rules?part_id=45


Section A RIGHT OF WAY

A boat has right of way over another boat when the other boat is required to keep clear of her. However, some rules in Sections B, C and D limit the actions of a right-of-way boat.

10. ON OPPOSITE TACKS
When are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.

11. ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.

12. ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.

13. WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other's port side or the one astern shall keep clear.

Section B GENERAL LIMITATIONS

14. AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

15. ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat's actions.

16. CHANGING COURSE
16.1.
When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.
16.2.
In addition, when after the starting signal a port-tack boat is keeping clear by sailing to pass astern of a starboard-tack boat, the starboard-tack boat shall not change course if as a result the port-tack boat would immediately need to change course to continue keeping clear.

17. ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE
If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat. This rule does not apply if the overlap begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear.

But that's racing rules, not COLREGS. Completely different thing. Just like with cars, most of what happens on the race track would land one in jail if done on a public road.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You missed my point.

What you describe is the after the fact trying to justify what happened in court. If that was the official response in court (I'm betting it's not), he had lousy lawyers who didn't coach him on the technicality while testifying but I certainly don't believe his thought process on the water was anything close to...I have right of way, so I'm going to run down that jetski unless he gets out of my way.

I'm betting he was surprised or distracted and just didn't react quickly when the jetski popped out in front of him. I doubt he is he understood the technicalities of the definition, he would have reacted differently. Probably had enough thought to hit the horn but then froze in terms of taking more action.

Do you have a link to more details about the case?

What I was referring to is his initial statements to the officers on the scene when asked for his statement on what happened. His reply was he had the right of way based on his red/green positioning with the pwc. His defense in court was pretty much the same song. Whether or not he froze is really not an issue, as the regulations require BOTH vessels to actively avoid a collision. I'm surprised you would not believe a court rule he failed to perform that duty when the regulations are very specific in that regard.
I read it as someone with just enough knowledge to believe he knew something. He was stand on, he did not deviate course or speed as he believed he had the right of way.
My knowledge of the case was the video and federal officers explanation of how it happened and results in court. I could not even tell you where it took place or when. The course was taken when I was in my early 20's so it happened at least 30 years ago.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Interesting link and while it doesn't change the situation as presented in the video, I do wonder if "Tanker 15" realised Patrick was operating as a power vessel during the interaction (refer 3:35).

I can't help thinking Tanker 15 was acting on Patrick's probable AIS description as a sailing vessel.

Not casting any dispersions, simply curious about the detail!

Either way in the crossing situation, the tanker was give way - even if taken as a power-driven vessel, Patrick was to stbd.
He did not say that he hoisted a cone or switched his AIS - an oversight on his part. Though I daresay that the motoring cone in itself is not likely to be seen from the bridge of a big ship when they do their manoeuvre - the sails are so much easier to see.