Who had right of way?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...rvivor-tries-to-explain/ar-BBMwwG2?li=BBnb7Kz

A sailboat under sail power always has the right of way.

ksanders said:

A sailboat under sail power always has the right of way.

Click to expand...

Actually a sailboat under sail is about in the middle of the hierarchy list for right-of-way privileges....

ksanders said:

A sailboat under sail power always has the right of way.

Click to expand...

So a huge container ship coming up the channel should what, go behind a sailboat's stern?

And that is just one example of many!

ksanders said:

A sailboat under sail power always has the right of way.

Click to expand...

Often quoted but incorrect. An example would be a sailing cat overtaking a power boat at displacement speeds.

Here's my guess as to how this happened. The fishing boat probably thought he had privilege because he was trolling. Classic mistake on the Chesapeake. Fishing trawlers do have privilege over sailboats under sail, but he was not trawling. The sailboat knowing that technically he had the right of way refused to give way. And now, according to the Regs, both are at fault. I could be completely wrong, but bet I'm close....

menzies said:

So a huge container ship coming up the channel should what, go behind a sailboat's stern?

And that is just one example of many!

Click to expand...

First off the container ship is a commercial vessel that has limited
manuability , taking a bit longer to turn even if they decide to do so. Add that to a marked channel for the ship's depth requirement and the size difference, that pleasure sailboat will never win a case in court. But those sailboat folks mostly likes to think they have the right of way , but few challenge the issue past throwing a beer or two at those ships.:<}

People use "right of way" very loosely as it only appears in the COLREGS for Western Rivers and then ONLY to differentiate between upstream and downstream bound vessels. The Correct term is "Stand On and Give Way for vessels overtaking, passing or meeting on different courses. Neither stand on or give way vessels escape the liability of keeping a vigilant watch nor the obligation to avoid a collision by all available means. I suspect that the sailboat will be assessed a portion of the blame in this case.

The days of automatic Rights of Way are long gone. Got a question? Call them on the radio. No answer? Proceed as if the crew is dead.

Scratchnsaw said:

First off the container ship is a commercial vessel that has limited
manuability , taking a bit longer to turn even if they decide to do so. Add that to a marked channel for the ship's depth requirement and the size difference, that pleasure sailboat will never win a case in court. But those sailboat folks mostly likes to think they have the right of way , but few challenge the issue past throwing a beer or two at those ships.:<}

Click to expand...

Sorry, but just about all of your statements are incorrect in the eyes of the Navrule..now they might make some logical sense, but the rules are clear....and do not align with this reasoning.

The fontainer ship in a channel eould most likely be following rule 9....but if not has to give way to the sailboat.

For those wishing specific explanations, there are qiuite a few in the other thread and certainly easy to figure out if you glance through the Navrules or Colregs.

OldDan1943 said:

The days of automatic Rights of Way are long gone. Got a question? Call them on the radio. No answer? Proceed as if the crew is dead.

Click to expand...

Or just follow the rules like you are supposed to.....

psneeld said:

Sorry, but just about all of your statements are incorrect in the eyes of the Navrule..now they might make some logical sense, but the rules are clear....and do not align with this reasoning.

For those wishing specific explanations, there are qiuite a few in the other thread and certainly easy to figure out if you glance through the Navrules or Colregs.

Click to expand...

. Are willing to bet on a container ship being fined or held liable for running over a pleasure craft sailboat in a marked and restrictive channel?

You've all got it wrong. Clearly, it is mating season in the Chesapeake and you are observing nature taking its course. After all, where do you think dinghies come from?

of course we don't know whether the sail boat was also motoring, and that would completely reverse who is stand-on and give-way.


At the risk of being pedantic, everyone on this forum should have at least one copy of the "rules" on their boat, and not a bad idea to have a second at home for reference. And should read it all at least once, then refer back to it on a regular basis.


Give-way and stand-on are not as simple as many people think, and lots of common advice/belief is wrong, or incomplete. For example, commercial vs non commercial is utterly irrelevant. And many cases of boats thought to have privilege due to circumstances, size, etc., don't unless they have explicitly declared it, are lit accordingly, and are displaying day shapes accordingly.

Looking at the picture for me the powerboat is at fault. I am not a sailor nor an expert but obviously a powerboat like the one on the pic has far more manoeuvrability then the sailboat so by safety measure that guy should have gone behind the sailboat and give him the right of way. No need of rule, law or anything like that, just common sense.

L

Scratchnsaw said:

. Are willing to bet on a container ship being fined or held liable for running over a pleasure craft sailboat in a marked and restrictive channel?

Click to expand...

Yes.....absolutely.

Common sense says I can do 70 in a 55 zone on an interstate with no traffic around...but it aint the law......

Learning the rules isnt that hard...opposed to all the guessing how to do jit right .....why do many here seem to fight it so?

psneeld said:

Yes.....absolutely.

Common sense says I can do 70 in a 55 zone on an interstate with no traffic around...but it aint the law......

Learning the rules isnt that hard...opposed to all the guessing how to do jit right .....why do many here seem to fight it so?

Click to expand...

I understand that completely. But the laws of tonnage applies too. Running the Miss River is another case in point where the south bound current further restricts proper handling for commercial traffic in particular. So you cannot say without a doubt that that a weekend warrior out for a day cruise has the right or way. That's just plain wrong.

Here you go:

Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

(9, 10 and 13 get to narrow channel, vessel separation schemes, and overtaking, respectively).

A little thread drift. We had a some what similar incident on Lake Washington. A sail boat technically sailing but in fact drifting was hit buy a speed boat in the dark. Woman on sail boat was killed. The first part of the investigation was directed at proper lights, proper safety gear, operator capacity (intoxication), equipment in proper working order of both vessels. The second part was directed towards stand on, give way, proper look out and avoiding a collision.

It was found that the power boat was guilty of may failures as you can imagine. The sail boat was found guilty of only one failure(operator capacity or intoxication). The investigation determined operator capacity had no affect on the out come of the collision.

Now I don’t remember if this moved to civil court or if it was criminal but suddenly the sailboat operator was in court defending himself on manslaughter charges. After all he was intoxicated, operating a boat on which a passenger was fatally injured. I don’t know if the case has been heard yet or what.

The power boat in no way got off. I believe reckless endangerment charges were brought due to speed and visibility.

I am merely pointing out how these thing have unexpected twists and turns.

menzies said:

Here you go:

Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

(9, 10 and 13 get to narrow channel, vessel separation schemes, and overtaking, respectively).

Click to expand...

Yep,

Scratchnsaw said:

I understand that completely. But the laws of tonnage applies too. Running the Miss River is another case in point where the south bound current further restricts proper handling for commercial traffic in particular. So you cannot say without a doubt that that a weekend warrior out for a day cruise has the right or way. That's just plain wrong.

Click to expand...

There is no "rule of tonnage", and you just perpetuating ignorance, bad navigation, and poor seamanship by repeating it.


I'm 100% with psneeld on this. Rather than everyone making up whatever rules seem right to them, just learn and follow to ones that you are supposed to know, and required to follow.

Scratchnsaw said:

Yep,

Click to expand...

except...

Rule 3
The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manageability.

twistedtree said:

There is no "rule of tonnage", and you just perpetuating ignorance, bad navigation, and poor seamanship by repeating it.


I'm 100% with psneeld on this. Rather than everyone making up whatever rules seem right to them, just learn and follow to ones that you are supposed to know, and required to follow.

Click to expand...

My comment about the tonnage applies to restrictive navigation in a channel by large ships. I go back to the issues of ships, tugs and barges too that's headed downstream too. Anyway a dozen courts would probably rule a dozen different ways in this matter.

menzies said:

except...

Rule 3
The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manageability.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's obvious. But we were talking about sailing craft versus a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;.

My comments addressed this from my very first reply. Nighty nite folks.

The Other Gary said:

People use "right of way" very loosely as it only appears in the COLREGS for Western Rivers and then ONLY to differentiate between upstream and downstream bound vessels. The Correct term is "Stand On and Give Way for vessels overtaking, passing or meeting on different courses. Neither stand on or give way vessels escape the liability of keeping a vigilant watch nor the obligation to avoid a collision by all available means. I suspect that the sailboat will be assessed a portion of the blame in this case.

Click to expand...

This took far more time than usual for someone to bring up.

twistedtree said:

of course we don't know whether the sail boat was also motoring, and that would completely reverse who is stand-on and give-way.

Click to expand...

This is the big question. Not in any way suggesting that the following is the case here, but how easy is it for a sailboater to claim in court that his or her motor was off even though he or she was motorsailing?

High Wire said:

Often quoted but incorrect. An example would be a sailing cat overtaking a power boat at displacement speeds.

Click to expand...

Geez guys

In this case with a recreational powerboat, and a sailboat under sail, the sailboat has the right of way.

Further down the rule book, A snailing craft shall not cross or enter a channel and obstruct vessels already navigating in the channel, shall not impede NUC, RAM, CBD nor anybody claiming the center of the channel by restrictions in her draft (Inland version of CBD).
Real fishing boats, with their own day shapes and nights lights, are real RAM and are taller in the scrotem pole than a snail bote.

I'm sure the sailboat was enforcing his right-of-way. I think somewhere in Europe.