BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Bruce In Bangkok

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:56:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:14:01 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:19:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:32:26 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:44:15 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

If I turn on my engine, even if it's in neutral, I consider
myself a powerboat.

That is the way the rules are being taught and interpreted these days.

Not really. Even Americas Cup racers are permitted to run an engine
for charging purposes while racing.

I have an outboard on my boat. If I am just noodling around and not
trying to set any speed records, I may leave the engine in the water
while sailing, even though it is not running. That may look like I'm
motoring to you, but if you don't see a black sphere hanging from my
spreaders, or a steaming light, I'm a sailboat.

That's the LAW.

No it is not. A black sphere signifies that you are at anchor. You should
have said 'cone apex downward'

When I typed that, my brain was idling and not in gear. :- )

Lets's just change it to, "That may look like I'm motoring to you, but
if you don't see a day shape or navigation light indicating otherwise,
I'm a sailboat.

If jon were to find himself in an Admiralty court, and proudly stated
that although he was legally sailing, he was acting as if he was a
powerboat, I think that would open him up to some unexpected
surprises. He would have just admitted that he was not following the
colregs.

One basic problem with his practice is that it leads to confusion by
other vessels, who will be expecting his vessel to act as what it
really is. Not much different from the chucklehead on land who trys
and give the right of way to others at a 4 way stop, when it is his
turn to go. Suddenly, order evaporates and no one knows what to expect
or do. This is followed by all cars lurching and stopping as they play
guessing games in the intersection.

Actually if jon were to find himself in Admiralty Court the first
question that would be asked is "Who took what action to avoid or
prevent the accident". Only after this question is resolved will the
question of what objects were dangling from the forestay arise.

I think that you will find that whether a sailboat, a powerboat or a
row boat, the court will always find against the party who, in the
event evasive action was possible, failed to take evasive action or to
do everything in his/her power to avoid the accident.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It's almost unheard of for one party to be assigned 100% of the blame.
Contributing factors are what Admiralty Court is all about. Just as
with the application of law on land, if you expect court decisions to
reflect what YOU think is common sense, you will be wrong pretty much
100% of the time.

The colregs are merely a starting point for the discussion. Find me a
court case where a tanker or freighter was found at fault for failing
to "give way" for a crossing "stand-on" row boat. Similarly, you will
find that when a case gets to court, allowances will be made for the
manuvering problems of a sailboat with both sails up and engine
running in gear at the same time. They are not as manuverable as they
would be with the sails down, and the court understands that. It is
also understood that because they have much smaller mechanical drive
systems, they can't slow down or stop as fast as a similar sized power
boat.

None of that is spelled out in the Colregs, but it is always a factor
in court.

A few years ago there was a case in the Singapore Admiralty Court
wherein a ship proceeding East deviated into the West bound traffic
lane. A collision resulted. The findings of the court never mentioned
the colregs but relied solely on the Singapore Traffic System
Regulations.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)