Interesting case. As an exercise, I looked it up in the Canadian Colregs (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1416.pdf <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1416.pdf>) before reading the other replies, to see whether I interpret the same way as others (I’ll read the other replies after sending this).
First, the RRS don’t apply because none of the vessels were participating in an official race of an organization affiliated to a World Sailing member national authority, whose NOR / SIs stated the race would be run by the RRS, etc. Second, I assume visibility was good enough that Section III of the Colregs didn’t apply. It seems to me the port-tack racer violated Rule 16: "Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of an- other vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.” By crossing close astern he didn’t keep well clear. Some might argue that the non-racer violated Rule 17(a)(i) "Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.” But Rule 17(a)(ii) exonerates the non-racer in my interpretation: "he latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.”. Rule 17(b) may also be germane: "When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.” The non-racer may have panicked and tacked thinking he could avoid collision that way (rightly or wrongly), since the port-tack racer was crossing so close astern. Once the non-racer completed her tack, Rule 13 also obligates the port-tack racer to keep clear, as the overtaking boat. Some might also argue that both boats violated, say, Rule 8(d) "Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The ef- fectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear” and Rule 8(e) "If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to as- sess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.” But in my opinion only the port-tack racer violated those rules, because he was the give-way boat to begin with. My $0.02. But I’m not Canadian, eh. Cheers, Randy Stafford S/V Grenadine C&C 30-1 #7 Ken Caryl, CO > On Sep 21, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > wrote: > > A friend described a situation from the past weekend that I would like to > pose to the collective brain trust on this list. There were three boats > involved. All three were out day sailing. Two boats were travelling the > same direction and the owners knew each other so they had an impromptu “race” > as they were tacking upwind in a commercial harbour. These two boats had no > verbal agreement to race but they were each trying to best the other. The > third boat had a couple likely in their sixties out sailing by themselves. > > One of the two boats that was “racing” was on port tack (we will call this P) > while the couple out sailing was on stbd tack (S). The heolmsman on P > decided he would pass close by the stern of S. P passing astern of S is in > my mind obeying Colregs in Canada. However since P was being competitive P > planned to pass close by the stern of S. Before this could happen S tacked > to port at close quarters not giving P sufficient room to avoid a collision. > The boats ended up colliding with the sides of the hulls touching but no > readily apparent damage or injury to either party. P hailed to S asking if > everyone was OK and received no response and both boats proceeded on their > way. > > So my question. Is a port boat passing close astern of a Stbd boat > sufficient to satisfy the Colregs? Does S radically altering course without > giving P room to keep clear mean that S has violated Colregs? > > I know that if this was an organized race that according to RRS S would be at > fault. I am wondering how this would be interepreted under Colregs? The > third boat was involved only as a witness > > Thankfully I was not involved in this in any way. > > Mike > Persistence > Halifax, NS > _______________________________________________ > > Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. Each and > every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support the list - use > PayPal to send contribution -- https://www.paypal.me/stumurray > <https://www.paypal.me/stumurray>
_______________________________________________ Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. Each and every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support the list - use PayPal to send contribution -- https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
