New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: In irons
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

In irons
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: In irons
    Posted: 19 Mar 15 at 7:55am
Brass - precisely.  That's the nail in the coffin for me as far as Towergate are concerned.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 11:19pm
Originally posted by fudheid

it didn't matter what the protest committee found, in terms of pay out for damage.

It might matter a bit more if it was a close hook-up overlap, or a mark-room incident, where the COLREGS obligations are very different from the RRS ones.

In this particular case the same fault lies against each boat, whether applying COLREGS or RRS.
  1. Port did not keep clear of Starboard
  2. Starboard did not avoid contact where reasonably possible or, when she found herself so close that collision could not be avoided by the action of Port alone, she did not take action to avoid collision. 
Both boats were at fault so apportionment was going to be the appropriate way of dealing with damages.

Apportionment is not something that arises from COLREGS rather than RRS.  Neither RRS NOR COLREGS deal with liability for damages.  That is dealt with by other international maritime conventions and statute and common law.

Originally posted by fudheid

In rrrs terms we as port boat did our turns and so exonerated ourselves (is that bit right? do your turns and get a result, until protest committee hearing?)
Not exactly right in RRS terms.

Taking a turns or scoring penalty under rule 44 does NOT 'exonerate' a boat for breaking a rule.

All it means is that, being an 'applicable penalty', if a protest hearing concludes that the boat broke a rule, she shall not be further penalised, as provided by rule 64.1( b ).  She still broke the rule.

A boat can only be exonerated for breaking a rule if
  1. in accordance with rule 64.1( a ), she was compelled to break the rule as a consequence of another boat breaking a rule;  or
  2. with respect to rule 14 Avoiding Contact, if she was a right of way boat or a boat entitled to room or mark-room and the contact does not cause damage or injury, in accordance with rule 14( b ).
Originally posted by fudheid

we took avoiding action - although far too late as we did not see the starboard yacht, until she was on top of us.
whether you call it RRS 14 or colreg.

Originally posted by fudheid

 When insurance companies are arguing liabilities they will pick whatever terms suit them.
The rules , protests and insurance claims are not as linked as you think. Like any insurance policy if they can wiggle they will wiggle.

Quite possibly.

Although for a GBP 2,000 boating accident the deciding factor will probably be what ever was in the tiny brain of the overworked, underpaid, pimply faced 20 year old insurance clerk that was handling the claim.

For a 2,000 quid claim you're not going to get the finest legal minds in the industry.
Originally posted by fudheid

Be clear on this.
why you all think i would be funny with an actual incident that caused a few thousand pounds worth of damage i do not know, i was trying to pass on the knowledge we gained from a racing incident. take that knowledge or stick your heads in the sand about what you think you are covered for.
And no i was not the helmsman, we were shorthanded so had our heads in the boat at a major manouvere - it is no excuse; but just enough to lessen our liability.
Regardless of what the insurance company told you, the RRS were applicable.

As it happened, applying the COLREGS instead of the RRS made no difference.

As for insurance, you are covered for what you are covered for:  read your policy and think about engaging a reputable and experienced broker.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 10:57pm
If the insurance companies use colregs, I would have thought they would have expected a port tack boat to keep better lookout in a busy piece of water. Not looking where you are going, especially when you don't have right of way, is not a good excuse under colregs!
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 10:45pm
Originally posted by fudheid

How does the rrs DSQ ing two boats help to apportion blame?

If it comes to an insurance claim or litigation, it demonstrates that no boat can claim to be blameless, hence apportionment should be the expected outcome.
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 11:18am
I'm not sure it is your incident we are too fixed on - it appears blame was aportioned about right - but the idea that an insurance company might ignore with rules we are racing under and use the col regs instead. If you were the insurance company for an F1 team, and when there was a crash used the rules of public roads to decide who was to blame, I don't think the team would be very happy.

Now, if the F1 race was run on a public road and a race car hit a car that was going to the shops, or a lorry, then the race rules couldn't apply. At that point in sailing, colregs will come back in.
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
fudheid View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 11
Location: 51.53 N 01.28 E
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241 		Post Options Post Options   Quote fudheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 9:00am
it didn't matter what the protest committee found, in terms of pay out for damage. In rrrs terms we as port boat did our turns and so exonerated ourselves (is that bit right? do your turns and get a result, until protest committee hearing?)
we took avoiding action - although far too late as we did not see the starboard yacht, until she was on top of us.
whether you call it RRS 14 or colreg. When insurance companies are arguing liabilities they will pick whatever terms suit them.
The rules , protests and insurance claims are not as linked as you think. Like any insurance policy if they can wiggle they will wiggle.
Be clear on this.
why you all think i would be funny with an actual incident that caused a few thousand pounds worth of damage i do not know, i was trying to pass on the knowledge we gained from a racing incicdent. take that knowledge or stick your heads in the sand about what you think you are covered for.
And no i was not the helmsman, we were shorthanded so had our heads in the boat at a major manouvere - it is no excuse; but just enough to lessen our liability.
thank you for reading this, wolves..... Ouch
Cheers you

only me from over the sea......
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 15 at 11:44pm
Originally posted by fudheid

Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by fudheid

 took action on colregs and who was to blame for the damage not who is to blame under the RRS.in a port starboard collision the costs were split as the RoW boat chose to make contact i.e took no avoiding action.....


Are you absolutely sure about that in detail? That would be an odd thing to do since legally colregs don't apply in a race held under RRS.

I can easily imagine insurance companies choosing to split the costs - indeed I'd expect it, but in the case of a P/S where starboard chose to make contact I'd expect both boats to be found at fault and DSQ under RRS anyway.

Absolutely. We had a protest commitee which found fault with port and were dsq'd. However the insurance companies  - towergate from our side; did not ask for the protest committee hearings. 
they asked for witness statements etc. but had no regard for the RRS. 
The actual split was 60/40 i think in favouir of the starboard boat. they were not happy as they did not get a full pay out.

COLREGS aside,  P broke rule 10 but if S took no action to avoid contact then S probably broke rule 14.

Each boat broke a RRS rule.

Not in the least surprising that each boat bore a portion of the liability.
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 15 at 11:00pm
Just renewed with GJW again. Pretty sure they understand that we play a game that uses rrs, and are happy to use those rules. If anyone knows different, please let me know, as I have 7 boats with them...

Colregs are designed to keep boats as apart as possible. Most of what we do when Racing wouldn't be approved of in a narrow channel with boats going up and down, not racing. If colregs are brought in after the fact, then we are all screwed.
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 15 at 10:34pm
1989-92 Rules. 32.1 Avoiding Collisions. When a collision has resulted in serious damage, the right of way yacht shall be penalised as well as the other yacht when she had the opportunity but failed to make a reasonable attempt to avoid the collision.
Back to Top
fudheid View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 11
Location: 51.53 N 01.28 E
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241 		Post Options Post Options   Quote fudheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 15 at 10:27pm
1991,same year as everyone else in this forum.
😂
Cheers you

only me from over the sea......
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy