Who is right?

They obviously were, since they were hailing!

This is rule 11, windward boat keeps clear, as simple as can be. Sometimes the rules are confusing but this is not one of those times. There is nothing remotely ambiguous about it. If you are reaching with a big kite, you have to keep looking underneath it, every few seconds if need be. You can't rely on other boats to keep the look-out for you.

Are you asking for insurance purposes, or in terms of racing? A distinction needs to be made between the IRPCS laws and RRS. As far as the racing goes, both boats are in the wrong - you for windward/leeward, and the cat for the collision, which was clearly avoidable - they had to sail at least 100 metres in order to be in a position to hit you! Put like that, it almost sounds like it was deliberate!! That fact alone makes the insurance position a little bit sticky. Did the cat make any attempt to avoid the collision? If not, I would have thought that puts them at fault for insurance purposes. From what you describe, surely a quick luff was all that was needed to avoid the collision, and then I would agree with the concensus, you would clearly have been in the wrong. As it is, both boats are at fault under RRS. You retired, so no further penalty. A protest against the cat for the collision would be upheld, I would think.

Neil

No it doesn't if both boats are racing, When you enter a race you agree to follow RRS. It you enter an open event, you sign normally sign explicitly that you are doing so, while for club events it is implicit.

Since I understand both boats here were racing, RRS is all that comes into it. If you ever have the pleasure of insurance companies arguing over a collision where you are involved with another racing boat, you will find it is RRS they look at to assign blame.

There have been several court cases worldwide involving RRS versus IRPCS, most recently regarding a collision between two yachts racing off St Tropez. Bizarrely, the case was heard in the USA. This also invoved a W/L collision and blame lay differently between an RRS view and an IRPCS view, because IRPCS assigns additional burdens to an "overtaking vessel" which RRS does not. Anyway, RRS was upheld, because both boats were racing and had agreed to follow RRS.

You will often hear cruising sailors incorrectly claim that RRS has no legal basis. Several courts worldwide have found otherwise. Conforming to RRS is effectively a contractual undertaking we enter into when we race. 

First - the contention that the Cat should have avoided a collision because he saw the B14 100m away is wrong. The rule states that the cat (right of way boat): (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the B14 is not keeping clear or giving room.

So 100m is irrelevant - the relevant distance is the distance when the cat sailor knew the B14 was not going to keep clear. On the (one sided) evidence, that was probably at considerably less than 100m and with a closing speed of around 20m/sec that would have given him a couple of seconds to avoid the collision. Here's a perfectly plausible version of events based on the evidence. 

- He saw you at around 100m , he hailed and you took no avoiding action so he hailed again and you still ignored him. Only then did he realise you hadn't seen him and that you  were about to Tbone him so he tried to avoid you and you hit him.

Pay up.

The contention that the cat should have seen the collision from 100m away and should have avoided it is not wrong. The cat was tracking the progress of the b14 for the 100 m, therefore they could see 2 things.

1)The average course of the boat.

2) the available escape routes that the b14 could take. 

So for the entire 100m the cat could see that the b14 was maintaining course along its racing line, and was not using the available escape routes. so they could see as the 2 boats closed that they were continuing on a collision course. As sailors they know the manouvering limitations of the boat they are sailing, so they know at what distance they can bug out of a collision.

It is as you get to this point of no return that you know that the other boat isn't keeping clear. So you at this point avoid. If this isn't the point that you know then no collision is avoidable for a right of way boat... ever. so what is the point of having the rule in the first place.

The origional post doesn't seem to make it clear whether the cat threw the helm over to try and avoid. If he did then It is the B14's problem if he just piled in to the B14 without making a reasonable attempt to avoid then surley it's the cats problem.