Had a collision yesterday whilst sailing in a NNE F3. the course set on a tidal estuary involved setting a reach across the river crossing where other boats were beating back through the start finish line. we were on starboard reaching for the wing mark, both fully hiked 3 sail reaching. as the mark was quite tight the kite was sheeted quite tight. half way across the reach i heard a shout followed by a second shout "starboard" several seconds later. as i was on starboard i did not respond. a second or so later we were hit on our port tramp by a cat sailing to windward. there was no damage to us, but we retired anyway.
When i caught up with the other party they acknowledged that they had seen us a 100m's or so before the impact. they also acknowledged calling starboard when in fact we were the windward boat. i did not see them, so had no opportunity to avoid collision.
their boat was damaged on the tip of the starboard hull.
who's right and who should accept responsibilty?
i'll have to sort this with these guys before we can progress repairs.

Cheers Ps boat is a B14

You were windward boat. You failed to keep a proper look-out. The kite being in the way is not an excuse. Sorry but it's quite clearly your fault. The incorrect hails they were making are neither here nor there. It was you, not they, who were obliged to maintain a look-out and keep clear.

Did they protest?

I think Stefan is right. I also doubt that the Cat "had the opportunity to avoid a collision and chose not to take it".

With the wind as you describe it and with the angles you describe and different speeds, it is more likely he didn't realise you were on a collision course AND you were unaware of him AND you were unable to manouvre until it was too late for him to avoid you. It certainly would have been better for him to have hailed earlier - and correctly - he certainly wouldn't gain by delaying.

It is always better to avoid collisions if you can. Repairs and insurance forms are nobody's idea of fun. People can also get hurt. Been there, done that; both the graunching fibreglass and crew being hurt in collisions.

But maybe as a cat, there weren't able to maneouvre as quickly as a dinghy? They certainly can't tack as quickly.

Fair comment Stefan.

"14 AVOIDING CONTACT

A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to http://www.sailing.org/sc.asp?ID=RRS_Definitions#room - room

(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not http://www.sailing.org/sc.asp?ID=RRS_Definitions#keepclear - keeping clear or giving http://www.sailing.org/sc.asp?ID=RRS_Definitions#room - room , and

(b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage."

If they'd seen you and (presumably) realised they could be on a collision course 100m away then they surely had time to establish that the B14 was not keeping clear and still be able to avoid collision. Therefore both boats have broken rule 14, and I think that serious damage tends to result in automatic disqualification. There is no requirement for hails to be made, but they make a stronger case for redress etc.

Stefan - both boats are required to keep a proper look out!

In terms of A simple windward Leeward collision you were in the wrong, I don't see that as a debate.

You did not see the craft that hit you, possibly bad observation on your part, but these things do happen, you cant avoid something you haven't seen. (Something I recently found out)

The hail was "starboard" so why would you be looking out for a collision? you are on starboard. It would be reasonable to assume that there were 2 other boats close to you coming port and starboard. Hails are not required, but misleading hails could be brought as an extenuating circumstance to a protest. ( if I were in the room I'd certainly mention it)

The rule says that collisions are to be avoided if reasonably possible. As was said above, capzize to avoid if you have to.  The other boat didn't make an effort (based on what you have said, so they are wrong there.)

The other boats crew said to you that they saw you 100 yards away. If they saw and were yelling starboard from that distance they could take avoiding action. This works against them in the protest.

Personally I would have thought that you could use the collision regulations and their admision that they were tracking you from so far away to good effect in a protest. You will probably still be flicked for the windward leeward element, just as you would if they had done the avoidance. But I would be suprised if you had to pay for the insurance claim / repairs because after all they hit you, and didn't have to. 

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.

Prepare to be surprised then. I was hit by another boat that had every opportunity to keep clear of me and my insurance still had to pay. That bill ran into 4 figures.

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

As a cat sailor , I'm gobsmacked to think you mono hullers would think a cat would pile into anyone on purpose !!!!!, have any of you considered how cats are made , whilst they may be functionaly strong like an egg , impact strength is near to none !!!.like an egg. Theyu aren't cheap though unlike eggs !!!!

In most cases even a minor collision on a cats bow or anywhere can result in significant damage to the cat , most cat sailors avoid collisions at all costs because of this .

As always you can't second guess a Loony ! and above fragilty doesn't apply to most Hobbie cats , if you were unfortunate to meet a loony in an ole hobbie 18 21 etc tough you should be keeping a better look out.

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 http://www.sailing.org/sc.asp?ID=RRS_Definitions#keepclear - keeping clear or giving http://www.sailing.org/sc.asp?ID=RRS_Definitions#room - 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. 

The rules require the windward boat to keep clear. It is as simple as that. It is not a 50/50 responsibility. It was the B14's responsibility to keep a look out and keep clear.

I've read this thread over and over and a few things keep on entering my mind. The closing speed of the cat in those wind speeds would have been quite high. Looking at it from the cats point of view, being the boat who has right of way you have two options, tack the boat (when you have right of way) which is a timely operation, or duck a skiff which has its kite up and could accelarate or change its course at any time. The cat incorrectly hailed but there is no demand for that boat to hail in the first place. By the cat luffing up slightly, it might have been able to avoid the colision, however it didn't and that can't be accurately predicted. Cats are also harder to manouvere. At the end of the day, no-one but the insurance companies can decide who pays and your best bet is to give them as much information as possible, mentioning other boats which were in the area. If you retired, the cat sailors can claim that this was you admiting you were at fault. These things happen and I've been in almost the same situation on a 5000 going downwind with a cat approaching us upwind. The cat held its course and we were lucky to see her just in the nick of time, crash gybed the boat and went swimming. Didn't think twice about doing so or even after it happened because the cat had right of way.

Yes it is the b14 responsibility to keep a look out,

Yes the B14 is in the wrong in terms of windward Leeward.

No it isn't 50 / 50 responsibility but I don't think I ever claimed that it was. But this doesn't change the fact that you have to avoid collision if reasonably possible. In My book a tack is reasonable, as is a crash tack. Certainly luffing up towards the wind and yelling protest is reasonably possible. Certainly the lesser of the 2 evils.  

I'm not saying that the B14 is in the right. But The Cat Does not leave the collision with a clean concience either.

Simon: You are corect that the b14 average course doesn't have any rules impact. or "Requirement" but just keeping to what is "required" is often insufficient to avoid unpleasntness. When I look at a boat I have a right of way over, I always try to work out where they are heading in case I have to tell my helm to avoid a collision with them. If the Cat crew were doing this they would be able to see that the b14 was just fetching  for the mark. It's an assym so it is liable to go for bears away in gusts, so you can give it an educated guess on what it is likley to do. There is no Requirement for me to do this, but I don't want to hit another boat ever again So I do it anyway. This way if nothing else the unpleasentness of a collision can be avoided. regardless of what the rules say Don't hit stuff.

I will bet you £50 that the cat wins on insurance stakes with what you have told me! All that £50 goes to Children in Need!

By the way Jamie, have you tried to crash tack a cat? At the speed a good sailed cat goes above her pointing angle, the cat would have still hit the B14, maybe just skimming her. 100m is a very short distance on a cat, or any high speed sailing craft. The point is, the cat didn't need to tack  because she had right of way, whos to say she didn't head up to avoid the B14?

That we can certainly agree on.

Don't really think so. The outcome of protests is not supposed to affect insurance claims either; the insurance companies make their own decisions based on the facts they are presented with. The reason for this is that protest committees are (normally) volunteers while the insurers are professionals. It would not be fair to expect a protest committee to become in effect a small claims court, if costly repairs are involved. 

If the Cat had the rudders hard over when the collision happenned then they are fine because they made a reasonable attempt. It the only way to avoid a collision was to attempt a tack then they are obligated to try.

I agree that collision should be avoided - there is no evidence and I don't believe that the Cat made no effort to do so.

Most of the 'Cat was in the wrong' brigade (morally or otherwise) are assuming he could have luffed behind the B14. But bearing in mind the B14 never saw the Cat, isn't it more likely that the Cat was in fact crossing more in front of the B14 than behind him? In that case where do you suggest the Cat goes? Especially as until the last second he could reasonably assume that the B14 was going to bear away behind him!

In the end, the windward boat has no chance in a protest or in an insurance wrangle.

We have way too many assumptions and what ifs to actually know the truth here.

I have been asked to comment from an insurer’s perspective.  We would usually (although there may be occasions when we might not) agree with any decision made by a protest committee.   If no protest meeting was held we would judge the situation as described by both parties, and any witnesses, in order to assess liability as per the Racing Rules.

There have been situations where some blame could be attributed to both boats and a settlement agreed with both parties (or their insurers) each paying a proportion of the repair costs.

Taking this specific case from the situation described, it would seem to me that the B14 was in the wrong.  However, if it could be proven that the catamaran could have taken avoiding action, but did not, then some blame lies at their door. 

As we only have one side of this story it is impossible to guess exactly what the catamaran did, or did not do.