Jump to content

Sailing Crash


Recommended Posts

KM - I’ve been watching this thread and seeing you and Fish having the odd crack at each other as it went on (and by the way I agree with you that it’s difficult to determine who is in the wrong without the detail of timing and some other variables) but I don’t think it’s fair to say that IT has had a crack at you - I always find his posts to be very considered and reasonable. IT adds a huge amount of knowledge to this forum. Let’s treat him with the respect he deserves.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

KM, thank you for taking the time to post the details and your thinking below.

 
Fish asked, I responded, you and him spat the dunny PURELY as you can not recognise the difference between opinion and having a crack. Then Fish went all petulant as he has a habit of doing, I stepped back as I can't be arsed with that this week.

To be factual, you started in on the fairly aggressive cracks. There is a big difference to giving a different opinion, and having a crack. And you had several cracks without giving any reasoning, before I started kicking up. 

All I can really ask you to do, is to go back and read the thread and your posts. The whole purpose of a forum is to exchange and discuss differing points of view. If you make it personal, things go down hill fast.

 

So there is sweet feck all I can do about that sorry. I only did one year of English at secondary school, the 4th form. I didn't have the luxury of a flash harry poncy la-de-da education you lads got so it's unlikely we'll express things the same way. Tolerance would dictate you allow for things like that, I sure do as it works both ways. You use words I have no idea about so would you like to be called some overly educated snobby knob tosser?

My 4th form English teacher was Indian. He had such a heavy accent I had no idea what he was on about.

 

 

 

The key there being something Fish also missed 'the OP I sent'. Sorry, I'm still missing this. What are you on about here?

 
Again I ask, where is the timing you need to know to make the calls Fish has? I can't see it, a judges can't see it, no one I've asked can't see it. It leaves the obvious question, How come Fish and you see something no one else can?
 
And I'll make it even simpler - from the OP, the only bit mentioning anything timing

Fish reckons that's cover by part 2. How can he say that?

I didn't write the rules, you don't have to agree with the rules, but you do have to understand them. All the RRS's say is 'intending to race'. No time limit is given. Potentially the RRS apply on the motorway while driving to the yacht club. But given that this incident occurred 'while waiting for the pre-start', I think its is clear enough it is covered by the RRS.

And to be fair, I also assumed the Colregs applied, until spotting the clause in the RRS while looking for something unrelated.

But, the central point to my arguement doesn't change if its Colregs or RRS. Ref below.
 
Am I planning on racing my boat?  - Yes.
Does that mean I 'intend' to race?  - Yes
Does it mean in 1 minute, 2 minutes, 30 minutes, 3.87 light years? - We do not know as there is not any timing.

Nothing in the OP gives us the timing needed to know how close the boats are to their P flag, in which case how do we know the RRS apply. Are the boats 30 minutes away, in which case the RRS may not apply. Given we know it is before a start but not not by how much we can't say which applies the RRS or Colregs so what do you default to, which is the more powerful of the pair? It's not the RRS.
 
Distance. Fish and others reckon in the top right drawing it shows A as the stand on boat and it should be holding it's course. BOLLOX. To change the boats to Fishes one which is 37ft and use the same ratios as used in the OP. If he was on stb and roughly aiming in my direction, as in the drawing, would Fish be spitting dummies if I demanded he held his course? Oh hell yes as he should. Lets use 9 boat lengths, mid point of the OP's stated 8-10 lengths. In this example Fish would not and I would not expect him to hold course and speed when he was over 100mts way sailing slowly (in 5-8 knots neither Mr Birdsal or Mr Ross's boats are breaking any speed records). I saw that, the judges saw that, many saw that, I did try to explain that yet Fish and you appear not to have seen that.

 

We all agree we don't have sufficient detail on time and distance to make binding and or definitive calls on fault here. Given the context that this is an internet forum, and not a protest hearing, an insurance claim assessment, or a coroners court, I feel giving an opinion on what information we do have is perfectly legit.

 

I argue that specific time and distance is not central to my argument. And it also doesn't matter if its Colregs or RRS (although there are variances that would be affected if we had more info, that could swing the result completely - I acknowledge that).

KM makes a big deal about me saying that from the top right drawing, A must stand on, (implying they are on a collision course). If you look at the 3rd and 4th drawings, A's course is changing, leading up to the impact.

 

If its Colregs:

A is required to keep a steady course and speed - from when a risk of collission is established. KM may be right that there wasn't a risk of collision at drawing 2. At some point during drawing 3 or 4, a risk of collision did exist, therefore, A needed to 'stand on'. A is entitled to take evasive action, once it is apparent B isn't keeping clear. To get to that point, A needed to sail straight for a bit (i.e. stand on). That didn't happen, or perhaps it happened at drawing 2, where KM argues there was no risk of collision. Basically under any scenario, there is no evidence A 'stood on' prior to the collision. It doesn't matter which scenario comes out, A did not meet there obligations as the starboard tack boat.

More so, B was changing course, showing they were making efforts to keep clear, which is their obligation.

 

If its RRS:

The same logic applies as for the Colregs arguement. But under RRS, A is allowed to change course, but if she does so, she must give B room to keep clear. Again, drawings 3 and 4 show A changing course. Because she is changing course, she must give B room. She didn't, as evidenced by the fact there was a collision.

Again B is shown to be changing course, showing they were making efforts to keep clear, which is their obligation.

 

If B is making efforts to meet their obligations (under either set of rules) and A is not meeting their obligations, then, based on the information to hand, doesn't fault fall to A?

 
So when silly people who have already decided based on a lack of information say things like this

don't you think it is fair it is suggested they read what is actually written which was

I've gone back and re-read my original reply to the original post. After all these pages of BS, I still stand by what I said in that post.

To keep KM happy, I could possibly add a whole lot of legal-esque disclaimers like "on the information to hand", "with the facts as presented", "no warrantee as to the accuracy of this random forum posts is offered or implied"...

 

There is a kind of blind belief that if there is a collision between a port and starboard boat, it MUST be ports fault. 

That is simply not the case. Boats on starboard have obligations, and if they don't fulfill those obligations, that fault can lie on the starboard tack boat.

Yes, B is jointly at fault for not avoiding a collision, I acknowledge that, and we've covered it plenty.

Yes, if we have more info on distance and timing it may well change things, I acknowledge that, and we've covered it plenty.

 

Like I've already said, given this is an opinion on a forum and not a hearing of some sort with material outcomes, I think giving an opinion on the info to hand is perfectly legit. To criticise someone for that is a bit over the top really.
 

 

 

 

As another FYI - Crew.Org has done more to lift me level of engish understanding, spelling skills and a few other things far more than the NZ Secondary school system. BP is good for that as he speaks fluent Uni so for all intends and purposes he's speaking in Klingon to me hence I have to google his posts more than most. I have learned a lot doing that. But like most it's still a very big work in progress.

Uni doesn't impart intelligence, it only imparts qualifications. They are different...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I took the drawings to be roughly to scale. That means that there was around 3 boatlengths between the boats in the top right pic. It’s drawn on graph paper, the boats are a bit over 1.5 squares long. It gives you some idea of distances.

If you take a boats speed in knots, and halve it, that’s pretty close to it’s speed in meters/sec. so for example, if these are 5m dinghys, at 6 knots, it’s about 1.7 secs a boatlength. At that speed, they are about 2.5 secs apart, as they are converging (adding speeds together). Of course, if they are at three knots, it’s 5 secs. If the boats are 10m, you can double those numbers.

We don’t know the speeds, but if the diagrams are right, there is definitely a risk of collision, and B is the encumbered vessel, A is stand on.

As you can see from this thread, protest committees don’t have an easy task, everything is open to interpretation, and can easily be misunderstood or misconstrued.

:-) Have a nice weekend everyone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...