Yottie convicted over collision

[Lewis 53]

The COLREGS Steering and Sailing rules......(section) Responsibilities between Vessels : A Sailing vessel underway must keep clear of 1. A vessel not under command: 2. A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre: 3. A fishing vessel engaged in fishing

 

Clearly the yacht had infringed the prohibited zone (as has been stated before) and the power driven vessel was a vessel restricted in their ability to manoeuvre as it was in a narrow channel. Guilty as charged. No excuse. Should not have got into that situation and should have known better than to try and argue otherwise.

[DHutch]

 

Does this mean that the next canoeist that races for a bridge hole and comes off worst can be prosecuted??

Been there, not fun!

I have once found myself on the front of a yacht in a sailing dingy, fortunately it was moored and static, and I ended on it though a combination of lack of judgement and a strong tide. Far from fun, but if you scale it up about 8 fold, really very serious.

 

Appears a bit of a mess to have a 3k find and 100k worth of legal costs, but there we go, its a bizarre world in which we live!

 

 

 

Daniel

[Dalesman]

A good view of this yacht here

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

 

Not just yachts Mersey ferries too..!!!!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nENvBrhkK-4

Edited November 2, 2013 by Dalesman

[Dharl]

Also worth having a look and listen the enclosed. This was part of the MCA submission of evidence and shows courses from AIS overlaid with the sound from the Bridge VDR ( Voyage Data Recorder) of the tanker. It shows the tracks of the Yacht, Tanker and also the Harbour Launch which was acting as escort. The launch was also dealing with a small motor boat that had broken down on the course of the tanker and where she needed to alter course.

 

 

The sound quality is not the best, but is very interesting.

[George94]

There is consensus that the man was in the wrong.

 

However, he presumably suffered other consequences as a result of the accident (possibilities include yacht club ban, cost of repairs, general loss of reputation, insurers refusing claim, difficulties with Navy (he is no longer in it), etc.), so a prosecution on top with such a horrendous bill for costs does seem a bit OTT to me. As MTB pointed out, one second earlier and he would have been clear.

 

Lots of risks are taken by racing sailors, as with rock-climbers, Arctic explorers, etc.. It's part of the attraction, and a very different world from the safety-first culture of many on here.

[Guest]

There is consensus that the man was in the wrong.

 

However, he presumably suffered other consequences as a result of the accident (possibilities include yacht club ban, cost of repairs, general loss of reputation, insurers refusing claim, difficulties with Navy (he is no longer in it), etc.), so a prosecution on top with such a horrendous bill for costs does seem a bit OTT to me. As MTB pointed out, one second earlier and he would have been clear.

 

Lots of risks are taken by racing sailors, as with rock-climbers, Arctic explorers, etc.. It's part of the attraction, and a very different world from the safety-first culture of many on here.

 

But what if if the ship had run him down and the yacht had sunk and his crew killed?

 

Surely the prosecution is a deterrent to others repeating it as much as anything.

[Ray T]

There is consensus that the man was in the wrong.

 

However, he presumably suffered other consequences as a result of the accident (possibilities include yacht club ban, cost of repairs, general loss of reputation, insurers refusing claim, difficulties with Navy (he is no longer in it), etc.), so a prosecution on top with such a horrendous bill for costs does seem a bit OTT to me. As MTB pointed out, one second earlier and he would have been clear.

 

Lots of risks are taken by racing sailors, as with rock-climbers, Arctic explorers, etc.. It's part of the attraction, and a very different world from the safety-first culture of many on here.

 

Yes, but he would still have been in the wrong and a danger to shipping. Had he "got away with it" he may not have modified his behaviours though. Probably he will now.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Ray T

[Guest]

 

Yes, but he would still have been in the wrong and a danger to shipping. Had he "got away with it" he may not have modified his approach though. Probably he will now.

 

Wasn't there an issue about his proximity to large difficult to manoeuvre vessel too?

 

Even if they hadn't actually collided and he had just scraped ahead he would still have been in trouble any way surely.

[Ray T]

 

Wasn't there an issue about his proximity to large difficult to manoeuvre vessel too?

 

Even if they hadn't actually collided and he had just scraped ahead he would still have been in trouble any way surely.

 

Yes because the vessel was restricted in its ability to manovure and was in a deep water channel. He was, as I read it in the exclusion zone around the vessel.

 

Exclusion zones are treated very seriously. In 2005 I was skippering a charter yacht in the Solent . It was the year of the Trafalgar 200 celebrations ( http://www.portsmouth-guide.co.uk/local/traf200.htm ) and there were warships from many nations moored in the Solent.

 

 

I was skirting the exclusion zone and was approached by a rib with 5 men all dressed in black toting sub machine guns. The helm of the rib suggested I move further away from the exclusion zone. As a bit of chat I apologised and said I was a "Sunday Sailor". The rib helm laughed and said "your rig is set well though".

 

As a matter of curiosity I asked what would have happened if I had strayed into the exclusion zone? The reply - the yacht would be confiscated, each of the crew would have been fined £2000, you as skipper would be fined £5000 and a possible 6 month jail term. He wasn't jesting either.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Ray T

[howardang]

There is consensus that the man was in the wrong.

 

However, he presumably suffered other consequences as a result of the accident (possibilities include yacht club ban, cost of repairs, general loss of reputation, insurers refusing claim, difficulties with Navy (he is no longer in it), etc.), so a prosecution on top with such a horrendous bill for costs does seem a bit OTT to me. As MTB pointed out, one second earlier and he would have been clear.

 

Lots of risks are taken by racing sailors, as with rock-climbers, Arctic explorers, etc.. It's part of the attraction, and a very different world from the safety-first culture of many on here.

I have no issue with racing sailors taking as many risks as they may wish, when any consequences do not compromise anyone else. I do differ greatly, however, with a certain element who assume that because they are racing then the rules are somehow in abeyance while they are racing and therefore they have a perfect right to endanger themselves, their crew and any other vessel/crew within the area. Whether he should be further subjected to a prosecution I'll leave to others and I accept that he has probably learned a lesson which will stay with him for a long time. However, I do hope that this incident may help to stop some of the other unnecessary near misses which happen in this area every year, usually caused by ignorance.

 

I notice that you slightly mock what you describe the safety first culture which has been expressed by some contributors to this thread. I wonder what your reaction would have been if, for example, lives had been lost, or if the tanker had attempted to take evasive action and thereby run aground causing a pollution incident. I hope you wouldn't have been one of those baying for action to be taken against the master and pilot on board the tanker.

 

Howard

[Dharl]

admittedly I have a slightly biased view when it comes to Safety First, as the ships that I am paid to drive have this written across the front of the accommodation block!

 

The ability to enjoy ourselves afloat in the UK without having lots of red-tape is a privilege not often enjoyed elsewhere in the world, providing you are not doing any commercial work and your vessel is under 24 m LOA, 200 gt (there are a few more restrictions which you can view on MGN280 on the MCA website,) we are free to be afloat and enjoy our hobby. As an example in the General Aviation world you are not able to fly anything much larger than a kite without passing various tests and exams from the CAA.

 

The message is to enjoy it responsibly and obey the rules in place!

[ditchcrawler]

Just watched this on Sea City a program we recorded some time ago.

[Simon clarke]

I was under the impression first and foremost all vessels have a duty to avoid collisions regardless of who has right of way. The tanker was in a channel which left him with very little room for manouvre. The only vessel which could in this instance avoid the collision was the sailing boat. Don't know why he wasted the money by not pleading guilty.

There is consensus that the man was in the wrong.

 

However, he presumably suffered other consequences as a result of the accident (possibilities include yacht club ban, cost of repairs, general loss of reputation, insurers refusing claim, difficulties with Navy (he is no longer in it), etc.), so a prosecution on top with such a horrendous bill for costs does seem a bit OTT to me. As MTB pointed out, one second earlier and he would have been clear.

 

Lots of risks are taken by racing sailors, as with rock-climbers, Arctic explorers, etc.. It's part of the attraction, and a very different world from the safety-first culture of many on here.

That was not just taking a risk, it was stupid too.

[howardang]

I was under the impression first and foremost all vessels have a duty to avoid collisions regardless of who has right of way. The tanker was in a channel which left him with very little room for manouvre. The only vessel which could in this instance avoid the collision was the sailing boat. Don't know why he wasted the money by not pleading guilty.

 

That was not just taking a risk, it was stupid too.

 

And he was not only contravening the moving prohibition zone, he was also not complying with the conditions of the race he was taking part in, not to mention that he is/was a serving RN officer.

 

Howard

[ditchcrawler]

And he was not only contravening the moving prohibition zone, he was also not complying with the conditions of the race he was taking part in, not to mention that he is/was a serving RN officer.

 

Howard

And so above all the riffraff in boats with flashing blue lights etc.

[mrsmelly]

I was under the impression first and foremost all vessels have a duty to avoid collisions regardless of who has right of way. The tanker was in a channel which left him with very little room for manouvre. The only vessel which could in this instance avoid the collision was the sailing boat. Don't know why he wasted the money by not pleading guilty.

That was not just taking a risk, it was stupid too.

 

Hi

 

Many people use this term " Right of way " theirin lies the problem especialy on roads because peeps take the term too literaly. I was trained both on the roads and indeed boats that to think in the terms of " Priority " rather than " Right of way " is a sensible way to go, I also used the term always as a driving instructer it gives a better mindset.

Same with traffic lights Most people when asked the question what does each colour signify state

 

Red is STOP

Amber is get ready to stop or similar

Green is GO

 

In my basic police driver training and indeed later when I did advanced and pursuit training we where trained quite rightly that

 

Red means Stop

Amber means Stop

Green means Stop, unless it is safe to go.

 

How many people sat at a red traffic light when it changes to green simply set off and dont even bother looking right and left..........

 

Tim

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

How many people sat at a red traffic light when it changes to green simply set off and dont even bother looking right and left..........

 

Tim

Very true

[Guest]

Very true

One of the times jan didn't a young idiot dumping the red nearly took the front of the mx5 she had at the time off.

 

Unfortunately for the young twerp the car behind jan was a police car, and he had the space to do a u turn too.....

[howardang]

And so above all the riffraff in boats with flashing blue lights etc.

Not at all, but he wasn't showing a god example.

 

Howard

[George94]

I have no issue with racing sailors taking as many risks as they may wish, when any consequences do not compromise anyone else. I do differ greatly, however, with a certain element who assume that because they are racing then the rules are somehow in abeyance while they are racing and therefore they have a perfect right to endanger themselves, their crew and any other vessel/crew within the area. Whether he should be further subjected to a prosecution I'll leave to others and I accept that he has probably learned a lesson which will stay with him for a long time. However, I do hope that this incident may help to stop some of the other unnecessary near misses which happen in this area every year, usually caused by ignorance.

 

I notice that you slightly mock what you describe the safety first culture which has been expressed by some contributors to this thread. I wonder what your reaction would have been if, for example, lives had been lost, or if the tanker had attempted to take evasive action and thereby run aground causing a pollution incident. I hope you wouldn't have been one of those baying for action to be taken against the master and pilot on board the tanker.

 

Howard

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

I don't tend to join the pack of the self-righteous. Here or anywhere.

 

As I said, the man was wrong. But the price he paid was very high.

[Guest]

No, I wouldn't.

 

I don't tend to join the pack of the self-righteous. Here or anywhere.

 

As I said, the man was wrong. But the price he paid was very high.

 

What 'pack' george94???

[howardang]

No, I wouldn't.

 

I don't tend to join the pack of the self-righteous. Here or anywhere.

 

As I said, the man was wrong. But the price he paid was very high.

 

Nothing to do with being self-righteous, just looking at it from a different viewpoint.

 

Howard

[bizzard]

What did the red traffic light say to the amber traffic light;----- Don't look now I'm changing''.

[Beaker]

What did the red traffic light say to the amber traffic light;----- Don't look now I'm changing''.

 

You should get a job writing Christmas cracker jokes!

[The Pipe]

I noticed on the video that the tanker had a stern tug attached from what I've been told by a anchor handling/rig support ships captain it does not take much to have an upturned tug in that situation, the ships captain has to be very clear to the tug captain just what he is going to do next.