PART 2
The question of what is possible in terms of collision avoidance, and then whether it is ‘reasonably’ possible, applies to all boats, but is significant only for a ‘a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room’, as reflected in the cases.
Thus, in RYA 1975/4, S and P tried and failed to avoid contact that resulted in damage. P was disqualified under rule 10, but S was found not to have broken rule 14, as her effort to avoid a collision was reasonable for S’s inexperienced helmsman, even though she did not act to avoid contact until after it was clear that P was not going to keep clear. This was reversed on appeal, and S was disqualified as well as P:
The test of whether it was reasonably possible for S to avoid contact is an objective one. The inexperience of helmsman and crew cannot justify a lower standard of care.
Avoidance may be theoretically possible, but not reasonably possible, on safety grounds. In WS 99, in keelboat racing in difficult conditions, P was careering out of control an a broad reach towards S, whose minor changes of direction to try to avoid contact were defeated by P’s erratic course. There was contact resulting in damage. The protest committee penalised P under rule 10 and S under rule 14, noting that S could have keep clear earlier by trying harder than she did, and could still have kept clear just before the collision by crash-gybing, albeit at risk of damage to herself. S’s appeal was upheld.
She was not required to act to avoid contact until it was clear that P was not going to keep clear. It was only at that time that rule 14 required her to avoid contact if reasonably possible. The protest committee found that, when it became clear to S that P was not going to keep clear, the only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That is equivalent to finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact – her disqualification is reversed.
The case also confirms the point previously made1 exonerating her under rule 10.
that the fact that P was out of control does not justify
WS 99 says that the right-of-way boat breaks no rule by not taking avoiding action before it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear, even if it reasonable to expect that she will not keep clear. WS 27 makes the same point: ‘A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule.’
WS 99 confirms that the test of whether collision avoidance is possible is to be made when it is clear that the keep-clear boat will not do so. RYA 2002/11 says that if it is possible at that time, the fact that it may soon after become impossible does not exonerate the right-of-way boat. Keelboats were beating in 12 knots, and the protest committee found that at 10 seconds before contact occurred it was clear to S that P would not keep clear in crossing her. S struck P’s quarter 130mm from her stern, causing damage, and she was disqualified under rule 14. S admitted that she had not borne away, believing that she would pass close astern of P (note the distinction between avoiding contact and keeping clear), but that this had been frustrated by P’s helmsman leaving his position, causing P to change course and changing a near miss into a direct hit. While not accepting that P had changed course, the RYA dismissed the appeal, saying that a boat that elects to pass close astern of a boat crossing ahead of her does so at her own risk if she was able to pass further away2
. WS 123 confirms this.
When it would be clear to a competent, but not expert, sailor at the helm of a starboard-tack boat that there is substantial risk of contact with a port-tack boat, the starboard-tack boat breaks rule 14 if contact occurs and there was still time for her to change course sufficiently to avoid the contact.
The case makes the point that this is true both if S holds her course, or tries too little or too late to avoid contact.
1 RYA 1994/4 2 See also WS 26: ‘A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid a collision until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. However, if the
right-of-way boat could then have avoided the collision and the collision resulted in damage, she must be penalised for breaking rule 14.’ RYA 2012/2 is to the same effect.
RYA The Racing Rules Explained 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256
