Enforcement of COLREGS in Different Countries?

[KISS]

I've been wondering about COLREG enforcement in different countries. So far, I've only found information for the US and the UK. Could anyone confirm that the information below is accurate and/or point me towards information for other countries (esp. in Europe and the Caribbean)? Note that this is about punishments imposed by governments for COLREG violations in themselves, not liability to other private parties such as might result from accidents. Links to official documents would be great.

United States: For (1) any vessel operating in US waters, or (2) any US registered/documented vessel operating in international water, the US may impose a fine of no more than $5,000 per violation of the COLREGS.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...rtA-chap23.htm

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...30-sec1608.htm

UK: For any violations, the UK can impose up to 2 years in prison and fines up to 50,000 pounds. I assume this applies to all vessels in UK waters and all UK flagged vessels in international waters, but I'm not sure.

http://solasv.mcga.gov.uk/si/navigat...i_75_96_p1.htm

[rwidman]

You list fines but fines are not enforcement. Enforcement is LEOs riding around in boats, observing violations and writing tickets. In my area, enforcement is seldom done.

[KISS]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You list fines but fines are not enforcement. Enforcement is LEOs riding around in boats, observing violations and writing tickets. In my area, enforcement is seldom done.

Understood, but I'd like to know what the potential consequences are, however unlikely.

[StuM]

Australia:
Navigation Act 2012, Sect 177 and Marine Order 30 (Prevention of collisions) 2016

10 years and/or 600 penalty units (AUD 126,000)
or
Civil Penalty 6,000 penalty units. (AUD 1,260,000)

(A Penalty Unit is current AUD210 and will go up again in October 2018)


Papua New Guinea: What are COLREG's ?

[KISS]

Originally Posted by StuM

Australia:
Navigation Act 2012, Sect 177 and Marine Order 30 (Prevention of collisions) 2016

10 years and/or 600 penalty units (AUD 126,000)
or
Civil Penalty 6,000 penalty units. (AUD 1,260,000)

(A Penalty Unit is current AUD210 and will go up again in October 2018)

Damn

[Pelagic]

I think with research you will find that every signatory of IMO will have a maximum schedule of criminal penalties for infractions as a legal part of the original Ratification process and Amendments.

Reason is to assure each flag state that their ship's crew will never be subject to overwhelming inappropriate jail time as part of their right to safe passage in Foreign waters..
Civil courts may not limit the fines on Owners but usually work within International norms and precedence.

[carstenb]

COLREG penalties can be severe (note austrailia). REading through the case law in DEnmark - you'll find that the severe penalties are reserved for professional sailors, not leisure sailors (although there are cases whre leisure sailor have gotten the hammer - mainly by being total idiots and deliberately obstructing large ships in narrow passages etc.)

NOt entirely sure why you are looking for this - but in Germany and Holland, f.eks. the waterpolice will drop a fine on you for not showing a triangle if you are motorsailing - and they will do it every time they catch you.

In Denmark they will let it slide. Anchoring and don't have your anchor ball up? nice little fine.

Enforcement is different from country to country.

[boatman61]

Crossing the 'Shipping Lanes' in the Straits of Gibraltar can result in a 1 million euro fine.. 😆

[rwidman]

In the USA, I have never seen a recreational boat showing an anchor ball when anchored in daylight. Never.

I watched one night, about 10:00 PM after a fireworks show, three 30' boats rafted and anchored showing no anchor lights. Approximately six law enforcement boats from every local agency passed by this raft up and none stopped or even called over to them to turn on their anchor lights.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by carstenb

COLREG penalties can be severe (note austrailia). REading through the case law in DEnmark - you'll find that the severe penalties are reserved for professional sailors, not leisure sailors (although there are cases whre leisure sailor have gotten the hammer - mainly by being total idiots and deliberately obstructing large ships in narrow passages etc.)

Go the wrong way up a TSS and you can still get a hefty fine.. probably better all round to know well and sail according to the IRPCS..


Yachtsman given large fine for ignoring the TSS
French sailor faces prosecution - Yachting World

[steve77]

Originally Posted by rwidman

In the USA, I have never seen a recreational boat showing an anchor ball when anchored in daylight. Never.

I watched one night, about 10:00 PM after a fireworks show, three 30' boats rafted and anchored showing no anchor lights. Approximately six law enforcement boats from every local agency passed by this raft up and none stopped or even called over to them to turn on their anchor lights.

I agree that I never saw an anchor ball used in mainland USA. In Puerto Rico it was done sometimes. In the Med it is much more common to show an anchor ball by perhaps 75% of boats that have anchored where we have been.

cheers!

Steve

[toddster8]

The only "enforcement" I've ever seen was when there were too many recreational fishing boats in the channel and apparently the bar pilots complained. I don't know that the CG had time to write any tickets, just zoomed around and issued threats to clear the channel. It was crazy - I was outbound and had to constantly zig zag around all the boats - people just sitting there with blank looks on their faces while two freighters were inbound with their horns blasting away. The CG kids on the VHF were "reminding" boaters about the $5000 fines, but it didn't seem like anybody had their radio on. Or they didn't realize that it was them blocking the channel.
Beyond stuff like that, discussion of COLREGS only seems to come up after something happens.

[BandB]

Most of the enforcement comes after an accident of some type. Then they're used to try to determine fault and tickets may be issued.

[Dave22q]

It really is simple. Assume the COREGs are enforced and when something happens there will not be any unpleasant surprises. Like any law, enforcement can appear to be non existent but that cannot be taken as permission. If you have any doubts, try beating your next traffic ticket with the argument that 'everybody does it'.

[TonyBe]

I would suggest that enforcement of the colregs really only happens when an incident goes to court. (Or if insurers get involved in a very expensive and contested case)

Or, of course, when there is a protest following a racing incident!

The most contentious point is when different rules in the colregs interact with each other - in that case, which rule has priority?

There have been lots of court cases about this sort of thing over the years.
For example, there was a case in the Admiralty Division of the High Court in the UK a few months ago about how rule 9 and rule 15 of the colregs interact.

Rule 9 is about narrow channels and Rule 15 is about a crossing situation.

As the judge in the case found, the narrow channel rule takes precedence over the crossing rule:-

[52] To have two sets of rules with different requirements applying at the same time is of course unsafe and cannot have been intended by those who drafted the Collision Regulations. Similarly, where one vessel is within a narrow channel and has a vessel on her port bow on a crossing course outside the channel but proceeding towards it in preparation for entering it, the vessel in the narrow channel cannot be under a duty (pursuant to the crossing rules) to maintain her course and speed and at the same time under a duty (pursuant to the narrow channel rule) to keep to the starboard side of the channel since the two duties may, depending upon the circumstances, require different action.

[53] These considerations strongly suggest that in the interests of safety, which of course is the foundation of the Collision Regulations, the crossing rules cannot have been intended to apply where one vessel is navigating along a narrow channel and another vessel is navigating towards that channel with a view to entering it. In construing the Collision Regulations "regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision"; see rule 2. One such danger is the risk of collision created by two rules potentially requiring different action applying at the same time.

There is an interesting discussion of the case here:-

https://www.clydeco.com/insight/arti...e-in-the-vicin

And the actual judgment in full (all 118 paragraphs) can be read here :-

Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty)

Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty) (13 March 2017)

ps What I didn't realise until recently is that in the Admiralty Court a judge sits with two captains from Trinity House which is the UK organisation that is responsible for all the lighthouses, buoys, navigation marks etc in the UK

pps It should be noted though that simply being in breach of the colregs isn't, of itself, a presumption of fault. The breach must have caused or at least contributed to the collision