Applicable steering and sailing rules at times of collision
Of the 331 collisions upon which judgments were pronounced in 1998, steering and sailing rules were applied in 316 cases (the remaining 15 accidents involved vessels underway striking moored vessels moored at quay.) Of these, Law for Preventing Collisions at Sea was applied in 304 cases, the Maritime Traffic Safety Law in eight cases, and the Port Regulations Law in four cases.
Of the 304 accidents in which the Law for Preventing Collisions at Sea was applied, a majority of 151, or 49.7% of the total, were cited for failure to observe rules on the ordinary practices of seamen, while 59, or 19.4% of the total, were condemned for failure to observe rules on crossing situations; 36, or 11.8% of the total, were determined not to have observed rules on the responsibility of vessels; and 30, or 9.9% of the total, were criticized for failure to comply with rules of conduct in restricted visibility situations (Fig. 5-2-3).
Of the 151 accidents attributed to failure to observe rules on the ordinary practices of seamen, 98 involved collisions with anchored or drifting ships and 25 involved violations such as crossing in front of another vessel.
Fig. 5-2-3 Steering and sailing rules cited in collisions to which the Law for Preventing Collisions was applied in 1998
Among the causes of collisions in 1998, improper lookout and dozing off, which were cited in 410 and 22 instances, respectively, and together accounted for approximately 47% of the total. This demonstrates that the most effective way to avoid collisions is to ensure a proper lookout at all times.
(2) Causes of groundings
Judgments were pronounced on 156 groundings in 1998, with 187 different causes indicated. The leading cause of groundings was a dozing off, which was cited in 52 instances, equivalent to 27.8% of the total. This was followed by failure to check vessel's position, indicated in 44 instances, or 23.5% of the total; poor selection and maintenance of course, indicated in 23 instances, or 12.3% of the total; Improper command/supervision of duties, cited in 21 instances, or 11.2% of the total; and insufficient check of waterways, given in 20 instances, or 10.7% of the total (Table 5-2-1).
