The No-Wash Zone and the Swamped Tinny
Marcus is riding a high-performance PWC on a wide river on a Sunday afternoon. The river carries a 4-knot speed limit within 30 metres of the shore, and a signed no-wash zone covers a 600-metre stretch in front of a rowing club where a junior regatta is underway. Marcus is doing about 30 knots down the middle of the river, well outside the 30-metre band, when he sees the regatta ahead. He decides to 'run the edge' - cutting close to the bank at speed to get past the rowers, reasoning that he is outside the marked no-wash buoys because he is on the far side of the river from the club. His wake rolls across the river and swamps a small tinny tied at a private jetty on the opposite bank; the tinny's occupant is thrown into the water. Marcus does not stop, later saying he 'didn't hit anyone'.
1. Marcus claims he was outside the no-wash zone. Analyse whether his speed and wash were lawful regardless of where the buoys were.
Read the worked answer
The zone is not the whole rule. A signed no-wash zone is a specific prohibition in a specific place, but it sits on top of a general obligation not to operate a vessel in a way that creates a wash that is unreasonable or that causes danger or damage. Marcus's argument is a boundary argument, and boundary arguments fail when the underlying conduct is independently unlawful.
Distance-off and the 30-metre band. The 4-knot limit within 30 metres of shore is a separate rule from the no-wash zone, and 'running the edge' is precisely the manoeuvre that puts a rider inside that band. At 30 knots near a bank he is almost certainly within 30 metres at some point, and at that speed he cannot comply with a 4-knot limit.
Wash as a hazard. A PWC at 30 knots throws a substantial wake. Wash that swamps another vessel and throws a person into the water is a foreseeable consequence, not an accident of geography. The test is the effect of the wash, not which side of a buoy the rider was on.
The regatta. Approaching an organised event with junior rowers, the reasonable rider slows early, moves wide, and passes at displacement speed. Marcus did the opposite and then relied on a technicality.
Conclusion. His speed and wash were unlawful on at least three independent grounds: the shore-distance limit, the unreasonable-wash obligation, and failure to proceed safely near an event. The buoy line is irrelevant to all three.
2. The tinny's occupant is in the water. What are Marcus's legal and practical obligations, and how does his departure change the picture?
Read the worked answer
Duty to stop and render assistance. A person operating a vessel involved in an incident that causes injury or damage must stop, render such assistance as is necessary and practicable, and give their details. Marcus's belief that he 'didn't hit anyone' is not the test - his wash caused the swamping, and the causal link is what matters. Leaving the scene turns a wash offence into a much more serious matter.
Immediate practical steps he should have taken. Slow and turn back without creating more wash; approach the person in the water at low speed and from a direction that does not drive the craft toward them; keep them in sight; throw a buoyant item rather than approaching close enough to strike them with the hull or jet; check for injury; and assist them to shore or to their vessel if safe.
Details. He must provide his name, address and vessel details to the injured person or the owner of the tinny, and report the incident to the relevant authority as required.
Why departure is worse. The occupant was thrown into cold water, possibly injured, and possibly unable to raise the alarm. Marcus was the only person who knew what had happened. His departure removed the one source of immediate help and removed his own ability to give an account.
Exam framing. Whenever a scenario says 'he didn't stop', the answer almost always has two limbs: the original offence, and the separate and more serious failure to stop and assist.