All about the Colregs no 3 - single handed sailing and keeping a look out

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Here's one link.
Maryland Woman Ticketed For Driving 2 Miles Under The Speed Limit (UPDATED)

I remember reading about another one, in the north SF bay area on 101, a few years back, which is the main north south highway, 4 lanes each direction, and packed. Posted speed limit is 65. But if your doing 75, your being passed. It does not happen often, but it does happen.

and this : http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2015/04/21/wa-bill-would-ticket-people-for-driving-below-the-speed-limit/,

only in America

It seems in the first case the ticket was withdrawn. Probably due to the fact that she has to be driving at least 10 miles below it and she was only 2 miles below the speed limit.

IN the second link. It's only a Bill at this point in time.

I'm not sure but I've heard there are minimal speeds on some of Australia's free ways too.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

No problems with your examples of 2 and 3 Dockhead. finally. I don't think anyone has disputed these understandings. I certainly havn't been.

IN regards to 1. though. I looked up the case your referring to and the fact the guy is a dickhead aside, was it not the case that he was prosecuted under a Regulation called, The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 ?

More specifically Would not the 'complaint' have stated he breached that same piece of legislation, and it would have probably (Yes, I'm googling this from Tasmania, so I'm asking you the question), a breach of The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 Regulation 10 (b) (i) ?

And: Is not the The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 a piece of what you call Domestic legislation of the United Kingdom?

Or is the The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 in actual fact a piece of legislation from the International Maritime Authority, in which case I'll respectfully admit I'm wrong and you have been correct all along and I'll apologise and bow to you from now on.

The way in which laws become laws, and what are the sources of laws, what is the exact nature of treaties, is a fairly arcane but also quite exact science, and making up stuff about it does not lead to understanding. It takes a fair bit of study to figure it all out, and you can't do it in a couple of evenings with Google. Whole courses are taught on the subject. You are arguing about something which, with respect, you don't understand, and which has no practical consequence to the subject of this thread, which means it's just argument for arguments sake.

But since you insist. You present the question as are the COLREGS in force in the UK as a piece of domestic legislation? Or are they legislated by the IMO? This is what is called a false dichotomy -- the answer is neither. Everyone knows that the IMO doesn't legislate anything; there is no world government. I am repeating myself, but the origin of the COLREGS is the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea, which is a multilateral treaty binding all the signatory states. The purpose of the Convention was to create a uniform set of rules which apply everywhere. Ships roam in and out of the territorial waters of various states, and it is not conducive to efficiency or safety for the rules to be different everywhere. So the signatory states agreed on a uniform set of rules, which they obliged themselves to implement, adopt, and/or enforce (according to the varying constitutional procedures in the different states -- I wrote about that), word for word, with the slightest deviation from the uniform text permitted only by a specific provision of the Convention (there are only a couple).

This uniform set of rules is the COLREGS, which is the law almost everywhere in the world. When I say it's "the law", I mean that the COLREGS are obligatory everywhere, subject to different penalties, and different approaches to enforcement, depending on the domestic laws of the different states.

As I wrote, every state has its own method of implementing treaty obligations. Many states require some kind of enabling legislation, although some, like the US, do not necessarily. In all states, treaties are concluded by the sovereign or by the executive branch of government, but most states require some kind of ratification by another branch or branches of government as well. And what concerns the COLREGS, every state had to enact some kind of law creating penalties and methods of enforcement -- since the COLREGS do not contain any penalty provisions.

So is this enabling legislation, if it exists, the source of law for a COLREGS violation? No! The enabling legislation, if it exists, merely implements the requirements of the Convention, in order to get the COLREGS into local books. The COLREGS are read into the law of the United Kingdom through several chapters of the Merchant Shipping Act, but THEY ARE THE COLREGS! Word for word, as required by the Convention. Not domestic legislation. In many countries, the COLREGS do not even appear in the local books -- the US, for example, where this creates a problem for how to cite them.

If you want to gain a clue about how this really works, rather than just argue, study this: Untitled 1

Navigation rules, or “Rules of the Road,” apply to all vessels of the United States or any vessels navigating on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Depending on where the vessel is operating, either the inland or international navigation rules will apply. International rules apply seaward of the demarcation line for inland waters. The President of the United States was given authority by 33 U. S. Code Chapter 30 to proclaim the “International Regulations” in the Federal Register. . .


Note that the COLREGS were NOT legislated by the U.S. Congress -- they are NOT domestic legislation of the United States. The President PROCLAIMED the rules into the Federal Register. The State Department lawyers are extremely careful about their language and said here exactly what they meant.

. . . and a civil penalty may be assessed against vessels violating the International Regulations. The International Regulations are commonly referred to as “COLREGs.”

After the President proclaimed the COLREGs in the Federal Register, they were for a time reproduced in both the Code of Federal Regulations and in the U.S. Code. A note at the end of 33 USC § 1602 indicates, however, that the Coast Guard removed the text of the COLREGs from the Code of Federal Regulations in 1996, because the text was duplicated in the U.S. Code. The note states that subsequently the editors of the Code decided to no longer include the COLREGs text. As a result, the text of the COLREGs is now neither available in the U.S. Code nor the Code of Federal Regulations.

The fact that the COLREGs themselves do not appear in either the U. S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations presents a problem in terms of deciding how best to cite an alleged violation of the COLREGs. We have seen cases where units have cited 33 USC § 1602 and the COLREGs rule that was allegedly violated.

However, this cite is unacceptable because 33 USC § 1602 only authorizes the President to proclaim the COLREGs and publish them in the Federal Register.

What this means is that you must NOT cite the COLREGS as 33 USC § 1602 because that statute is not the source of law. The COLREGS are the law themselves, and they have been merely proclaimed and published in the Federal Register, NOT legislated by the US Congress.

Section 1602 does not require compliance with the COLREGs or include any other requirement that a person could violate. A more appropriate cite for a violation of the COLREGs is 33 USC § 1608, which states that a civil penalty can be assessed for operation of a vessel in violation of 33 USC Chapter 30 (including 33 USC §§ 1601-1608). Within Chapter 30, 33 USC § 1603 requires compliance with the COLREGs by vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Section 1603 would also be an acceptable cite for violations of the COLREGs.

This says that you should cite the penalty provisions, and the law defining jurisdiction.

The case file should also specifically identify the COLREGs rule that was allegedly violated. The charged party should be able to determine from this information how s/he is alleged to have failed to comply with the Rules of the Road. If the violation is proved, Hearing Officers are authorized by 33 USC § 1608 to assess a civil penalty.

And here that you cite the COLREGS themselves, not any bit of US legislation.

Different states have different mechanisms for implementing the COLREGS, but enabling legislation IMPLEMENTS the COLREGS, it does not LEGISLATE it. There's a difference! What the signatory states actually legislate is only the penalty provisions!



Now that's enough of this, for free. Any further work on this subject I'll have to charge for by the hour

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

and making up stuff about it does not lead to understanding. It takes a fair bit of study to figure it all out, and you can't do it in a couple of evenings with Google. Whole courses are taught on the subject.

But since you insist. You present the question as are the COLREGS in force in the UK as a piece of domestic legislation? Or are they legislated by the IMO? This is what is called a false dichotomy -- the answer is neither.

I spent four years studying LAW. So don't be so arrogant.

You seem to have a particular skill set of twisting quite simple questions around. My question to you was "is The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 a piece of what you call Domestic legislation of the United Kingdom?"

So, your claiming The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 is not Domestic legislation? ("the answer is neither" )

And whilst I accede to your knowledge of how the US has implemented what you now call 'obligations', the US is not the rest of the world. As I provided you earlier with and you ignored, our little Island as all places in Australia in order to place the Colregs into Law, they have to placed in a distinct piece of legislation. A Domestic piece of legislation And it seems to me it's the same in the UK with The Merchant Shipping Regulations. New Zealand and Canada both do similar, but they put the text of the Colregs, with their own desired modifications into the text. Id' take a guess and suggest that most member states of the IMO do the same.

But, I'm definitely over this. Your never going to answer a direct question let alone concede when your wrong or that you may have misunderstood a question. Whatever! So, I give up. Go ahead, post more false things you claim I say, such as accusing me of claiming the Colregs are 'mere rules'. So, I'll concede professor.

[weavis]

So glad you guys made up.

Do you need a room?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by weavis

So glad you guys made up.

Do you need a room?

Always nice having you around, Weavis.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The way in which laws become laws, and what are the sources of laws, what is the exact nature of treaties, is a fairly arcane but also quite exact science, and making up stuff about it does not lead to understanding. It takes a fair bit of study to figure it all out, and you can't do it in a couple of evenings with Google. Whole courses are taught on the subject. You are arguing about something which, with respect, you don't understand, and which has no practical consequence to the subject of this thread, which means it's just argument for arguments sake.

But since you insist. You present the question as are the COLREGS in force in the UK as a piece of domestic legislation? Or are they legislated by the IMO? This is what is called a false dichotomy -- the answer is neither. Everyone knows that the IMO doesn't legislate anything; there is no world government. I am repeating myself, but the origin of the COLREGS is the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea, which is a multilateral treaty binding all the signatory states. The purpose of the Convention was to create a uniform set of rules which apply everywhere. Ships roam in and out of the territorial waters of various states, and it is not conducive to efficiency or safety for the rules to be different everywhere. So the signatory states agreed on a uniform set of rules, which they obliged themselves to implement, adopt, and/or enforce (according to the varying constitutional procedures in the different states -- I wrote about that), word for word, with the slightest deviation from the uniform text permitted only by a specific provision of the Convention (there are only a couple).

This uniform set of rules is the COLREGS, which is the law almost everywhere in the world. When I say it's "the law", I mean that the COLREGS are obligatory everywhere, subject to different penalties, and different approaches to enforcement, depending on the domestic laws of the different states.

As I wrote, every state has its own method of implementing treaty obligations. Many states require some kind of enabling legislation, although some, like the US, do not necessarily. In all states, treaties are concluded by the sovereign or by the executive branch of government, but most states require some kind of ratification by another branch or branches of government as well. And what concerns the COLREGS, every state had to enact some kind of law creating penalties and methods of enforcement -- since the COLREGS do not contain any penalty provisions.

So is this enabling legislation, if it exists, the source of law for a COLREGS violation? No! The enabling legislation, if it exists, merely implements the requirements of the Convention, in order to get the COLREGS into local books. The COLREGS are read into the law of the United Kingdom through several chapters of the Merchant Shipping Act, but THEY ARE THE COLREGS! Word for word, as required by the Convention. Not domestic legislation. In many countries, the COLREGS do not even appear in the local books -- the US, for example, where this creates a problem for how to cite them.

If you want to gain a clue about how this really works, rather than just argue, study this: Untitled 1

Navigation rules, or “Rules of the Road,” apply to all vessels of the United States or any vessels navigating on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Depending on where the vessel is operating, either the inland or international navigation rules will apply. International rules apply seaward of the demarcation line for inland waters. The President of the United States was given authority by 33 U. S. Code Chapter 30 to proclaim the “International Regulations” in the Federal Register. . .


Note that the COLREGS were NOT legislated by the U.S. Congress -- they are NOT domestic legislation of the United States. The President PROCLAIMED the rules into the Federal Register. The State Department lawyers are extremely careful about their language and said here exactly what they meant.

. . . and a civil penalty may be assessed against vessels violating the International Regulations. The International Regulations are commonly referred to as “COLREGs.”

After the President proclaimed the COLREGs in the Federal Register, they were for a time reproduced in both the Code of Federal Regulations and in the U.S. Code. A note at the end of 33 USC § 1602 indicates, however, that the Coast Guard removed the text of the COLREGs from the Code of Federal Regulations in 1996, because the text was duplicated in the U.S. Code. The note states that subsequently the editors of the Code decided to no longer include the COLREGs text. As a result, the text of the COLREGs is now neither available in the U.S. Code nor the Code of Federal Regulations.

The fact that the COLREGs themselves do not appear in either the U. S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations presents a problem in terms of deciding how best to cite an alleged violation of the COLREGs. We have seen cases where units have cited 33 USC § 1602 and the COLREGs rule that was allegedly violated.

However, this cite is unacceptable because 33 USC § 1602 only authorizes the President to proclaim the COLREGs and publish them in the Federal Register.

What this means is that you must NOT cite the COLREGS as 33 USC § 1602 because that statute is not the source of law. The COLREGS are the law themselves, and they have been merely proclaimed and published in the Federal Register, NOT legislated by the US Congress.

Section 1602 does not require compliance with the COLREGs or include any other requirement that a person could violate. A more appropriate cite for a violation of the COLREGs is 33 USC § 1608, which states that a civil penalty can be assessed for operation of a vessel in violation of 33 USC Chapter 30 (including 33 USC §§ 1601-1608). Within Chapter 30, 33 USC § 1603 requires compliance with the COLREGs by vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Section 1603 would also be an acceptable cite for violations of the COLREGs.

This says that you should cite the penalty provisions, and the law defining jurisdiction.

The case file should also specifically identify the COLREGs rule that was allegedly violated. The charged party should be able to determine from this information how s/he is alleged to have failed to comply with the Rules of the Road. If the violation is proved, Hearing Officers are authorized by 33 USC § 1608 to assess a civil penalty.

And here that you cite the COLREGS themselves, not any bit of US legislation.

Different states have different mechanisms for implementing the COLREGS, but enabling legislation IMPLEMENTS the COLREGS, it does not LEGISLATE it. There's a difference! What the signatory states actually legislate is only the penalty provisions!



Now that's enough of this, for free. Any further work on this subject I'll have to charge for by the hour

WHOA!! Now THAT is a screwed up process, even though I know all too well how a bunch of lawyers can make almost any issue overly complex. I'd like to ask the obvious question of why on earth the editors of the U.S. Code would decide not to publish the text of the Colregs, but I fear I may not be able to afford your retainer. Purely academic exercise at this point, but if the Colregs were never legislated by the U.S. Congress, and the President merely proclaimed them to be published in the Federal Register, I suppose one might have to look to the treaty itself as the source of the Executive Branch's power to enforce them (via the USCG here in the U.S.). The lack of publishing also brings to mind constitutional issues of notice/due process, but at the same time all U.S. documented vessels are required to have a copy onboard.

Wonder why the process of adopting/implementing this relatively minor area of US law got so clusterf***ed up??

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Hope so.

If the ego maniacs wants to do make their own rules and sail wherever they want in the blind, they should find another planet.

Well, I think we can probably agree that is not a practical alternative, at least in the foreseeable future :-)

To me, our world would be a slightly poorer place, and the legacy of voyaging under sail considerably less interesting, had there been no place for "ego maniacs" like Slocum, Chichester, Knox-Johnston, Robin Lee Graham, and so on...

In my youth, the exploits of Sir Francis and Robin on DOVE fascinated me, and opened up a whole new world of POSSIBILITY that I had no idea existed, and probably still inspires me to this day...

Endlessly fascinating, to view how different people assess risk... I would presume anyone who deems the risk of being T-boned by a sleeping singlehander as anything less than remarkably remote would never go to sea in an Average White Production Boat, for instance - given the number of sailors who have perished in recent years as a result of the keels falling off even just boats from the factories of manufacturers whose name begins with the letter "B"...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

WHOA!! Now THAT is a screwed up process, even though I know all too well how a bunch of lawyers can make almost any issue overly complex. I'd like to ask the obvious question of why on earth the editors of the U.S. Code would decide not to publish the text of the Colregs, but I fear I may not be able to afford your retainer. Purely academic exercise at this point, but if the Colregs were never legislated by the U.S. Congress, and the President merely proclaimed them to be published in the Federal Register, I suppose one might have to look to the treaty itself as the source of the Executive Branch's power to enforce them (via the USCG here in the U.S.). The lack of publishing also brings to mind constitutional issues of notice/due process, but at the same time all U.S. documented vessels are required to have a copy onboard.

Wonder why the process of adopting/implementing this relatively minor area of US law got so clusterf***ed up??

Ah, that's just the way it works. It's a way of being very, very precise and very, very particular about the nature of things. It is not at all a clusterf****; quite the opposite. It's a way of thinking and a way of writing which has zero tolerance for ********, waffling, ambiguity -- where clarity and precision is all.

And they don't need to be published, because of the Supremacy Clause. It all hangs together.

It's actually a very beautiful system; I am feeling nostalgic and regretting that I am no longer active in the field. Rustic Charm really brought out my inner pedant; I apologize to everyone who had to witness it

[FamilyVan]

In the interest of bringing the conversation back to RCs original question re legality of single handing, I am wondering if it would be beneficial to bring up minimum safe manning requirements?

All (I believe) commercial vessels are required to have a minimum safe manning document (at least in Canada they are- I believe this is an international requirement).

There are numerous small vessels (short run ferries and the like- carrying less than 49 passengers), that are required only one crew person- the master. When I was in college I worked on a couple of 40 passenger ferries that fit this description.

None of these vessels did 24 hour passages, but 1 person was believed to be adequate to carry a single crew- that in theory could drive the boat, handle 40 passengers in an emergency and deal with mechanical issues.

As these documents are issued by the state, then at least on some level, single handing is permitted by law.

I experienced some pretty stressful crossings on such vessels, high winds, fog, rough seas (relative to the size and design of the vessels), snow and ice.

I in no way want to see safe manning documents for pleasure craft- but in the context of this conversation, I wonder what they would say?

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

For anyone that is interested, despite the beliefs of some who believe the IMO Colregs must be adopted 'word for word', it's interesting that the South African MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLLISION AND DISTRESS SIGNALS)
REGULATIONS, 2005 to which the Colreg's are annexed, even has 'exemptions' within their regulations. I've not seen this before. It would be interesting to know when they would provide an exemption and under what circumstances.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ah, that's just the way it works. It's a way of being very, very precise and very, very particular about the nature of things. It is not at all a clusterf****; quite the opposite. It's a way of thinking and a way of writing which has zero tolerance for ********, waffling, ambiguity -- where clarity and precision is all.

And they don't need to be published, because of the Supremacy Clause. It all hangs together.

It's actually a very beautiful system; I am feeling nostalgic and regretting that I am no longer active in the field. Rustic Charm really brought out my inner pedant; I apologize to everyone who had to witness it

Perhaps some nostalgia and even regret, but at least now I bet you get to sail a lot more.

Thanks to its adoption of the Colregs, this may be an area of US law which, as you say, may be fairly characterized by clarity & precision. But inefficiency and redundancy are also fair characterizations of the US legal system. Nevertheless, we have a process whereby an int'l treaty containing the Colregs is signed by the US President & confirmed by the Senate, thereby becoming the law of the land by operation of the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. It winds up not being published in the Federal Register since it's already published in the US Code, and is then withdrawn from the US Code presumably because that would, in turn, be redundant to what is contained in the underlying treaty. Seems like quite the anomaly to me, but I'm no expert in international law.

What seems truly remarkable is the achievement of near universal consensus amongst a large array of seafaring nations, but with enough discretion left to individual states to fashion their own enforcement regimens.

I know, I know . . . time to knock off the thread drift. Sorry.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

For anyone that is interested, despite the beliefs of some who believe the IMO Colregs must be adopted 'word for word', it's interesting that the South African MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLLISION AND DISTRESS SIGNALS)
REGULATIONS, 2005 to which the Colreg's are annexed, even has 'exemptions' within their regulations. I've not seen this before. It would be interesting to know when they would provide an exemption and under what circumstances.

Canadian Colregs have modifications.

Some examples

Sailing Vessels Underway and Vessels Under Oars — Canadian Modification

(f)
Notwithstanding paragraph (e), in the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, a vessel of less than 12 metres in length proceeding under sail when also being propelled by machinery is not required to exhibit a conical shape, apex downwards, but may do so.

Vessels Constrained by their Draught — Canadian Modification

(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, no vessel shall exhibit three all-round red lights in a vertical line or a cylinder.

[FamilyVan]

It's hard to mention the constrained by draft exemption without noting downbound vessels have right of way over upbound vessels.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

For anyone that is interested, despite the beliefs of some who believe the IMO Colregs must be adopted 'word for word', it's interesting that the South African MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLLISION AND DISTRESS SIGNALS)
REGULATIONS, 2005 to which the Colreg's are annexed, even has 'exemptions' within their regulations. I've not seen this before. It would be interesting to know when they would provide an exemption and under what circumstances.

RC & others -- Don't forget that Colregs Rule 1 (Application) lists some fairly broad categories which expressly contemplate "Special Rules" which may be enacted by signatory states for various purposes. In other words, it might be correct that the Colregs themselves must be adopted "word for word" by every state and that modifications also exist, since those very modifications are specifically authorized in the Colregs themselves. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, just that to make your point the modifications you cite must not already be authorized by the rather broad language in Rule 1.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I think the distinction would be that the solo sailor intentionally put themselves in that condition while the poisoned crewed did not.

No argument there.... But as the Law still describes a NUC vessel as "unable to get out of the way of another vessel" whether due to mechanical/weather or no watchkeeper...... the question in my mind still remains.....

Should a solo vessel Hove to for sleep rather than storm conditions exhibit NUC as a warning to other traffic?

(Note I make the distinction of a vessel hove to and not just sailing blindly on autopilot)