All things COLREGS

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

What version of the regs do you have and where did you get it? Or did you add the exclamated sentence?

My version below (http://www.collisionregs.com/MSN1781.pdf)

Does not state "right of way" - It defines behavior - "shall keep out of the way of"

BTW - If you are going to copy and paste a regulation and then quotate it and then add your own words to it, It is no longer a quotation of the regs. It is an interpretation (your interpretation) of the regs and should not be quotated. Sorry bad form on your part.

The quoting of the rule I quoted was word for word for a part that you quoted. How have I added anything at all? Here it is again..

Rule 18 - Except where rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: a) A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of,
(i) a vessel not under command; the vessel not under command has the right of way!
(II) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Does not state "right of way" - It defines behavior - "shall keep out of the way of"

.

And here is another 'addition' to define the COLREGS which I've seen a few times. The claim that the COLREGS define 'behavior'!

Does it 'define' behavior? Does not 'behaviour' mean one's demeanour? Do the COLREGS really define one sailors 'behaviour' towards another?

Rule 18 - a person operating a motor vessel shall at all times wave cheerfully and politely at sail boats.

or perhaps,

Rule 18 - a person operating a motor vessel shall not become angry or yell abuse at a sail boat.

(no matter how pissed off we get at them for cutting us off)

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

The quoting of the rule I quoted was word for word for a part that you quoted. How have I added anything at all? Here it is again..

Rule 18 - Except where rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: a) A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of,
(i) a vessel not under command; the vessel not under command has the right of way!
(II) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

You didn't add that bolded part? Just to be clear. That is not in my paste.

If you did not add it please post the link to the regs you copied from.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

You didn't add that bolded part? Just to be clear. That is not in my paste.

If you did not add it please post the link to the regs you copied from.

Oops, Now I see what your referring to. Yes, bad form on my behalf. I apologise.

I think it should be well established by now with everything else I have written that I'm conscious that 'right of way' does not appear in the COLREGS. I was intending on putting that sentence on each line but changed my mind and decided to put a comment after the quote. I just forgot to take it out.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And here is another 'addition' to define the COLREGS which I've seen a few times. The claim that the COLREGS define 'behavior'!

Does it 'define' behavior? Does not 'behaviour' mean one's demeanour? Do the COLREGS really define one sailors 'behaviour' towards another?

Rule 18 - a person operating a motor vessel shall at all times wave cheerfully and politely at sail boats.

or perhaps,

Rule 18 - a person operating a motor vessel shall not become angry or yell abuse at a sail boat.

(no matter how pissed off we get at them for cutting us off)

Don't know if you are being rhetorical or not and I know I am just digging a hole to China but Behavior is not Demeanor.

"Keep out of the way of," is a behavior, "Be happy about it," is a demeanor"

Your first bolded "proposed rule"change is behavior. Your second is demeanor (become angry) and behavior (yell at them) -

Are we having fun yet -

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I’d suggest that the first pole question is the only one that is false. I’d suggest that vessels do have ‘right of way’, that the COLREGS do ‘define’ who has right of way.

No. Read a copy of Marsden on Collisions at Sea. And understand the full title of COLREGS.

1. National authorities, such as the Australian state authorities you cite, can write whatever they like and issue regulations to cover waterways under their jurisdiction. So US authorities dealing with US 'inland waterways' can establish a right of way if they wish. But clearly one or more government employees working in the midden heaps masquerading as villages called Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart, etc cannot erect an "international right of way". Do the authorities in those village midden heaps have jurisdiction over waters more than 3 miles off their coast, even?


For an "international right of way" to exist in COLREGS, as you have argued, would take more than words from hired scribblers in your local village midden heap.

2. The majority of the people the sub-national authorities in Australia (the authorities you are citing) seek to control have, as their highest technical and educational certificate, a license to drive a motorcycle, car, bus, or truck. In Aus, the concept of 'right of way' has been elevated to a high level to regulate driver behaviour on carriageways, and roads, highways. Understandably, the hired scribblers of subnational governments in Australia use that concept to try to control the behaviour of bogans who have shifted their driving to water. That use of the concept in educational material or even subnational regulation does not create an international 'right' of way.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

What’s important is not the terminology but understanding, that you have a ‘right of way’, as long as you don’t view it as an absolute. I for one will continue to use the term 'right of way', because in English most people know what it means more than 'stand on'.

Always gladdens me to see a statement from a person with an open mind, one who is prepared to change their mind if the facts (or their perception of the facts) change.


Al

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Don't know if you are being rhetorical or not and I know I am just digging a hole to China but Behavior is not Demeanor.

"Keep out of the way of," is a behavior, "Be happy about it," is a demeanor"

Your first bolded "proposed rule"change is behavior. Your second is demeanor (become angry) and behavior (yell at them) -

Are we having fun yet -

aren't you?

From the Oxford - The way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others: he will vouch for her good behaviour his insulting behaviour towards me.

"keep out of the way of" is an action.

From the Oxford again - Demeanor is Outward behaviour or bearing: his happy demeanour

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Oops, Now I see what your referring to. Yes, bad form on my behalf. I apologise.

I think it should be well established by now with everything else I have written that I'm conscious that 'right of way' does not appear in the COLREGS. I was intending on putting that sentence on each line but changed my mind and decided to put a comment after the quote. I just forgot to take it out.

Thanks for that. I thought I was going crazy and there were multiple versions of the regs out there - LOL...

What did some smart guys say, "We are all entitled to our own opinion but not our own facts." or something like that.

It would be awesome if we were debating the speed of a black colored mammal with 4 legs and after 3 days we figured out I was talking about a rhinoceros and you were talking about a panther.

[FamilyVan]

Oh dear, I've read the last half dozen posts- a half dozen times. I really do appreciate the spirit of RC's argument, but, I tend to agree more with Ex-Cal. The regs just don't refer to right of way, it just isn't in the spirit of the regulations. Every one wears equal responsibility under the col regs- they really do.


If I smoke you because I failed to maintain course and speed, I am just as culpable as you, if you didn't give me way because I have a woven basket hanging from my mast.


The nature of the ColRegs, is intentionally left ambiguous so no one believes they have right of way.


They just aren't the type of laws that are taught in police college, they aren't written from an enforcement perspective, they're written from a personal responsibility perspective.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

No. Read a copy of Marsden on Collisions at Sea. And understand the full title of COLREGS.


1. National authorities, such as the Australian state authorities you cite, can write whatever they like and issue regulations to cover waterways under their jurisdiction. So US authorities dealing with US 'inland waterways' can establish a right of way if they wish. But clearly one or more government employees working in the midden heaps masquerading as villages called Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart, etc cannot erect an "international right of way". Do the authorities in those village midden heaps have jurisdiction over waters more than 3 miles off their coast, even?


For an "international right of way" to exist in COLREGS, as you have argued, would take more than words from hired scribblers in your local village midden heap.

2. The majority of the people the sub-national authorities in Australia (the authorities you are citing) seek to control have, as their highest technical and educational certificate, a license to drive a motorcycle, car, bus, or truck. In Aus, the concept of 'right of way' has been elevated to a high level to regulated driver behaviour on carriageways, and roads, highways. Understandably, the hired scribblers of subnational governments in Australia use that concept to try to control the behaviour of bogans who have shifted their driving to water. That use of the concept in educational material or even subnational regulation does not create an international 'right' of way.





Always gladdens me to see a statement from a person with an open mind, one who is prepared to change their mind if the facts (or their perception of the facts) change.


Al

I really didn't follow any of this. I think you were trying to insult us Aussies, but really not sure, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

aren't you?

From the Oxford - The way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others: he will vouch for her good behaviour his insulting behaviour towards me.

"keep out of the way of" is an action.

From the Oxford again - Demeanor is Outward behaviour or bearing: his happy demeanour

Aren't words fun...

So there is the law - which should define what you do. Then there is the spirit which is the way in which you should do it - demeanor, behavior etc.

Behavior may be frequently misused in common language and I am probably misusing it too.

When a mother says, "Johnny behave!" I don't think she is talking about his mental state. I think she is referring to torturing the cat - his action...

By the way the COLREGS I do not think are intended to tell you how to behave. They are intended to tell you what to do.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Thanks for that. I thought I was going crazy and there were multiple versions of the regs out there - LOL...

What did some smart guys say, "We are all entitled to our own opinion but not our own facts." or something like that.

It would be awesome if we were debating the speed of a black colored mammal with 4 legs and after 3 days we figured out I was talking about a rhinoceros and you were talking about a panther.

What's this about a 'black coloured mamal'? your not being anti social are you

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Aren't words fun...


By the way the COLREGS I do not think are intended to tell you how to behave. They are intended to tell you what to do.

towards those who have right of way

[Rustic Charm]

Something tells me I'm going to cop it when Dockhead reads all this.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

I really do appreciate the spirit of RC's argument, but, I tend to agree more with Ex-Cal. The regs just don't refer to right of way, it just isn't in the spirit of the regulations. Every one wears equal responsibility under the col regs- they really do.

Thanks for the sentiment but I really am not looking to be "right" or gain agreement. I am interested in the debate so that we can thoughtfully consider our actions.

The test of who is right and wrong is in court. As Dockhead likes to point out in almost all cases both parties are wrong!

The "crowning" rule is that each party is responsible to avoid a collision. It's in the title


"INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA"

They aren't the "Rules of the Road" like car driving. They aren't the "Who Has Right of Way Regulations"

Once you internalize that both parties must avoid collisions you can accept that no one has rights.