All things COLREGS

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

compare say right of way at a major road junction. I simply speed through without really even acknowledging a driver waiting to exit from the minor road. I am under no obligation to take any consideration of his actions. In fact if he acts incorrectly , a crash most likely occurs and he is completely to blame

Then you're an abysmal driver There is nowhere in anyone's traffic laws that allows a driver to plow into another vehicle. Every traffic and/or highway code I've ever come across states that a vehicle with the right of way can only proceed if the way is clear.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No its couldn't , because the vessel that might be impeded always bears the responsibility ( and obligation) of acting if it believes a collision could occur.

The steering and sailing rules work parallel to the not impede clause. Even when there is a risk of collision, the not impede requirement stays - the vessel not to be impeded is still given right of way in the deep channel. And if risk of collision doesn't exist such that steering and sailing rules come into effect, the not impede rule still takes precedence. It has been pointed out that interpretation of the not impede rules means that any vessel that is required to not impede must do what it can to prevent the occurrence of a risk of collision, requiring the action of the not impeded vessel. At no time does that requirement put an obligation on the vessel not to be impeded.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

In a simplistic comparison to driving a car on the road "Right of Way" can be used analogously to parts of the COLREGS.

That however is misleading for less experienced boaters since both case law and at least one one of the rules explicitly place the burden of avoiding collisions on all involved vessels meaning that none of the other rules grants a right.

As a means of making that point better to newer boaters it seems wise to not even use the phrase.


Adelie

No argument there, but that doesn't make what I said any less true. I'm not pushing to mislead new boaters, nor did I take that as the intent of the OP.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Except that, as you yourself taught us all some years ago, the vessel "not to be impeded" will nevertheless be the give-way vessel once a risk of collision arises, if that's what the steering and sailing rules provide.

Methinks you're stirring up trouble here! That would be a pretty strange kind of "right of way".

You're the legal beagle, so are in a better position to explain this, but 'right of way' can refer to an easement, which is not unlike a narrow channel or deep water path, to which a vessel has precedence over other vessels, such that even when other rules apply that precedence remains.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Which reminds us of the old joke:


US Warship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

Canadian reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Warship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Warship. I say again, divert your course.

Canadian reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Warship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

Canadian reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

. . . Even when there is a risk of collision, the not impede requirement stays - the vessel not to be impeded is still given right of way in the deep channel. . .

Which means that this vessel which supposedly has this "right of way", is obligated to maneuver to avoid the impeding vessel, while the impeding vessel on the contrary is supposed to stand on, if that's what the steering and sailing rules provide . . . .

A thoroughly absurd situation, which we discussed years ago, but that's what the rules say, as you yourself taught us. But please don't confuse people even more by talking about right of way! What kind of "right of way", could that possibly be, when you are obligated to maneuver to avoid, while the other vessel, over which you are supposed to have some "right of way", is obligated to stand on!? I am starting to think that you find the cognitive dissonance in this situation to be delicious, and that you enjoy people's confusion

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You're the legal beagle, so are in a better position to explain this, but 'right of way' can refer to an easement, which is not unlike a narrow channel or deep water path, to which a vessel has precedence over other vessels, such that even when other rules apply that precedence remains.

Your point -- which I do get -- is that the "not impede" rules, unlike the steering and sailing rules, do not prescribe an order of maneuvering, but establish real precedence under certain circumstances (like Rule 10, narrow channels), which unlike standing-on and giving way under the steering and sailing rules, is unvarying. Therefore indeed much more like right of way than standing-on is.

But you're really going to burst the brains of the poor folk who don't even get how the steering and sailing rules work. This is really not like right of way, in that this precedence does not do away with the not-to-be-impeded vessel's obligations under the steering and sailing rules.

What that means is that Rule 10 imposes an obligation on the vessels who are not to impede, but does not convey any right whatsoever to the vessel not to be impeded. That is the crucial difference. And without any right, there cannot be any right of way.

See the excellent discussions of the significance of this by Carsten, and the US Coast Guard text cited by MaineSail.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

There Is a difference between a right and an obligation, yes. But it is not 'vast' nor are they mutually exclusive.

Hmmm, I think that having right of way is mutually exclusive to having an obligation to avoid a collision. Taking action to avoid a collision is foregoing your right of way.

Whilst I appreciate your argument of simplifying the conversation by using right of way it implies more than is intended by the COLREGS and may lead to a collision. I think you should be more careful, to be honest

[markpierce]

Since the ships are in a restricting channel (a narrow strait), my 35-foot vessel is the burdened vessel here. In the photo, the black tanker is heading east, approaching the northern bridge span (my destination is beyond the bridge to the right), while the red bulk carrier is being rotated 180 degrees by the tugs just after leaving the C&H sugar plant to head it west and pass under the southern span.


Thanks to monitoring USCG traffic control (VHF channel 14) today, I had advance notice of upcoming traffic. First caught sight of the tanker and the tugs pulling the bulk carrier away from the dock while I was heading west on the southern side of the strait . Not wanting to cross the strait and in front of the tanker, elected to head for the strait's middle to pass the tanker behind its stern. While passing under the northern span, the bulk carrier paralleled me under the southern span.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What that means is that Rule 10 imposes an obligation on the vessels who are not to impede, but does not convey any right whatsoever to the vessel not to be impeded. That is the crucial difference. And without any right, there cannot be any right of way.

See the excellent discussions of the significance of this by Carsten, and the US Coast Guard text cited by MaineSail.

I think you are all getting hung up on the word 'right.' In any instance where 'right of way' is recognized, it doesn't signify an all-empowering 'get out of jail free' card, that allows one to plow through anything or anyone standing in the way. When driving, if I have a green light, I have the right of way. But if the intersection is not clear, I don't have the 'right' to drive into whatever's blocking my path, and in many jurisdictions, I wouldn't even be allowed to enter the intersection. 'Right of way' is either a grant of access or an allowance to proceed first. In the US Inland application, the downbound vessel has 'right of way' over upbound vessels; the downbound vessel is still under obligation to propose the passing arrangements and make the necessary signals. It is additionally obliged to follow all of the other collision reg's as may be applicable.

In the not impede situation, a vessel which is not to be impeded, is by definition confined by the narrowness and depth of the channel. The obligation of the other vessel to not impede, effectively gives the vessel not to be impeded exclusive access to the channel. Regardless of any other obligation put upon that vessel, it retains that exclusive access and is not required by the rules to leave that channel.
For those who understand it, I'm sure I've made my point. I don't have a steady wifi connection at the mo, so I'm not going to nitpick over semantics. I'm out.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Meanwhile, while still searching for my 1960 rules I did find a copy of the '54 ones in Bonwick's 'Ship's Business' where 'Rule of the Road' is refered to... so that expression predates any attempts to dumb down the whole business for lubberly folk, yachtsmen, and their ilk.

I don't think it was dumbing down, it was a conscious effort at precision.


Adelie

[El Pinguino]

At no point does the 'stand-on vessel' become the 'give way vessel'.. she simply has to 'take such action as will best aid to avoid collision'.

The 'give way' vessel remains the 'give way' vessel. The stand-on vessel remains the stand-on vessel but has to take such action etc...
If we are going to give 'right of way' the flick cos it doesn't appear in 'the rules' lets not introduce other modifications to what they actually say.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Adelie

I don't think it was dumbing down, it was a conscious effort at precision.


Adelie

It was suggested somewhere back there that 'rule of the road' was a recently coined phrase to help lubberly folk, etc understand what the IRPCS are all about. I was simply pointing out that the expression has been around for a v long time and used by professional sailormen.

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I think you are all getting hung up on the word 'right.' In any instance where 'right of way' is recognized, it doesn't signify an all-empowering 'get out of jail free' card, that allows one to plow through anything or anyone standing in the way. When driving, if I have a green light, I have the right of way. But if the intersection is not clear, I don't have the 'right' to drive into whatever's blocking my path, and in many jurisdictions, I wouldn't even be allowed to enter the intersection. 'Right of way' is either a grant of access or an allowance to proceed first. In the US Inland application, the downbound vessel has 'right of way' over upbound vessels; the downbound vessel is still under obligation to propose the passing arrangements and make the necessary signals. It is additionally obliged to follow all of the other collision reg's as may be applicable.

Well ... you might need faster wi-fi connection ...

You seem to miss/skip a bunch of posts on the previous 10 pages dealing with both issues you are bringing back here: right vs obligation definitions (and not just a folksy interpretation), and US Inland (but not COLREG) right of way wording being a single exception for very specific US waters.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Since the ships are in a restricting channel (a narrow strait), my 35-foot vessel is the burdened vessel here. In the photo, the black tanker is heading east, approaching the northern bridge span (my destination is beyond the bridge to the right), while the red bulk carrier is being rotated 180 degrees by the tugs just after leaving the C&H sugar plant to head it west and pass under the southern span.

This opens a whole bag of worms. I am about to get some real book learning. This should keep us busy until the end of the year...

Presumption
P1 - Let's forget that there are probably harbor rules in effect here. Let's stick to COLREGS

Observation
O1 - I see a tug engaged in pushing or towing
O2 - I zoomed in as far as I could and I did not see any dayshapes on the bulk ship. There may be a cylinder but it is hard to tell right in front of the mast, right above the bridge - I am going to say no dayshape displayed
O3 - I zoomed in as much as I could and the tanker may be displaying a cylinder
O4 - There is a tug accompanying the tanker - I see no shapes

Questions
Q1 - What shapes should the tugboat be displaying?
Q2 - What shapes should the bulk carrier be displaying
Q3 - Is the bulk carrier "Not under command"?
Q4 - Is the tanker "restricted in ability to maneuver"?
Q5 - What does the cylindrical shape on the tanker mean and is it appropriate?
Q6 - As a sailboat under sail what are my obligations to the tugboat?
Q7 - As a sailboat under sail what are my obligations to the bulk carrier?
Q8 - As a sailboat under sail what are my obligations to the tanker?
Q9 - As a sailboat under sail what are my obligations to the tug accompanying the tanker?
Q10 - Should the tug accompanying the tanker be displaying any day shapes?
Q11 - Are any vessels "restricted in ability to maneuver" if so which ones?
Q12 - Who has "right of way"?

BTW - This is not a send up. 11 questions sounds dumb for one photo but everyone on the water should be able to resolve this on the boat in 30 seconds or less.

I am sure we will debate it for days...

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

sorry over 80% of your " poll" agree there is no right of way

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You must be reading another poll. 10 people of 37 people, that's less than 30%.

In any case, the poll was never a 'vote'. You can't decide such a thing as a vote.

What I find disconcerting is that there are 52 separate respondents at present. It is a multiple selection poll.

Only 35 have agreed that the COLREGS do not refer to right of way. 17 people think it does or did not know they could select multiple answers.

A simple word search in the document reveals no reference to "right of way" - I would think this is irrefutable - but hey it's CF...