All things COLREGS

[Rustic Charm]

Well I have been watching during the day and I'm pleased to see a number speaking up who do grasp what I was suggesting. I'm just going to sum up on a few things of my understanding.

Firstly, the poll is interesting. 52 people have now participated. They are four quite different questions and were meant to be taken as black and white. There were no trick questions intended. I'm a little alarmed that not even 70% of people recognised that the term 'right of way' does not appear in the COLREGS. It makes me wonder whether more than 30% taking the pole have not read the COLREGS? I'm also comforted in the result that less than 35% agree with the very bold statement that a vessel does not have right of way. In fact I think the poll shows that not everyone is willing to blindly follow what a few very strong willed individuals on CF demand.

For the record, I 100% support the COLREGS. Despite the accusations, I have read them, and studied them and sat exams (not recently) on them. To obtain my Coxswains I had to get 80% of the questions correct which I did do. I also support entirely the term 'stand by' in reference to talking about the COLREGS obligations. It is the term 'stand by' that I use in my language when talking to people about marine rules. If they struggle in understanding this term, I explain it as a being the 'right of way' vessel. And I'm in good company in doing this, with NGO's, training facilities, government 'marine' agencies etc etc. It's a common way of describing the rule.

My only proposal in this thread, was an attempt to address what I and very clearly others feel about the strong and dogmatic statements that someone who uses the words 'right of way' to describe 'stand by' either hasn't read the COLREGS or doesn't understand them and is there for 'wrong'. There are some very experienced and knowledgeable sailors now supporting this proposal. This was my OP intent. One post declared, "Id like to see you in court with a defence of 'but I had right of way' ". If anything betray's someone who doesn't understand the obligations of the Rules of the Sea, it's a person who declares that but fails to understand, equally foolish is the person who goes to court and declares as his/her defence, "but your honour, 'I was the stand on vessel' ". Both fools are equally wrong.

But I also completely reject a couple of other propositions being put forward and from everything I've read so far I still believe they have no justification.

The first is that 'right of way' implies some incredible infallible irrefutable and indelible position. This is simply not true and never has been true. Even the word it self does not mean what some are suggesting here that it means. It is absolutely correct that anyone who believes in such a ridiculous position is destined to end up on the courts or worse.

And equally so, any person who believes you can drive on a road like this is equally foolish and quite frankly, if you can't drive a car properly and as one person wrote pays no attention to what other road users are doing, then you shouldn't be driving a car, let a lone a vessel/boat.

And I might conclude with a third that seems to underline some behaviours on CF. Someone described CF and the largest sailing/cruising forum in the world. It may be. It's certainly a great place and over the past three years of my boat/vessel/bus/banana ownership, I've received huge assistance with a number of questions.

But the negative side of CF is that there is a tendency to bully people. If someone thinks differently, proposes something different, there are a group who quickly revert to name calling, ridicule and putting down. Sometimes it's suttle put downs, and at other times it's not. But it's against CF rules regardless of who does it and it doesn't help in understanding the proposition of the person posting.

Well, I'm done for now. I'm not really seeing anything new. I hope some see it as being an interesting discussion and I hope there will be more. But without the negativity and then we can all learn from each other. There is another question about the COLREGS which I observed floating around on this thread. When we are certain this one has died away, I'll put that one up.. Complete with the colourful poll.

[Ex-Calif]

I also support entirely the term 'stand by' in reference to talking about the COLREGS obligations. It is the term 'stand by' that I use in my language when talking to people about marine rules. If they struggle in understanding this term, I explain it as a being the 'right of way' vessel.

The term is stand on not stand by.

There is no right of way explicit or implied in being the stand on vessel.

If you think "bullying" means a number of people don't agree with you and tell you so then that is your right to feel bullied.

There is no bullying going on. There are learned seamen, licensed seamen, experienced seamen and professional seaman (and lady types of all those) all telling you that the term "right of way" should not be used in context of COLREGS or interpreting the obligations of vessels at sea.

You agree there is no "right of way" but then reserve the freedom to use "right of way" to explain the colregs - Wrong. Sorry. Not bullying you. Just wrong.
Peace...

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Firstly, the poll is interesting. 52 people have now participated. They are four quite different questions and were meant to be taken as black and white. There were no trick questions intended. I'm a little alarmed that not even 70% of people recognised that the term 'right of way' does not appear in the COLREGS. It makes me wonder whether more than 30% taking the pole have not read the COLREGS? I'm also comforted in the result that less than 35% agree with the very bold statement that a vessel does not have right of way. In fact I think the poll shows that not everyone is willing to blindly follow what a few very strong willed individuals on CF demand.

Most members did not realise they needed to provide two responses in this poll (questions 1&2 are independent from 3&4). Me included . In a hurry, I simply picked the best response - vessels do not have right of way. For me it follows that if they don't have right of way then of course the Colregs would not refer to this.

Had this been made clear the poll results would have been very different.

55 people have now voted, only 9 people voted twice. Hence the perception of lack of knowledge.

SWL

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

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...

Interesting questions. I operate under the impression that escorting tugs (which may or may not be attached to their escorted ships) be treated as a single unit. So, the relationship between me and the ships also applies to its tugs.

In the situation described when the ships are operating in restricted waters, a sailboat (like a small motor vessel) is burdened and is responsible for avoiding the ships and their associated tugs. Day shapes on the ships/tugs (which I see no need), if any, would be the least of my worries.

[carstenb]

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.

Lodesman, here you are introducing a new element (narrow channel) into the discussion.

I completely agree with you that when a narrow channel enters as an element, then we need to look at different aspects of the rules (f.eks. Restricted in ability to maneuver).

However the original question did not have any of those aspects in it (NUC, RAM, Constrained by draft).

A core concept within the Regs is the obligations put on ships in a steering(collision avoidance) situation. Both ships will be obligated (burdened or privileged for the one, if you like) to perform certain actions (give way or stand on).

Once an obligation is introduced - then we can no longer speak of "rights", simply because the obligations preclude, by their very nature, the concept of "rights".

I would venture to postulate that even in a situation with some of the elements noted above (RAM or Constrained) the pivileged ship still has an obligation - the obligation to maintain course and speed.


NUC is an entirely different situation, of course, since NUC literally means the ship is not under command and therefore may, by nature of the NUC, not be able to maintain course and speed.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

The term is stand on not stand by.

There is no right of way explicit or implied in being the stand on vessel.

Of course it's 'stand on'. It was my fumbling away on an ipad. But you of course already know that because elsewhere in the post I used the correct terminology. Your intent in pointing this out was simply to ridicule. As was previous comments about being dumb for putting such an argument forward. That's bullying.

If you think "bullying" means a number of people don't agree with you and tell you so then that is your right to feel bullied.

There is no bullying going on. There are learned seamen, licensed seamen, experienced seamen and professional seaman (and lady types of all those) all telling you that the term "right of way" should not be used in context of COLREGS or interpreting the obligations of vessels at sea. This is a bullying statement.

Because there are equally a number of 'learned seamen, licensed seamen, experienced seamen and professional seaman' supporting my proposition that there is no harm in referring to 'right of way'. And of course the poll results also support this. But you desire to suggest I'm on my own. That's how bullies behave.

You agree there is no "right of way" but then reserve the freedom to use "right of way" to explain the colregs - Wrong. Sorry. Not bullying you. Just wrong.

And I have never 'agreed there is no "right of way". To the contrary, I very much believe there is a 'right of way' which is the whole point of my OP. Bullies intentionally twist things like that.

Peace...

That's me done, attack me as you desire. I won't be further responding to it.

[Ex-Calif]

I am truly sorry RC. If your use of stand by was an iPad error I accept that.

The real point of this thread is "precision" - If we are not precise then we end up with anarchy. I didn't point out the error to be a bully. I pointed it out to be precise.

Once again. Sorry if you are getting offended.

[Dockhead]

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.

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 get this now -- Lodesman is right. It's a very subtle point, but actually helpful in understanding the rules even beyond Rules 9 and 10.

The interaction of Rule 9 with the steering and sailing rules suddenly seems much less paradoxical to me now -- because the order of maneuvering established by the steering and sailing rules is so far from anything you could call a "right of way", that it actually does not contradict the precedence established by Rule 9.

So as it turns out, all the trouble I had understanding Rule 9 a few years ago is also based on the same problem Rustic Charm still has today -- which is an echo of land rules corrupting my proper understanding of the meaning of the steering and sailing rules! Who would have thought it!


How can the vessel navigating in a narrow channel and unable to navigate outside of it, which under Rule 9 is to be "not impeded" by a sailboat trying to cross the channel, be at the very same time the give-way vessel in the crossing once the risk of collision has arisen? And without the obligation to "not impede" going away? It seemed so paradoxical to me, that I couldn't accept that Rule 9 didn't trump the steering and sailing rules in this case. That was the argument we had some years ago.

The answer, which I only just now get, is that the two rules don't interact at all -- the steering and sailing rules don't establish any kind of precedence whatsoever -- so far is standing-on from anything like right of way.

So you could say, as Lodesman does -- that the vessel navigating in the narrow channel has the "right of way", and never loses it, despite being the give-way vessel under the the steering & sailing rules once a risk of collision arises. The idea of a "right" here is quite abstract, as that "right" doesn't have any practical application, for all the reasons stated in the US Coast guard text cited by Main Sail, and for the reasons that Carsten and others have stated, but still -- one has to admit that the precedence established by Rule 9 does look something like right of way.

So I think what we can learn today from Lodesman is twofold -- 1. being the stand-on vessel is even further from something like right of way than we imagined; and 2. we should be careful with repeating blanket statements like what the US Coast Guard writes. "There is no right of way at sea" turns out also to be an oversimplification. A useful oversimplification, since confusing standing-on with having right of way is such a common and such a harmful error, which so many of us are stuck on. But an oversimplification, after all.

I am once again humbled and enriched by Lodesman's subtle knowledge.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I get this now -- Lodesman is right. It's a very subtle point, but actually helpful in understanding the rules even beyond Rules 9 and 10.

The interaction of Rule 9 with the steering and sailing rules suddenly seems much less paradoxical to me now -- because the order of maneuvering established by the steering and sailing rules is so far from anything you could call a "right of way", that it actually does not contradict the precedence established by Rule 9.

So as it turns out, all the trouble I had understanding Rule 9 a few years ago is also based on the same problem Rustic Charm still has today -- which is an echo of land rules corrupting my proper understanding of the meaning of the steering and sailing rules! Who would have thought it!


How can the vessel navigating in a narrow channel and unable to navigate outside of it, which under Rule 9 is to be "not impeded" by a sailboat trying to cross the channel, be at the very same time the give-way vessel in the crossing once the risk of collision has arisen? And without the obligation to "not impede" going away? It seemed so paradoxical to me, that I couldn't accept that Rule 9 didn't trump the steering and sailing rules in this case. That was the argument we had some years ago.

The answer, which I only just now get, is that the two rules don't interact at all -- the steering and sailing rules don't establish any kind of precedence whatsoever -- so far is standing-on from anything like right of way.

So you could say, as Lodesman does -- that the vessel navigating in the narrow channel has the "right of way", and never loses it, despite being the give-way vessel under the the steering & sailing rules once a risk of collision arises. The idea of a "right" here is quite abstract, as that "right" doesn't have any practical application, for all the reasons stated in the US Coast guard text cited by Main Sail, and for the reasons that Carsten and others have stated, but still -- one has to admit that the precedence established by Rule 9 does look something like right of way.

So I think what we can learn today from Lodesman is twofold -- 1. being the stand-on vessel is even further from something like right of way than we imagined; and 2. we should be careful with repeating blanket statements like what the US Coast Guard writes. "There is no right of way at sea" turns out also to be an oversimplification. A useful oversimplification, since confusing standing-on with having right of way is such a common and such a harmful error, which so many of us are stuck on. But an oversimplification, after all.

I am once again humbled and enriched by Lodesman's subtle knowledge.

Dockhead

I agree - although the original query did not have "narrow channel" as an element.

As soon as RAM or constrained or NUC enter into the equation - then their ability to conform to the steering and sailing rules is, by definition, limited.

This, as you've noted, does imply some sort of abstract "right of way" although it is an abstract right and only comes into play in special circumstances.

Lest we forget - RAM,NUC and Constrained are ALWAYS the stand on vessel, in a situation with a "normal" sailboat.

Even so, I suspect that in the event of a collision, a RAM,NUC or Constrained that did not make any attempt to avoid a collison would be appropriated a part of the blame.

[Dockhead]

Rustic, you should try not to let feelings of offense interfere with learning something.

You were offended by my busses and yachts analogy, but the point could have been useful to you -- I meant that anyone can use any terminology any way he wants, and in nearly every case can find some kind of logic for it -- there aren't any laws which force us to use this versus that term.

So you can of course find reasons to call being the stand-on vessel "having the right of way" -- it's not devoid of logic. Why, the Rules say "keep out of the way of" -- if another vessel is supposed to "keep out of your way", then it's not completely illogical for you to say that "I have the right of way". No one is saying that you are stupid.

But the real question is whether it is beneficial to think of it like that. People have given you some very, very powerful reasons why it is not beneficial to think of standing-on as having the right of way. The main reason, in my opinion, is Carsten's (and the U.S. Coast Guard's) explanation about the paramount role of obligations and the fact that being the stand-on vessel doesn't actually give you any rights of any kind. The phrase "right of way" makes a very harmful implication that you have some kind of right or precedence over give-way vessels, and collision avoidance at sea just doesn't work that way.

Ex-Calif is making the point that "imprecise" use of terminology causes confusion and mistakes -- that's also correct. He means that when a person says "Ah, what difference do the words mean? Stand-on, right of way, so what?" that this creates a strong tendency to go on to think "what difference do the rules mean, I'll just navigate the way I drive", and fail to take account of the differences in nature of the rules, something which recreational sailors actually do, constantly. When a thing has a substantially different nature, it can be very helpful to understanding to have a different name for it, and that is the reason why the US Coast Guard and others rail against using the term "right of way" for situations at sea.


So, peace, brothers -- no reason for this to be a brawl. I think Rustic was provoking us on purpose (I am not using the word "trolling"), but as I said before, I think it's been an excellent discussion, from which I've actually learned a lot, so I thank him for it. I hope others have, too.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Dockhead

I agree - although the original query did not have "narrow channel" as an element.

As soon as RAM or constrained or NUC enter into the equation - then their ability to conform to the steering and sailing rules is, by definition, limited.

This, as you've noted, does imply some sort of abstract "right of way" although it is an abstract right and only comes into play in special circumstances.

Lest we forget - RAM,NUC and Constrained are ALWAYS the stand on vessel, in a situation with a "normal" sailboat.

Even so, I suspect that in the event of a collision, a RAM,NUC or Constrained that did not make any attempt to avoid a collison would be appropriated a part of the blame.

Yes, of course, but Rule 9 is very different from RAM, NUC, Constrained by Draft -- because it talks about "not impeding", not standing-on or giving-way.

A vessel which has precedence under Rule 9 does not thereby become the stand-on vessel. Which is the whole paradox.

EDIT: Rule 18(d)(i) does require other vessels to "not impede" vessels Constrained by Draft and displaying the appropriate signals. But Rule 9 does not talk about vessels Constrained by Draft, but rather vessels "which can safely navigate only in a narrow channel or fairway." Different things.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Even so, I suspect that in the event of a collision, a ......... Constrained that did not make any attempt to avoid a collison would be appropriated a part of the blame.

Possibly easier to deal with than the consequences of blocking the approach channel to a major port and dumping 10,000 tonnes of Light Arabian into the bay...
Blow whistle, pull the sticks back...did the best I could guv'nor...

The consequences of running down a yacht in the first situation would pale into insignificance compared with what would happen in the latter case... go to jail... do not pass go..etc

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Rustic, you should try not to let feelings of offense interfere with learning something.

You were offended by my busses and yachts analogy, but the point could have been useful to you -- I meant that anyone can use any terminology any way he wants, and in nearly every case can find some kind of logic for it -- there aren't any laws which force us to use this versus that term.

So you can of course find reasons to call being the stand-on vessel "having the right of way" -- it's not devoid of logic. Why, the Rules say "keep out of the way of" -- if another vessel is supposed to "keep out of your way", then it's not completely illogical for you to say that "I have the right of way". No one is saying that you are stupid.

But the real question is whether it is beneficial to think of it like that. People have given you some very, very powerful reasons why it is not beneficial to think of standing-on as having the right of way. The main reason, in my opinion, is Carsten's (and the U.S. Coast Guard's) explanation about the paramount role of obligations and the fact that being the stand-on vessel doesn't actually give you any rights of any kind. The phrase "right of way" makes a very harmful implication that you have some kind of right or precedence over give-way vessels, and collision avoidance at sea just doesn't work that way.

Ex-Calif is making the point that "imprecise" use of terminology causes confusion and mistakes -- that's also correct. He means that when a person says "Ah, what difference do the words mean? Stand-on, right of way, so what?" that this creates a strong tendency to go on to think "what difference do the rules mean, I'll just navigate the way I drive", and fail to take account of the differences in nature of the rules, something which recreational sailors actually do, constantly. When a thing has a substantially different nature, it can be very helpful to understanding to have a different name for it, and that is the reason why the US Coast Guard and others rail against using the term "right of way" for situations at sea.


So, peace, brothers -- no reason for this to be a brawl. I think Rustic was provoking us on purpose (I am not using the word "trolling"), but as I said before, I think it's been an excellent discussion, from which I've actually learned a lot, so I thank him for it. I hope others have, too.

To put this insistance on proper nomenclature into perspective.

The reasoning is the same as why there ain't no such thing on a boat as a rope.

There are lines, sheets, or halyards - but no rope.

Or, there is no left and right on a boat - there is starboard or port.

The use of this argot is for a reason - to avoid misunderstanding. Sailors instinctively know where port or starboard are - whereas left and right can mean either direction , depending on which way the person is facing.

"Stand on" has a very specific meaning, which is different for "right of way"


"Give way" also does not mean "Yield right of way"

subtle perhaps - but different.

Using the correct terminology, or nomenclature if you like, makes communication easier. Incorrect nomenclature seeds confusion, which is undesirable on a boat

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I get this now -- Lodesman is right. It's a very subtle point,

So as it turns out, all the trouble I had understanding Rule 10 a few years ago is also based on the same problem Rustic Charm still has today -- which is an echo of land rules corrupting my proper understanding of the meaning of the steering and sailing rules! Who would have thought it! Bullocks! Just because you had this problem don't prescribe it to me. We have not discussed anything to do with steering and sailing rules for you to make such a judgment on me. All we have discussed is the dogmatic pedantic way you continued to preach about 'right of way' as if it was some kind of absolute.

The idea of a "right" here is quite abstract, as that "right" doesn't have any practical application, No kidding! You have finally grasped that concept have you!

So I think what we can learn today from Lodesman is twofold -- 1. being the stand-on vessel is even further from something like right of way than we imagined; and 2. we should be careful with repeating blanket statements like what the US Coast Guard writes. "There is no right of way at sea" turns out also to be an oversimplification. A useful oversimplification, since confusing standing-on with having right of way is such a common and such a harmful error, which so many of us are stuck on. But an oversimplification, after all.

I am once again humbled and enriched by Lodesman's subtle knowledge.

Humbled is not a characteristic I'd describe to you.
You are finally conceding something about 'right' because it seems your mentor has corrected you on it. How big of you. Perhaps you are not the god you and your followers think.


Bugger! I didn't want to comment any further but this sort of arrogance was too hard to resist.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Possibly easier to deal with than the consequences of blocking the approach channel to a major port and dumping 10,000 tonnes of Light Arabian into the bay...
Blow whistle, pull the sticks back...did the best I could guv'nor...

The consequences of running down a yacht in the first situation would pale into insignificance compared with what would happen in the latter case... go to jail... do not pass go..etc

Absolutely - but blowing the whistle and going into reverse is also attempting to avoid a collision.