All things COLREGS

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Indeed, but it is , an impossible, stretch of semantics to claim that a vessel which should not be impeded has been imbued with any 'right' of any kind, irrespective of the semantic meanderings that have taken place here.


The COLREGS are entirely clear, a small power vessel or any sailing vessel "shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane." notice that NO mention is made of the " not to be impeded vessel"

Where the COLREGS to apportion some " rights " it would have restated RULE 10, to say " a power vessel may proceeded unimpeded by a small power vessel or sailing vessel " etc etc . That would convey a degree of right.

As has been said, all that the COLREGS imply is that an obligation has been placed upon a certain vessel to act in a certain way. No vessel is released from other obligations as a result of this rule either. ( so they dont even gain " rights" by omission )


dave

Some introductions are in order. Dave, have you met rule 8(f)?

8(f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

• (ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or the safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this latter obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this Part.
  
• (iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this Part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Some introductions are in order. Dave, have you met rule 8(f)?

I see no conflict in what I said and rulev8(f). In fact it supports what I sad


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Dave - you are right and I stand corrected. In some situations the "not impeded" vessel could indeed become the give way vessel.

My point was that even though a vessel is sailing along under the "not to be impeded" rule - it also becomes burdened with certain obligations once a situation arises where the rules take effect. And once those obligations (stand on or give way) are placed on the boat - it is no longer a "not to be impeded".

Wrong. The vessel that would become the stand-on vessel remains obligated to not impede the other vessel, and that overrides rule 17. The vessel that shall not be impeded remains a vessel that shall not be impeded, even after the steering and sailing rules come into effect. It still retains what is in effect, the exclusive access to the deep-water channel - you can call that a grant of access, an easement, or a right of way. Or you can choose not to. Fact is, one vessel gets non-negotiable use of the fairway, and the other vessel, whether it's stand-on or give way, or not even in a collision situation must stay clear of the safe-water path.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I see no conflict in what I said and rulev8(f). In fact it supports what I sad

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No vessel is released from other obligations as a result of this rule either. ( so they dont even gain " rights" by omission )

So what do you say of the stand on vessel's obligation to maintain its course and speed, when it is also required to not impede the give way vessel?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

actually no, the colregs remind you that you should not turn to port in certain circumstances.

Yes, but that was not the point.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Wrong. The vessel that would become the stand-on vessel remains obligated to not impede the other vessel, and that overrides rule 17. The vessel that shall not be impeded remains a vessel that shall not be impeded, even after the steering and sailing rules come into effect. It still retains what is in effect, the exclusive access to the deep-water channel - you can call that a grant of access, an easement, or a right of way. Or you can choose not to. Fact is, one vessel gets non-negotiable use of the fairway, and the other vessel, whether it's stand-on or give way, or not even in a collision situation must stay clear of the safe-water path.

Action to avoid collision

(a) Any action to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea-room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.

(f) (i) A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea-room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the Rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.


Lodesman - I believe you are incorrect. Rule 8 f (iii) notes that the "not to be impeded" vessel is "fully obligated" to comply with the steering rules.

I'm willing to concede that Ruel 8 may grant a boat a "right of way" although like Dockhead, I believe this to be fairly abstract. The rules also require that boats maintain a diligent lookout and take early action to avoid situations where the steering rules come into play (if possible).

A right of way when no other traffic is around is an abstract right of way. Indeed a shyster lawyer (sorry Dockhead - not you) might then argue that all boats, if no other traffic is around, have a right of way.

Under any circumstance, this "right of way" is limited to this one exception. I can find no other area of hte rules where they grant a "right of way


Even the infamous(famous) rule 10 proscribes that (h) "A vessel no using a traffic separation scheme shall avoid it by as wide a margin as possible"

Since the boat not in the TSS must avoid it - the our hypotheical shyster (again - not you Dockhead) might argue that a right of way does not exist -s ince you're not allowed to go there.

Rule 10

(h) A vessel not using a traffic separation scheme shall avoid it by as wide a margin as is practicable.

(i) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane.

(j) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

(k) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when engaged in an operation for the maintenance of safety of navigation in a traffic separation scheme is exempted from complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation.

(l) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when engaged in an operation for the laying, servicing or picking up of a submarine cable, within a traffic separation scheme, is exempted from complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation.


Indeed an interesting discussion.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Not to get sidetracked, But as a person who infringed this rule ( many years ago) why trying to see if the traffic on the major road was clear and put the bonnet of a long vehicle over the stop line, I was adjudged entirely and 100% responsible as I in effect " failed to stop" No blame was apportioned to the other driver, who was passing the junction with a " right of way". There was an accident as he collided with me


What this argument has descended to its some proponents of a presumed right of way , arguably the semantics of the term, rather then acknowledge that no such right , however defined is included in the IRPCS.

The opponents on the other hand have in my view quite rightly retained their steadfast ness.

If your referring to the fact that your the only one to get booked by the police that is not attributing responsibilities, it's simply attributing who broke the main law and therefore who shall I give a ticket to. Unless of course your referring to a civil court after the accident which will attribute who had what responsibility. And in that case the other person most certainly bares responsibility.

The point that your not grasping this concludes me to believe you do not grasp the concepts and intent of the COLREGS. Your hanging on to rules, regulations and how you define things and that is missing the intent in the marine rules.

And it's not about the semantics of the term, it's about understanding what the term means and particularly what it means in relation to the COLREGS and the stand on rule. And your also right, the apponents held steadfast. But the poll suggest that a majority, more than 60% in fact we're not convinced.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

But the poll suggest that a majority, more than 60% in fact we're not convinced.

Rustic - according to your poll - 68+% note that the Colregs do not refer to a "right of way" at all.

To me - this omission points rather more keenly to to the Colregs NOT granting a right of way than to them granting one.

How do you account for this? Assuming the authors of the COLREGS wanted to grant specific boats in specific circumstances a "right of way" why not simply say so?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Rustic - according to your poll - 68+% note that the Colregs do not refer to a "right of way" at all.

To me - this omission points rather more keenly to to the Colregs NOT granting a right of way than to them granting one.

How do you account for this? Assuming the authors of the COLREGS wanted to grant specific boats in specific circumstances a "right of way" why not simply say so?

The COLREGS 'do not' refer to 'a right of way'. I polled that myself. i expected the % to be higher.

And the rest has been done to death I would think. I've certainly responded to the question more than once.

[goboatingnow]

The point that your not grasping this concludes me to believe you do not grasp the concepts and intent of the COLREGS. Your hanging on to rules, regulations and how you define things and that is missing the intent in the marine rules.

And it's not about the semantics of the term, it's about understanding what the term means and particularly what it means in relation to the COLREGS and the stand on rule. And your also right, the apponents held steadfast. But the poll suggest that a majority, more than 60% in fact we're not

lots of words , ad-hominen attacks , but no actual point here rustic charm

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

But the poll suggest that a majority, more than 60% in fact we're not convinced.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

The COLREGS 'do not' refer to 'a right of way'. I polled that myself. i expected the % to be higher.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps your choice of words and/or style. I kind of know what you are saying at first from the context of your other writings but then I doubt it upon careful reading of some of your responses.

Me thinks, you are confusing me/us ...

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Richard_W

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps your choice of words and/or style. I kind of know what you are saying at first from the context of your other writings but then I doubt it upon careful reading of some of your responses.

Me thinks, you are confusing me/us ...

My apology, my comment about the poll indicating that more than 60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no such thing of 'right of way', I was referring to the first question in the poll. Less than 40% of people agreed with this comment.

The other comment I made was in relation to the 4th question in the pole. It was a specific question asking whether the phrase 'right of way' appears in the COLREGS. Which it doesn't.

Goboatingnow, I have no intent to attack anyone's 'character' . I dislike that occurring to me and I have no desire to do that to anyone else. Though I admit, in anger I have done just that. I apologise if you felt I was doing that. It was not my intent.

[sailorboy1]

I impressed with how long this thread has become, even though near as I can tell nothing new has been posted since WAY back in it.

How many of you "rules" arguers are lawyers or believe yourself to be lawyers?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

(f) (i) A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea-room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the Rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.


Lodesman - I believe you are incorrect. Rule 8 f (iii) notes that the "not to be impeded" vessel is "fully obligated" to comply with the steering rules.

...
A right of way when no other traffic is around is an abstract right of way. Indeed a shyster lawyer (sorry Dockhead - not you) might then argue that all boats, if no other traffic is around, have a right of way.

Read rule 8(f)(ii) - the vessel that is required to not impede the other, is not relieved of this obligation when risk of collision exists. He must allow the other a clear path, and is expected to take into account that the not to be impeded vessel when giving way, can only do so to the extent that he is not expected to stray from that clear path. That also means that the vessel required to not impede is required, if necessary to avoid impeding the other vessel, to break rule 17 and not stand on.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the "if a tree falls in the forest..." argument; it is so far from the gist of my proposal that it only serves to confuse the whole issue. Your attempts at rephrasing what I've written seem to frequently come out as the complete opposite, so I ask that you carefully consider my point(s) before responding.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

My apology, my comment about the poll indicating that more than 60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no such thing of 'right of way', I was referring to the first question in the poll. Less than 40% of people agreed with this comment.

The other comment I made was in relation to the 4th question in the pole. It was a specific question asking whether the phrase 'right of way' appears in the COLREGS. Which it doesn't.

Your poll is confused on several different levels.

First of all, very few people understood that you are suppose to vote twice.

Second of all, it doesn't address the question you want answered -- which is whether or not you can read a "right of way" into the COLREGS.

The first question does not mention the COLREGS at all. The correct answer is "Yes, there is a right of way under some circumstances" e.g. U.S. Inland Rules. How people answer that question have nothing to do with what you were looking for.

The second question only concerns whether right of way is mentioned in the COLREGS. Obviously it is not mentioned, as you say yourself, whatever you think about whether one can be implied. Anyone answering "yes" to this is simply confused.

Lastly, you say the poll shows that "60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no right of way etc.". Where do you get that math?

Even if the question were stated like that, which it is not, the numbers are nothing like that. On the first question, 5 out of 27, or only 18.5%, gave the correct answer "yes, vessels have right of way under certain circumstances". At least two people who answered "yes" -- that would be me, and the guy who posted about it above, do not believe that there is any right of way under COLREGS -- the "yes" answer referred to racing and/or U.S. Inland Rules. So that leaves maximum 3 out of 27, or 11%, who might believe that you can read this into the COLREGS. But we don't even know this, because of how the question was written. At least one person, Lodesman, who believes that there might be a right of way under COLREGS, reads this into the "not impede" rules, not the "stand-on", "give-way" parts.


The other question is whether the COLREGS "defines" or "refers to" a right of way. 41 out of 44, or 93%, correctly answered "no".


Your assertion that "60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no such thing of 'right of way'" is completely unsupported by the poll results, especially if we are talking about the COLREGS, and not racing rules.