Phuket! I have "Right of Way"

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This story is yet another example of why the term "right of way" doesn't exist in the COLREGs. The only reason it exists anywhere else is because the COLREGs have been misinterpreted.

Disclaimer: Does not apply to US inland waters. May contain nuts.

Exactly.

This story is a perfect example of the harmfulness of the phrase "right of way", when used at sea.

"Right of Way" -- a condition which exists during an indefinite period of time, when two vehicles encounter each other on roads, or two vessels in a specific Inland Rules case (vessel navigating downstream in a river). If there is a collision, then there is a legal presumption that the vehicle which did not have the right of way was at fault.

"Standing On" -- not a condition at all, but a type of maneuver which you are obligated to make (it's not a right) only at one specific phase of an encounter. It's not a right at all. If there is a collision, there is no presumption about the give-way vessel -- both helmsmen are presumed to be at fault.

As DeepFrz correctly said above, at a certain point in the encounter, standing on simply disappears and both vessels have equal responsibility to maneuver to prevent the collision. Equal responsibility; by the time there is a collision, there is no difference in the status between the two vessels. Unlike the case on land where someone has the right of way and keeps this status.

We can't tell from the article what exactly the sailboat skipper was doing, but it definitely sounds like he was sounding his horn when he was already not the stand-on vessel, and should have been maneuvering. Typical behavior of someone who thinks he has the "right of way".


EDIT: Which is not to say that we know whether or not he could have actually avoided the accident. When there is a big difference in speed, sometimes the slower vessel just can't do anything effective. We can't know any of this, really, not having been there.

[Mirage Gecko]

The story has nothing to do with right of way or not.Anyone who is watching what is happening as he supposedly was then leaves it too late to manoeuvre
is a fool regardless if they are in the right or not.Fortunately most boaters are not.
As for the Cole regs in my opinion most of the general boating public globally has no idea they exist so no chance to misinterpret them or get it correct.
I have been on a few dive and tourist boats in Thailand over the years and was always thankful we and the boat made it back in one piece as for the rules it is the same as driving anywhere in Asia ..who dares wins
Chris

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Exactly.

This story is a perfect example of the harmfulness of the phrase "right of way", when used at sea.

"Right of Way" -- a condition which exists during an indefinite period of time, when two vehicles encounter each other on roads, or two vessels in a specific Inland Rules case (vessel navigating downstream in a river). If there is a collision, then there is a legal presumption that the vehicle which did not have the right of way was at fault.

And you are wrong again. Specifically, 'if there is a collision, then there is a legal presumption that the vehicle which did not have the right of way was at fault' is particularly wrong. At least in English Law countries.


"Standing On" -- not a condition at all, but a type of maneuver which you are obligated to make (it's not a right) only at one specific phase of an encounter. It's not a right at all. If there is a collision, there is no presumption about the give-way vessel -- both helmsmen are presumed to be at fault.

As DeepFrz correctly said above, at a certain point in the encounter, standing on simply disappears and both vessels have equal responsibility to maneuver to prevent the collision. Equal responsibility; by the time there is a collision, there is no difference in the status between the two vessels. Unlike the case on land where someone has the right of way.

We can't tell from the article what exactly the sailboat skipper was doing, but it definitely sounds like he was sounding his horn when he was already not the stand-on vessel, and should have been maneuvering. Typical behavior of someone who thinks he has the "right of way".

You see, what happens here is the American/Canadian understanding of 'right', which I'm guessing is something so ingrained from their 'rights' in their constitution. (Which is amazing given the frequency of trampling on the rights of both non US citizens and their own). The yanks see 'right' as an absolute. No matter what, no matter what happens, you are in the 'right' and I have that 'right' to barge through, to push through, no matter what.

The problem with this thinking is it's dangerous. It's dangerous in the road and it's dangerous on the water. Dockhead correctly recognises this on the water, but fails dismally to understand it when driving a car.

A big list of official and non official sources have been provided. Do a simple Google search on 'marine right of way' or 'right of way on the water', and you will see that CF and the U.S. Coast Guard aside, this dogmatic insistence to stop using the phrase is not common. Government, authorities, training schools use this phrase.

NO! The phrase is not found in the COLREGS. That's not debatable because, it's not there. But the concept of 'right of way' is clearly there. It's only a problem to those who eroneously believe in this fundamentalist, absolute, definitive 'right'.

And NO! I don't think this is an example of why it should be dispensed with. It's an example of leaving it too late to take evasive action.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Mirage Gecko

The story has nothing to do with right of way or not.Anyone who is watching what is happening as he supposedly was then leaves it too late to manoeuvre
is a fool regardless if they are in the right or not.Fortunately most boaters are not.
As for the Cole regs in my opinion most of the general boating public globally has no idea they exist so no chance to misinterpret them or get it correct.
I have been on a few dive and tourist boats in Thailand over the years and was always thankful we and the boat made it back in one piece as for the rules it is the same as driving anywhere in Asia ..who dares wins
Chris

you are right. He left it way too long. Perhaps he was a yank and was insisting he's got the 'right'.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mirage Gecko

The story has nothing to do with right of way or not.Anyone who is watching what is happening as he supposedly was then leaves it too late to manoeuvre
is a fool regardless if they are in the right or not.Fortunately most boaters are not.
As for the Cole regs in my opinion most of the general boating public globally has no idea they exist so no chance to misinterpret them or get it correct.
I have been on a few dive and tourist boats in Thailand over the years and was always thankful we and the boat made it back in one piece as for the rules it is the same as driving anywhere in Asia ..who dares wins
Chris

There is a lot of truth in all of this.

And I agree that you would be a fool to "leave it too late to maneuver" even on land in a place like Thai.

However, this behavior -- continuing to hold course and speed and sounding your horn, when the rules required you already to maneuver -- is classical "right of way" mentality behavior.


The careless misuse of the term "right of way" is incredibly harmful at sea, leading to all kinds of confusion. A lot of leisure sailors refuse to learn anything about the Colregs, and maintain an attitude of aggressively stubborn ignorance about them. Collision avoidance rules at sea are very different from on land, and the technique of collision avoidance itself is totally different. It is really worthwhile to learn something about them. I have always been opposed to mandatory licensing for boaters, but reading some of these comments, I'm not so sure anymore. . .


Five blasts, by the way, do NOT mean "Get out of my way, I have the right of way!" They mean "What are your intentions?" Totally inappropriate when collision is already imminent.

[Moonos]

All I want to say is when commanding a boat, riding a bike or driving a car in Thailand you must be constantly aware of other people and their intentions.

There is no point saying "I was in the right" when the consequence is broken machinery or injured people.

I ride motorcycles in the mountains up north Thailand often, and that is the only way you will get out alive.

Also, don't operate motorised transport at night or after more than a few couple of beers max.

Simple really.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is a lot of truth in all of this.

And I agree that you would be a fool to "leave it too late to maneuver" even on land in a place like Thai.

However, this behavior -- continuing to hold course and speed and sounding your horn, when the rules required you already to maneuver -- is classical "right of way" mentality behavior.

I tend to agree with you. But the solution is to 'educate' correctly, not introduce another falsehood, such as, 'this would be ok behaviour on land

The careless misuse of the term "right of way" is incredibly harmful at sea, leading to all kinds of confusion. A lot of leisure sailors refuse to learn anything about the Colregs, and maintain an attitude of aggressively stubborn ignorance about them. Collision avoidance rules at sea are very different from on land, and the technique of collision avoidance itself is totally different. It is really worthwhile to learn something about them. I have always been opposed to mandatory licensing for boaters, but reading some of these comments, I'm not so sure anymore. . .

And your usual put downs occur. (In Australia we have mandatory licensing)

Five blasts, by the way, do NOT mean "Get out of my way, I have the right of way!" They mean "What are your intentions?" Totally inappropriate when collision is already imminent.

I really fail to understand 'why' the rest of the world has to comply with these American /Canadian ideas. And of course any reference to authoritive publications is just met with 'there wrong'!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And you are wrong again. Specifically, 'if there is a collision, then there is a legal presumption that the vehicle which did not have the right of way was at fault' is particularly wrong. At least in English Law countries.

Sorry, former law professor here. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this because it's not cruising- or maritime-related, but in virtually all civil and common law countries, other than those which have no-fault laws, when two vehicles collide, and one of them had the right of way, it is legally presumed that the driver who did not have the right of way was negligent. That is because the non-right of way vehicle is obligated to yield, and if he failed to yield, then that is legally presumed to be the result of negligence. This presumption can be overcome in rare cases if, for example, the driver with the right of way had a good chance to avoid the accident himself and failed to do so, but such cases are exceptionally rare. This presumption can also be overcome in some cases and some jurisdictions (usually not in the case of a rear-end collision) if the driver who was supposed to yield can prove that he was not negligent, or if the driver with the right of way contributed to or caused the accident with some fault of his own, like speeding, or failing to have his lights on at night. So, for example, a driver on a main road not showing lights on a dark night, who collides with someone pulling out of a side street, might be entirely at fault and responsible for the accident, if the driver pulling out of the side street can prove that he could not have seen the other driver. But to get there, he will have to overcome the legal presumption that not yielding the right of way constitutes negligence on his part.

In such cases, it can also be relevant whether the state or other jurisdiction follows the old common law doctrine of "contributory negligence", or not -- if so, then the claim of the driver with the right of way can be entirely barred in case he did even a little negligent thing which somehow contributed to the accident. In many jurisdictions, the old common law rules have been supplemented or replaced with statutes. For example, it is common to create by statute a conclusive presumption of negligence in the case of a rear-end collision.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

A big list of official and non official sources have been provided. Do a simple Google search on 'marine right of way' or 'right of way on the water', and you will see that CF and the U.S. Coast Guard aside, this dogmatic insistence to stop using the phrase is not common. Government, authorities, training schools use this phrase.

It must be true, it's in the Internet!

Yes, the phrase is misused in a whole host of simplified materials intended to be understandable for people without a high school education.

Relying on these kind of materials to know what the rules mean, is a lot like trying to determine how GPS works, by reading Garmin advertising materials. Don't really know what else to say about that.

The bottom line is -- using the phrase "right of way" in relation to the COLREGS is -- wrong. And not only in the U.S. and Canada. If you use it in a yachtmaster exam over here in the UK, you will be flunked on the spot -- it's considered to be proof that you have no idea how the COLREGS work, and the question is frequently used in yachtmaster exams as a classic test for this.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The bottom line is -- using the phrase "right of way" in relation to the COLREGS is -- wrong. And not only in the U.S. and Canada. If you use it in a yachtmaster exam over here in the UK, you will be flunked on the spot -- it's considered to be proof that you have no idea how the COLREGS work, and the question is frequently used in yachtmaster exams as a classic test for this.

Rustic I know you think us "bullies" etc, but you simply are wrong if you use this term when discussing the Colregs. And your quoted sources are also incorrect in using the term "right of way".

As in the UK, using that term in a Danish Yachtmaster exam will have you outside the door in less than 10 seconds, because you will have shown that you have not mastered the wording, intent and spirit of the Colregs.

Calling a chicken a duck does not make it a duck.

In this case - blowing 5 horn blasts (meaning I do not understand your intentions) was perhaps correct, but the sailboat should not have been on autopilot at the time. The skipper should have switched from auto to manual steering as soon as he saw himself in a situation he didn't understand (therefore 5 blasts). When the dive boat didn't respond, the sailboat skipper should have taken evasive actions.

As Mark J noted - 3 blasts on the horn means I am engaging my engines in reverse (although the dive boat may not have known that is what he was indicating). So the sailboat skipper saying 3 blasts is not a known maritime signal doesn't know what he is talking about

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sorry, former law professor here. Former law professor or not, you do not speak nor remain familiar with the Law everywhere

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this because it's not cruising- or maritime-related, well, it is, because you keep relating to the 'right of way' to driving a car but in virtually all civil and common law countries, other than those which have no-fault laws, when two vehicles collide, and one of them had the right of way, it is legally presumed that the driver who did not have the right of way was negligent. That is because the non-right of way vehicle is obligated to yield, and if he failed to yield, then that is legally presumed to be the result of negligence. This presumption can be overcome in rare cases if, for example, the driver with the right of way had a good chance to avoid the accident himself and failed to do so, but such cases are exceptionally rare. No, they are not rare, they are exceptionally common and make up close to the bulk of accidents. That's from 14 years policing experience. It's also taught in advanced defensive driver training, because it's true. It's exceptionally common. This presumption can also be overcome in some cases and some jurisdictions (usually not in the case of a rear-end collision) if the driver who was supposed to yield can prove that he was not negligent, or if the driver with the right of way contributed to or caused the accident with some fault of his own, like speeding, or failing to have his lights on at night.

So, for example, a driver on a main road not showing lights on a dark night, who collides with someone pulling out of a side street, might be entirely at fault and responsible for the accident, if the driver pulling out of the side street can prove that he could not have seen the other driver. But to get there, he will have to overcome the legal presumption that not yielding the right of way constitutes negligence on his part. That's not a legal presumption here.

In such cases, it can also be relevant whether the state or other jurisdiction follows the old common law doctrine of "contributory negligence", or not -- if so, then the claim of the driver with the right of way can be entirely barred in case he did even a little negligent thing which somehow contributed to the accident.
Contributory negligence is a concept in civil law, not criminal I'm sure you will agree professor?

In many jurisdictions, the old common law rules have been supplemented or replaced with statutes. For example, it is common to create by statute a conclusive presumption of negligence in the case of a rear-end collision.
we also have a law, that makes it an offence to fail to avoid an accident. The common example is going through a green light without looking or an intersection where you have the right of way without looking. Or deliberately pushing your 'right if way' and it results in an accident.


It must be true, it's in the Internet! Yes, the phrase is misused in a whole host of simplified materials intended to be understandable for people without a high school education. Relying on these kind of materials to know what the rules mean, is a lot like trying to determine how GPS works, by reading Garmin advertising materials. Don't really know what else to say about that.

This is when arrogance is not a good trait. I've cited before 'authoritive' cites such as the Queensland Maritime Authority, the New Zealand Maritime Authority. But you mock them as if they are for 'people without a high school education' apart from being wrong it's really quite arrogant to claim that these 'maritime authorities' are either wrong or writing for delinquents'

The bottom line is -- using the phrase "right of way" in relation to the COLREGS is -- wrong. And not only in the U.S. and Canada. If you use it in a yachtmaster exam over here in the UK, you will be flunked on the spot -- it's considered to be proof that you have no idea how the COLREGS work, and the question is frequently used in yachtmaster exams as a classic test for this.

I don't know about a 'Yachtmaster' course in the UK. But I do know that doing a 'Coxswains' here you can have no problem. You will not fail it. And yes, I have a Coxswain. As long as you know what it means. (But, I acknkwedge that perhaps I'm wrong and 'right of way' in the US is absolute. That would explain the US attrocious mv stats). Here, I suspect you would 'fail' a Yachtmaster course, not for using the term 'right of way' but because you don't know what a 'stand on vessel' is. If you can't explain the term, that would certainly get you a fail and so it should. And frankly, if the Brits are still so stuffy that 'terminology' matters more than understanding and comprehension, then I'm glad us convicts have evolved to a higher understanding.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Rustic I know you think us "bullies" etc, (only if you start calling names, put downs, questioning professionalism, yes. The arrogance to which some if you, not many, just some of you on CF insist on your way does very much border on bullying. but you simply are wrong if you use this term when discussing the Colregs. And your quoted sources are also incorrect in using the term "right of way".

So, it is your believe, insistance, that such authorities as the Queensland Maritime Authority, New Zealand Maritime Authority are 'wrong' because they use a term that 'you' don't like them using?

As in the UK, using that term in a Danish Yachtmaster exam will have you outside the door in less than 10 seconds, because you will have shown that you have not mastered the wording, intent and spirit of the Colregs. This seems silly to me, for the last decade in Australia there has been a push, nation wide to teach, instruct, even preach in the venacular. This is because in Australia it has been recognised that what matters most is not parroting words but understanding the words/concepts. All I read here is that 'words' are more important than understanding the concepts and that is dangerous.

Calling a chicken a duck does not make it a duck. I have no idea what this saying has to do with this subject. Over my head I'm afraid

t

It seems the absolute height of arrogance to insist 'your wrong' when referring to how different countries, different authorities 'explain' a concept such as the role and responsibilities of a 'stand on' vessel. I woukd have thought it obvious that what is most important is the 'meaning', the 'understanding', not the way in which it is explained.

[Waboson HR352]

Keep it simple. When taking part in a regatta you can utilize right of way as far as you dare without colliding. When we are cruising, everyone else has right of way and we steer clear of all risks.
Why on earth would you want to risk a collision and endanger your crew for the sake of some idiot or unskilled skipper?
Even worse, face a foreign court to prove you had right of way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

As in the UK, using that term in a Danish Yachtmaster exam will have you outside the door in less than 10 seconds, because you will have shown that you have not mastered the wording, intent and spirit of the Colregs.

Calling a chicken a duck does not make it a duck.

Correct. The classic Yachtmaster Exam question is this:

Question: "Vessel A is motoring in open water and good visibility, and Vessel B, also motoring, approaches from Vessel A's port side on a roughly perpendicular course. Vessel B is making way and is showing no day shapes. Who has the right of way?"

Wrong Answer: Vessel A.

Correct Answer:

No one has the right of way. From the moment that the vessels are in sight of one another, and a risk of collision exists, Vessel A is obligated to hold course and speed, and Vessel B is obligated to maneuver to stay clear, avoiding if possible turning to starboard and avoiding if possible passing close ahead of Vessel A, and avoiding small changes of course or speed which cannot be easily perceived on the other vessel. If Vessel A has a reasonable belief that Vessel B is not maneuvering to keep clear, then Vessel A gets the right to maneuver itself. At the moment when the maneuvers of Vessel B cannot prevent a collision, then Vessel A is obligated to maneuver to avoid a collision. At all times, both vessels are required to consider, besides the written Rules, the ordinary practice of seamen, the special circumstances of the case, and the limitations of the vessels involved, and to depart from the other Rules if necessary to avoid a collision.

The reason why you flunk by saying "Vessel A has the right of way" is because it's just totally wrong -- it does not in any way describe the actual obligations of the parties which are set out in the right answer. The last part of the question -- "who has the right of way" -- is a trick question, designed to test whether you grasp this essential thing, or not. You cannot answer in two words, because just about every word in the right answer is essential to the issue.


Some people, including maybe even some local authorities somewhere, think it's necessary to "dumb down" this, and make it more like driving a car, so that everyone will understand it. But as you can see from the right answer -- and also from simply reading the COLREGS -- both rules and practice are very different at sea, from collision avoidance in a car, and it's not really possible to "dumb it down" without losing the essence. Like with lots of things in life, I guess. Thank God the dumbed-down understanding is not enough to get a really good qualification like the RYA or Danish Yachtmaster tickets.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

It seems the absolute height of arrogance to insist 'your wrong' when referring to how different countries, different authorities 'explain' a concept such as the role and responsibilities of a 'stand on' vessel. I woukd have thought it obvious that what is most important is the 'meaning', the 'understanding', not the way in which it is explained.

If you were to exercise your "right of way" up here, you'd be run over within the week.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Moonos

I ride motorcycles in the mountains up north Thailand often, and that is the only way you will get out alive.

Over egging it a bit? I spent a while on 2 wheels up there last year, you need your wits about you but "only way to get out alive" - not really.
Even the middle of Chaing Mai isn't *that* bad.

Mai Hong Son loop on a bike - absolutely amazing

Watching the river traffic around some of the piers in central Bangkok is a study in chaos which somehow works though