Phuket! I have "Right of Way"

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

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

The wife and I survived a circumnavigation of Phuket on a scooter a couple of years ago. Went through a roundabout using "Western rules" and got tooted by everyone near by. Got pulled over by the police and had no licence, got let off. Good times!

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[carstenb]

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.

The problem is that the words "right of way" do not convey the correct meaning, intention, understanding or spirit of the colregs. They convey a different meaning, although the differences can be construed as subtile and by some as insignificant.

We've had this discussion before and you'll not be convinced of the subtilties of the variances. So be it.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The wife and I survived a circumnavigation of Phuket on a scooter a couple of years ago. Went through a roundabout using "Western rules" and got tooted by everyone near by. Got pulled over by the police and had no licence, got let off. Good times!

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I got pulled last year on a little country road with no license - after hunting for a scan on a tablet they said - "Don't worry, everyone from the UK has a license"
Wonderful country

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

I got pulled last year on a little country road with no license - after hunting for a scan on a tablet they said - "Don't worry, everyone from the UK has a license"
Wonderful country

Agreed

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by redsky49

This shouldn't become a semantics vs common sense argument however.

If vessel A has to "...keep out of the way of the other [vessel]...", does not the "other [vessel]" have the right of way?

No, the stand on vessel has an obligation to hold course and give the other vessel time to maneuver. There is no "right" conveyed by becoming the stand on vessel.

I think there is a difference between colregs and driving a car on the motor way. It simply isn't practical to take note of every car on the motor way at risk of collision. There can be thousands of them in the US and UK for example. Thus for practical reasons we have created lanes and signs that convey a "right of way" to certain automobiles and restrict the right of way to others. It's purely a practical matter to have it so.

But on the water there are no lanes clearly marked (except on charts) and all vessels that are at risk of collision must follow a clear set of rules (aka obligations). When there is a risk of collision no one has a "right of way", to the contrary all parties have obligations they must fulfill.

If there is no risk of collision you can do whatever you like except intentionally create a risk of collision. But as soon as risk of collision exists then all "rights" are gone and certain "obligations" befall all the affected vessels.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

No, the stand on vessel has an obligation to hold course and give the other vessel time to maneuver. There is no "right" conveyed by becoming the stand on vessel.

I think there is a difference between colregs and driving a car on the motor way. It simply isn't practical to take note of every car on the motor way at risk of collision. There can be thousands of them in the US and UK for example. Thus for practical reasons we have created lanes and signs that convey a "right of way" to certain automobiles and restrict the right of way to others. It's purely a practical matter to have it so.

But on the water there are no lanes clearly marked (except on charts) and all vessels that are at risk of collision must follow a clear set of rules (aka obligations). When there is a risk of collision no one has a "right of way", to the contrary all parties have obligations they must fulfill.

If there is no risk of collision you can do whatever you like except intentionally create a risk of collision. But as soon as risk of collision exists then all "rights" are gone and certain "obligations" befall all the affected vessels.

This is probably as good an explanation as I've seen. The stand on indeed has no rights - it has obligations - just as the give way vessel has obligations.

Once thought of in this way - both vessels having obligations - the colregs become much clearer and the distinction between "right of way" and stand on vessel is clear.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

No, the stand on vessel has an obligation to hold course and give the other vessel time to maneuver. There is no "right" conveyed by becoming the stand on vessel.

I think there is a difference between colregs and driving a car on the motor way. It simply isn't practical to take note of every car on the motor way at risk of collision. There can be thousands of them in the US and UK for example. Thus for practical reasons we have created lanes and signs that convey a "right of way" to certain automobiles and restrict the right of way to others. It's purely a practical matter to have it so.

But on the water there are no lanes clearly marked (except on charts) and all vessels that are at risk of collision must follow a clear set of rules (aka obligations). When there is a risk of collision no one has a "right of way", to the contrary all parties have obligations they must fulfill.

If there is no risk of collision you can do whatever you like except intentionally create a risk of collision. But as soon as risk of collision exists then all "rights" are gone and certain "obligations" befall all the affected vessels.

Exactly right. Not only is "no right conveyed by being the stand-on vessel", unlike the case with right of way, but the status of being the stand-on vessel is temporary, unlike the case with right of way.

There are many differences between collision avoidance on land and at sea, but this is the essential one. There are no "roads" in open water and you can't just eyeball an encounter with a ship and know whether there's a risk of collision or which way you should turn, unlike on land. So roads on land handle thousands of cars which flash by in moments -- you can't take a bearing on every car -- it's impossible. So instead you have main roads which have priority over side roads (for example), and you are allowed to proceed down these roads with qualified impunity and within certain limits take for granted that no one will pull out of the side roads. If you have have the right of way on a road, you are not obligated, for example, to stop at every intersection and look around the corner to see whether anyone is running a stop sign or not; but in an analogous situation at sea you are. Every encounter on the road appears and is over in seconds or fractions of a second. So there's no multi-phase maneuvering -- there's just one state -- having the right of way. Or not.

If you have the right of way, you're free -- you can proceed, stop, turn, do what you like. You don't have any particular obligations to the other vehicles except to take last-minute action to avoid an accident in the exceptional case when the other vehicle fails to yield and you are actually able to swerve or stop in time. You are "privileged" -- yes, that's a legal term.

If you're at sea, by contrast, and you are the stand-on vessel, you are NOT free and you are NOT privileged in any way -- you are OBLIGATED to hold course and speed -- during that limited phase where you remain the stand-on vessel. The concept of "privilege" was specifically eliminated from the COLREGS in 1972. All of this is a dance, designed to systematically defuse collision situations, with both vessels at all times with particular roles to play, and no one ever just proceeding, when there's a risk of collision. And at some point, the status of being stand-on disappears -- and by the time you get into an imminent collision, both vessels have equal status. Totally unlike on land, where the right of way of one vehicle, and the obligation to yield of the other, persist throughout and to the end. Subject to some qualifications but the status remains and will be the first thing used to determine fault in case of an accident.

If you go to court over a car accident, the grounds for liability of the driver at fault will usually be stated as "failure to yield the right of way". Such a concept as "failure to yield the right of way" is totally absent at sea, as is "right of way" itself. Not just the terminology, but the concept itself. So this is definitely not a mere semantic issue.

[Moonos]

Originally Posted by conachair

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

Perhaps a little exaggeration. But the fact remains if you push you luck with "right of way" too often in Asia, eventually you will become unstuck. It could be a little unstuck, or a big unstuck. Either way I have better things to do than spend time in a Thai hospital.

Yes the MHS loop is pretty cool, I've done it a few times. I really like the town of pai. I want to get to the town Nan one day...

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Moonos

But the fact remains if you push you luck with "right of way" too often in Asia, eventually you will become unstuck. It could be a little unstuck, or a big unstuck.

Completely agree with that And not just Asia, I don't think many people realize just how few rich fat rule obeying westerners there actually are in the world - we are very much the minority.

Transfers well to sailing as well - don't expect everyone to do what they're supposed to .

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Exactly right. Not only is "no right conveyed by being the stand-on vessel", unlike the case with right of way, but the status of being the stand-on vessel is temporary, unlike the case with right of way.

....
If you're at sea, by contrast, and you are the stand-on vessel, you are NOT free and you are NOT privileged in any way -- you are OBLIGATED to hold course and speed -- during that limited phase where you remain the stand-on vessel. The concept of "privilege" was specifically eliminated from the COLREGS in 1972. All of this is a dance, designed to systematically defuse collision situations, with both vessels at all times with particular roles to play, and no one ever just proceeding, when there's a risk of collision. And at some point, the status of being stand-on disappears -- and by the time you get into an imminent collision, both vessels have equal status. Totally unlike on land, where the right of way of one vehicle, and the obligation to yield of the other, persist throughout and to the end. Subject to some qualifications but the status remains and will be the first thing used to determine fault in case of an accident.

... So this is definitely not a mere semantic issue.

I agree that there is no right of the way as a expression on the colregs but you give the impression that this case, assuming as correct the version we had, both share the same responsibility and I do not agree. In this case the motorboat should simply kept out of the way from the sailingboat (Colregs) that is very similar to say that the sailboat had right of the way.

Let's see:

By the rule five each boat had to maintain a proper look-out and that was evidently so since both boats exchanged horn signals.

By the rule 18 the motorboat should kept out of the way of a sailing boat. Note that the rule does not say the sailboat is the stand on but that: "A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a sailing vessel"

The sailboat sounded the horn correctly five blasts, a signal to means danger and the motorboat responded, implying that had the situation controlled, with a 3 signal blast, that means he is giving way having the engines on reverse and slowing down.

It is normal that face to the motorboat signal the sailing boat skipper assumed the motorboat would avoid the collision diminishing speed or stopping. Apparently he did not and in doubt the sailboat skipper again sounded the danger signal (five blasts).

When he saw that the power boat would not have intentions to "kept out of the way" of his sailboat he tried an emergency maneuver that was to late.

We are not talking about a ship that would require time to alter its course and speed but of a small fast motorboat that have a maneuverability and speed much superior to the one of a sailing boat.

We can argue that face a skipper that gives a horn signal indicating that he is slowing down but that apparently is not doing so the skipper of the sailboat, even if the motor boat as the obligation to kept out of the way from the sailing boat, should have disconnected the auto pilot sooner and be prepared to take evasive maneuvers face a criminal behavior.

Probably prudence would have commanded so and he may have some guilt regarding that but in a much lesser grade than the power boat.

Regarding a boat or ship that "is to keep out of the way", the Art 17 says that "the other shall keep her course and speed."

and more:
The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

I would say that given the superior speed and higher maneuverability of a fast small motor boat the collision could have been avoided by this at almost collision point.

[transmitterdan]

Polux,

You are reading the colregs correctly. However, the sail boat does have any special "rights". It has an obligation to hold course and give the more manoeuvrable vessel the time to make a course correction. If the stand on vessel can see that the give way vessel is not going to make the proper course correct then the stand on vessel has an obligation to take evasive action while there is still time to avoid the collision. How any of this can be construed as one vessel having "rights" over another vessel is beyond me.

In our culture (US) a right is akin to being able to do as we please within certain limits. When the colregs are in force each vessel has their "rights" to do as they please taken away and must adhere to the rules of the road. To me it exactly the opposite of having a right of way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I agree that there is no right of the way but you give the impression that this case, assuming as correct the version we had, both share the same responsibility and I do not agree.

Let's see:

By the rule five each boat had to maintain a proper look-out and that was evidently so since both boats exchanged horn signals.

By the rule 18 the motorboat should kept out of the way of a sailing boat. Note that the rule does not say the sailboat is the stand on but that: "A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a sailing vessel"

The sailboat sounded the horn correctly five blasts, a signal to means danger and the motorboat responded, implying that had the situation controlled, with a 3 signal blast, that means he is giving way having the engines on reverse and slowing down.

It is normal that face to the motorboat signal the sailing boat skipper assumed the motorboat would avoid the collision diminishing speed or stopping. Apparently he did not and in doubt the sailboat skipper again sounded the danger signal (five blasts).

When he saw that the power boat would not have intentions to "kept out of the way" of his sailboat he tried an emergency maneuver that was to late.

We are not talking about a ship that would require time to alter its course and speed but of a small fast motorboat that have a maneuverability and speed much superior to the one of a sailing boat.

We can argue that face a skipper that gives a horn signal indicating that he is slowing down but that apparently is not doing so the skipper of the sailboat, even if the motor boat as the obligation to kept way from the sailing boat, should have disconnected the auto pilot sooner and be prepared to take evasive maneuvers face a criminal behavior.

Probably prudence would have commanded so and he may have some guilt regarding that but in a much lesser grade than the power boat.

Regarding a boat or ship that "is to keep out of the way", the Art 17 says that "the other shall keep her course and speed."

and more:
The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

I would say that given the superior speed and higher maneuverability of a fast small motor boat the collision could have been avoided by this at almost collision point.

I don't think we disagree, particularly on this point of relative speeds, which I did footnote to one of my previous points --

It is very possible that with the large difference of speed, that there was little to nothing that the sailboat skipper could have done to avoid the accident.

So in that sense, of course, you are right, that the two skippers were not equal. Where they are equal is in terms of their responsibilities -- once the collision was imminent, the fact that the sailboat skipper WAS the stand-on vessel is already irrelevant. Now both skippers have an equal obligation to do everything they can. In practical terms, what the two skippers are able to do may not be at all the same. And so in court it is quite possible that the power boat skipper will have the greatest part of the fault. I say "possible" because we really don't know what happened -- we weren't there and have only one side of the story, which may or may not accurately reflect what happened.

Failing to yield the right of way on a road is more or less automatic fault in a road accident situation.

Failure to maneuver during the stand-on, give-way phase of a crossing at sea is only one factor in determining fault in an accident at sea, and might not be at all the most important factor.

Most accidents on the road have one innocent driver, and one driver who was at fault. Almost zero accidents at sea have an innocent skipper. If on the road, one driver's screwup can cause an accident, at sea it almost always takes two. One skipper skilfully following the rules will be able to avoid 99.99% of accidents even if the other skipper is totally ignorant and does nothing he is supposed to under the rules. An exception may be a case where there is a big difference in speeds between the vessels.

Remember that Rule 2 considers cases like this --

"In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger."

That means that a much faster vessel must consider the fact that a much slower vessel is much less able to take effective avoiding action, to the point of actually making a departure from the other rules if necessary.

You see this in action every day in the Channel with the high speed monster cat ferries, which travel at 40+ knots, or in the Solent with the Red Jets. These ultra high speed vessels do not do any standing-on, and thus depart from the Rules. They steer around all the rest of traffic like it was standing still -- which it is, in relative terms. This is correct, allowed, and even required by the Rules.


One thing that leisure sailors often fail to understand -- especially those of the "aggressive ignorance" school ["I don't need no stinkin COLREGS; I just follow the rule of tonnage, which is all you need to know"] -- is that very often they have no clue about the limitations of their own maneuvers. They are often not capable of detecting a potential collision in the first place; they are not aware of what is happening 10 miles and more away from them; and they don't understand that they are far less, not more maneuverable than a large ship, in open water. They think they will just "dart out of the way" when they see a "big scary ship", without understanding that this "darting" cannot be effective because of the difference in speed. This type of WAFI behavior is very well known to professional mariners, who generally maneuver early not just to avoid a collision with the WAFI, but actually to avoid even being in a configuration where the WAFI can dart into his way, when he suddenly wakes up and sees the ship three or four miles away. This is often the same guy who congratulates himself on "giving up his right of way", when in fact his maneuvers for "giving up his right away" are far too late and totally ineffective, because of the relative speed between the vessels, and he has not had problems only because the pros were anticipating his stupidity, and maneuvered early to avoid any problem (typically more than 10 miles out).

This same kind of sailboat skipper will often tell you that he's "never seen a ship maneuver to avoid a sailboat" -- LOL! That's because by the time he is even aware that ships are there, the maneuvers are long over already!

Sorry for again being so boring on this subject; as you can tell it's one of my pet peeves -- that we should all really try much harder not to be WAFIs. For that, you need to understand the rules and techniques of collision avoidance at the same level which is required of professional mariners. Unfortunately few of us do. Which would not be a problem if people were at least willing to learn.

[med]

Originally Posted by Polux

The sailboat sounded the horn correctly five blasts, a signal to means danger

That signal does not mean danger. It means "what are your intentions?".

[Dockhead]

By the way, Polux -- a good illustration of all of this, especially of TransmitterDan's excellent comments, is this:

Suppose in the Thailand story, the situation were a little different -- the sailboat was motorsailing, and the dive boat was coming from starboard. Here during the stand-on, give-way phase, the sailboat would be the give-way vessel, and would be required to make the first move.

How would that affect the obligations of the two vessels, once they get into an imminent collision situation? Not at all! Because once the vessels are in extremis, they have equal obligations to avoid the accident, according to the practical abilities of each one. If the dive boat was travelling at double or triple the speed of the sailboat, then he would have double or triple the ability to create positive CPA and prevent the accident, and he was obligated to use that ability. The fact that during the earlier phase of their encounter, the dive boat was the stand-on vessel, would have little and possibly no relevance. Being the give-way vessel doesn't make you solely or even primarily responsible for preventing the accident. It is just a role you are supposed to play during a particular, limited phase of the encounter.

This is totally different from the case on land where a vehicle with the right of way keeps it during the entire encounter with another vehicle, and the vehicle which is supposed to yield has primary responsibility for avoiding collisions with vehicles with the right of way.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by med

That signal does not mean danger. It means "what are your intentions?".

Under US Inland rules 5 blasts means Danger, under international rule in means what are your intentions. I don't know what it means in Thai inland rules or whether the skipper in question was operating under international rules or some local rules. As an American I think that its unfortunate that there should be different meanings and more unfortunate that some people don't know there are different meanings. So for all you non Americans, if you come to visit us remember that once you cross the colregs demarcation line, 5 blasts means danger.