Phuket! I have "Right of Way"

[Rustic Charm]

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.

I would agree with just about everything you have said here.

But again, there is the false idea of what a 'right' is. This adherence to an absolute. And it's simply NOT true even in driving a car. When you come to intersections, there are not 'thousands' of cars and it is not only possibly but required that you look for all possible collision risks. I know this is not cultural but it is an expectation under law (in most places). To use your words, 'if there is a risk of collision, no one has right of way' applies to driving a car as much as it does to operating a vessel.

It seems culturally in Australia and New Zealand at least, this is understood when it comes to understanding the COLREGS. Hence why Authoritative agencies have no qualms in explaining the collision regulations when it comes to a 'stand on vessel' as the vessel with the right of way.

Again, the terminology is not correct, but the terminology is not what's important, it's the understanding behind the regulation and putting it into place that is important.

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And again, I've not argued at all it's because I'm Australian.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

So, don't think that just because your Australian and unable to read a thread, that your in further progressed than I am.

I don't get this... even though I'm not Aussie and I CAN read....

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by rwidman

This thread (argument) will probably go on for a dozen pages, but trying to get the public to understand the term "stand on vessel" rather than "right of way" is about as useless as getting them to stop saying "Kleenex" when they are talking about any facial tissue or "Jet Ski" when they are talking about personal watercraft.

The term "right of way" is often seen on websites and in rule books. It's something that's easy to understand and already in the public's vocabulary.

Yes, it is

Which is my point that we need to educate and not introduce something that makes it so damn hard for the recreational / public to grasp. The term is used by 'authorities' (and professionals) who have 'authority' under the COLGREGS and trying to force everyone to stop using the term, which I've only ever seen on CF is foolish. And it does not and will not help in creating an improved education on the water.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

[/B][B]

I don't get this... even though I'm not Aussie and I CAN read....

With respect SS, it was not aimed at you, so you don't need to 'get it'.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

That makes no sense

It would if you cruised among a gazillion skipper yourself charter boats

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You may be right, but the consequences of not understanding these concepts are a lot more serious than the consequences of misusing trademarks.

I would agree with this statement. But for some reason, you continue to argue that the 'trademark' (the term) remains the most important thing. And that I can't agree with.

It has always been my argument that the terminology is not what's important. What is important is 'understanding' the concept.

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

With respect SS, it was not aimed at you, so you don't need to 'get it'.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

It has always been my argument that the terminology is not what's important. What is important is 'understanding' the concept.

Erm... a slight contradiction?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by redsky49

I do date from when the converging vessels were referred to as Privileged and Burdened. I also understand (yes, I do TransmitterDan) the Give Way and Stand On principal. I also know better than to get into such a dangerous situation, relying on "The Rules" to protect me, especially in a third world country (as opposed to a round the buoys club race).

I agree there are no absolute "rights" on the waterways (other than very specific situations enumerated in earlier posts).

At the same time, I don't recall the use of the word "obligation" anywhere, though I concede that some might interpret that from the official use of the verb "Shall". It (the term "obligation") might be a useful term to help understand the actions a skipper should take in certain situations, which is the crux of the matter.

The Stand On vessel in this case failed to act in a responsible or seamanlike manner. "The Rules" did not cause this accident. The operators involved caused it! This semantic "pissing contest", while clearly satisfying to some, fails to address the root cause. This could have been avoided by the simple actions of either party.

I agree very much with the points raised by Pollux, TransmitterDan and Dockhead. However, totally irrelevant.

Why would one ever assume that the dive boat operator understood and would follow the Colregs??

Why would one ever operate in close quarters under autopilot while away from the wheel?

Why would one not begin to take appropriate action once the first horn signal was not answered?

While bothered by the actions of both boats, the most egregious act was the pushing of the sail boat crew from the dive boat into the water and then leaving the scene. Why has this not been the focus of this discussion?

And as to the so-called American view of "rights", some of the comments have been truly off base, if not simply stupid. To try to turn this into a US bashing thread speaks poorly of many of you.

I think you are correct. I concede to your point and apologise for the critical US / Canadian comments.

My points regarding the US is simply trying to understand this very dogmatic insistence on their 'rights'. But I took it to far.

[DeepFrz]

There is a huge difference between COL REGS and motor vehicle statutes. In motor vehicle regulations there is used the term "right of way" in many places. If for instance two vehicles reach a 4 way stop at the same time the vehicle on the right has "right of way". Also mentioned when discussing "Yield" signs and on entering expressways, at railway crossings and the beat goes on. There is no such usage or intent in the COL REGS.

In driving on a main road if I were to slow down at every intersection to check to ensure that any cross traffic was going to yield "right of way" to me I would be run down from behind. It just doesn't happen that way. We trust that people will for the most part obey the rules even while driving with a defensive attitude. Every so often someone f***s up and a collision results (or occasionally a ticket is issued). That is just the way it is and usually the one who made the mistake pays the consequences (other than injuries suffered by the innocent of course).

[Reefmagnet]

This is what tends to happen when one blindly exercises their "right of way"

*** WARNING *** Some rude language

https://youtu.be/nMRsY1_5A8E

[Dockhead]

[QUOTE=El Pinguino;1800021]That was simply an interpretation of the rules by some bloke at a conference.... nowhere in the rules were the words [\QUOTE]

Not "some bloke", but Farwell himself! Who besides being the author of authoritative treatises, was at that moment one of the official delegates of the Conference which formulated the next version of the Rules, speaking in the official proceedings. The highest authority on the Rules but for only their actual text.

The words are key to interpretation of the Rules, and it was agreed in 1972 to stop using these particular ones. You can read about it any treatise on the Rules. There's also an excellent article by Richard Cahill, from 1965 -- "The Burden of Being Privileged", in the U.S. Naval Institute journal. I'll scan it and post it if I get near a scanner. This set the tone for 1972.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Erm... a slight contradiction?

Why is that a contradiction? I don't understand. Is there a point I can explain further?

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by redsky49 View Post
I do date from when the converging vessels were referred to as Privileged and Burdened. I also understand (yes, I do TransmitterDan) the Give Way and Stand On principal. I also know better than to get into such a dangerous situation, relying on "The Rules" to protect me, especially in a third world country (as opposed to a round the buoys club race).

I agree there are no absolute "rights" on the waterways (other than very specific situations enumerated in earlier posts).

At the same time, I don't recall the use of the word "obligation" anywhere, though I concede that some might interpret that from the official use of the verb "Shall". It (the term "obligation") might be a useful term to help understand the actions a skipper should take in certain situations, which is the crux of the matter.

Use of the words "Obligation" and "Obliged".
Quoted from: INTERNATlONAL REGULATlONS FOR PREVENTING COLLlSlONS AT SEA, 1972

(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.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

There is a huge difference between COL REGS and motor vehicle statutes. In motor vehicle regulations there is used the term "right of way" in many places. If for instance two vehicles reach a 4 way stop at the same time the vehicle on the right has "right of way". Also mentioned when discussing "Yield" signs and on entering expressways, at railway crossings and the beat goes on. There is no such usage or intent in the COL REGS.

In driving on a main road if I were to slow down at every intersection to check to ensure that any cross traffic was going to yield "right of way" to me I would be run down from behind. It just doesn't happen that way. We trust that people will for the most part obey the rules even while driving with a defensive attitude. Every so often someone f***s up and a collision results (or occasionally a ticket is issued). That is just the way it is and usually the one who made the mistake pays the consequences (other than injuries suffered by the innocent of course).

This is exactly the kind of attitude traffic authorities are trying to rectify in today's young people because it is responsible for so many accidents. It's also unlawful in many places. In some places they also enforce this by a 25km speed limit through intersections. In ALL mv accidents, there is a cause and someone has failed to do something. The only exception is in deliberate MV accidents which then enter into the realm of crimes.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

. . .Hence why Authoritative agencies have no qualms in explaining the collision regulations when it comes to a 'stand on vessel' as the vessel with the right of way.

Again, the terminology is not correct, but the terminology is not what's important, it's the understanding behind the regulation and putting it into place that is important.

If you can understand the concept without any terminology -- then by all means, do away with the terminology or confound it with something else. But unfortunately, speaking in a sloppy way is almost always associated with thinking -- and understanding -- in a sloppy way.