Phuket! I have "Right of Way"

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by downunder

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

Why am I not surprised? Who was running the course you were doing in Mackay?

cheers

Doing it at Whitsundays Maritime Training Centre. Should add up at Airlie

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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

*** WARNING *** Some rude language

https://youtu.be/nMRsY1_5A8E

The boat that the filming is taking place on appears to be anchored. So the other boat was simply not keeping a lookout.

[monte]

Originally Posted by mausgras

Sadly, this is all too true. In Phuket waters, speed takes precedence and at this time of year (Songkran) especially there is a good chance the crew/captain of the other boat have been drinking or worse. I see them at the island bars having a few while their boatload of tourists are sightseeing etc.

Hah, that reminds me when we were in Phuket some tourists were complaining that the day charter skipper they went with for an island snorkelling trip opened his holding tank.
Funny thing was it was just as they arrived at their lunch and snorkel anchorage. Not many felt like lunch or snorkelling through the crap. Maybe an ingenious way for the skipper to get home early?

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The boat that the filming is taking place on appears to be anchored. So the other boat was simply not keeping a lookout.

Quite so!

And having recently been T-boned whilst at anchor, I can feel quite sympathetic to the victim here.

I note that the chap who had been lounging in the bow pulpit area had the good sense to run like hell at the last moment... at least HE was keeping watch!

Jim, using Ann's computer

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Boat US - Online Boating Safety Study Guide

Navigating the Law - Boating Rules of the Road

The right of way in boating

Pamphlets -- with cartoon figures -- for a "general audience", or even for children. Much like the "driver handbooks" the states give out to explain how to drive in 17 pages.

I'm glad that at least one state does not find it necessary to dumb down the material to that extent. Georgia, showing more respect for its audience, gets it right:

"Even though no vessel has the right of way over another vessel, there are some rules which every operator should follow when encountering other vessels. It is the responsibility of both operators to take action needed to avoid a collision."

http://www.boat-ed.com/assets/pdf/ha...ook_entire.pdf

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Which "authorities"? Apart from dumbed-down materials intended for students, can you show where some "authority" refers to "right of way" in relation to the COLREGS?

Certainly can. I have placed these before but received zero response. Now, I'd ask again Dockhead before you go canning these publications and perhaps even the 'authorities', that my argument is NOT that 'right of way' is in the COLREGS, as I've never claimed that. My argument is that the 'concept' of a right of way is in the COLREGS in the term 'stand on' vessel. I'm simply maintaining that it is not WRONG to use this term if it helps people understand the term 'stand on'. And I think it does certainly help people understand it. As long as it's not considered an 'absolute'.

Queensland Maritime Safety Authority

Collision regulations (Maritime Safety Queensland)

Maritime New Zealand

Skipper responsibilities - Maritime NZ

Roads and Maritime (NSW)

Know the rules - Rules & regulations - Safety & rules - Maritime - Roads and Maritime Services

South Australian Government publication - I'm not sure but it looks like they don't have an independent Maritime Authority. Someone might be able to clarify this.

https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/...NAVIGATION.pdf

Western Australia may be the same as South Australia ? This is the recreational skippers ticket workbook. Page 12 first raises 'right of way'.

https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/medi...T_Workbook.pdf

Northern Territory Transport Authority which also contains the office of Maritime Authority. Page 28 first refers to 'right of way'.

http://www.transport.nt.gov.au/__dat...ide_vlr_FA.pdf


Lastly, a Marine Notice from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority which refers to 'right of way'. AMSA is a Federal Australian Authority.

https://apps.amsa.gov.au/MOReview/At...mentInline/242

And Lastly Tasmania

Operating in Port Areas - MAST MAST

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Doing it at Whitsundays Maritime Training Centre. Should add up at Airlie

Please let us know what they think of this discussion.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Could you cite a reference to this? This just does not make sense in my eyes, except perhaps at a few exceptional intersections such as children's school crossings or perhaps at uncontrolled intersections on secondary streets. In the worlds major cities this would bring traffic to a standstill.

Well, I have to now confess after spending quite some time looking through legislation I was only able to find this in an old paper copy of my 20 year old obsolete legislation with all their paper amendments. This was prior to the internet. So, I sought a request of a former collegue and unbeknown to me it (speed limit) was removed from legislation quite a few years ago apparently and replaced with a requirement only to travel through an intersection at a safe speed. The lawful requirement to travel through an intersection safetly is still present but not the speed restriction. I was not aware of this change.

Whether there are similar speed restrictions in other states I have no idea.

When we did have the 25km requirement on intersections it was not a requirement on High Ways from memory and we don't have any free ways where I live.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Certainly can. I have placed these before but received zero response. Now, I'd ask again Dockhead before you go canning these publications and perhaps even the 'authorities', that my argument is NOT that 'right of way' is in the COLREGS, as I've never claimed that. My argument is that the 'concept' of a right of way is in the COLREGS in the term 'stand on' vessel. I'm simply maintaining that it is not WRONG to use this term if it helps people understand the term 'stand on'. And I think it does certainly help people understand it. As long as it's not considered an 'absolute'.

Queensland Maritime Safety Authority

Collision regulations (Maritime Safety Queensland)

Maritime New Zealand

Skipper responsibilities - Maritime NZ

Roads and Maritime (NSW)

Know the rules - Rules & regulations - Safety & rules - Maritime - Roads and Maritime Services

South Australian Government publication - I'm not sure but it looks like they don't have an independent Maritime Authority. Someone might be able to clarify this.

https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/...NAVIGATION.pdf

Western Australia may be the same as South Australia ? This is the recreational skippers ticket workbook. Page 12 first raises 'right of way'.

https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/medi...T_Workbook.pdf

Northern Territory Transport Authority which also contains the office of Maritime Authority. Page 28 first refers to 'right of way'.

http://www.transport.nt.gov.au/__dat...ide_vlr_FA.pdf


Lastly, a Marine Notice from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority which refers to 'right of way'. AMSA is a Federal Australian Authority.

https://apps.amsa.gov.au/MOReview/At...mentInline/242

And Lastly Tasmania

Operating in Port Areas - MAST MAST

These are not authorities, but once again, simplified materials intended for low level audiences; even children. Again, trying to understand the Rules from these kinds of materials is like trying to understand how GPS works by reading Garmin's advertising blurb.


This has been discussed before, so we risk repeating ourselves. But the problem is that dumbing down the terminology like this does NOT help people to understand the concepts. In absolutely practical terms: The whole behavior required by the stand-on vessel is completely different from the behavior of a vehicle with right of way. Misusing the terminology like this leads to faulty understanding and ultimately, to accidents, including possibly the very accident described at the beginning of this thread.

Just to give one small example: You are the stand-on vessel, and you've reached a waypoint where you are supposed to make a turn. You've got the right of way, right? So I can do what I want to, and I'll just turn away, right?

Wrong! Unlike the case of a car with right of way, the stand-on vessel is not allowed to change course or speed while required to stand on! You have to sail right past your waypoint until you're clear of the other vessel, even if your turn would have been away from him.

The impression that standing on is some kind of "right" is just incredibly harmful, and how can people avoid assuming they have some right, if you call it "right of way"? How will people ever understand that standing on is really a heavy burden, and no right at all, if you insist on calling it a "right"?

Do you assume that people so stupid, that they can't fit two separate terms into their heads, for two completely different concepts? Granted, some of our states, in their "boater's handbooks" and so forth, assume they are. Next edition, they'll get rid of the text all together, and issue these booklets as all cartoons! But that doesn't make it right. Using Carsten's example above: it would be like assuming that people are so ignorant about birds that they will never learn the different between ducks and chickens, and so now we're just going to call them all chickens. Does that lead to understanding? No! It leads to nothing but ignorance.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Pamphlets -- with cartoon figures -- for a "general audience", or even for children. Much like the "driver handbooks" the states give out to explain how to drive in 17 pages.

I'm glad that at least one state does not find it necessary to dumb down the material to that extent. Georgia, showing more respect for its audience, gets it right:

"Even though no vessel has the right of way over another vessel, there are some rules which every operator should follow when encountering other vessels. It is the responsibility of both operators to take action needed to avoid a collision."

http://www.boat-ed.com/assets/pdf/ha...ook_entire.pdf

It might be 'dumbing' down, but it's starting to show credence in what i've maintained, that it's not uncommon to explain the term by 'right of way'. It's certainly 'normal' here in Australia and the only place I've ever heard of this dogmatic insistance is off CF.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This has been discussed before, so we risk repeating ourselves. But the problem is that dumbing down the terminology like this does NOT help people to understand the concepts. In absolutely practical terms: The whole behavior required by the stand-on vessel is completely different from the behavior of a vehicle with right of way. Misusing the terminology like this leads to faulty understanding and ultimately, to accidents, including possibly the very accident described at the beginning of this thread.

well finally you seem to be acknowledging that 'authorities' are using the term. Great I can appreciate that you don't like this. And I don't have a problem with you not liking it. I also don't have a problem with you debating the sensibility of doing this. But it now becomes a slightly different issue to debate. The issue now you have is more the question, 'is it beneficial to use the term right of way'. Rather than 'it's wrong to use the term right of way'.

Just to give one small example: You are the stand-on vessel, and you've reached a waypoint where you are supposed to make a turn. You've got the right of way, right? So I can do what I want to, and I'll just turn away, right? NO YOU CANT. Because you would be in breach of the COLREGs. The only reason you think this is because of your erroneous (means wrong) idea of what a 'right' is. Seriously, would you drive a car like this? SERIOUSLY, if a policeman was standing at the corner telling your to keep going strait ahead, and you want to turn right, and you have 'right of way' would you insist on your right of way despite the police officer telling you to keep going?

Wrong! Unlike the case of a car with right of way, the stand-on vessel is not allowed to change course or speed while required to stand on! You have to sail right past your waypoint until you're clear of the other vessel, even if your turn would have been away from him.

The impression that standing on is some kind of "right" is just incredibly harmful, and how can people avoid assuming they have some right, if you call it "right of way"? How will people ever understand that standing on is really a heavy burden, and no right at all, if you insist on calling it a "right"? Dockhead you are being so incredibly dogmatic about this term 'right'. YOUR use of this term is WRONG. You can't drive a car like this let alone a vessel.

Are people so stupid, that they can't fit two separate terms into their heads, for two completely different concepts? Granted, some of our states, in their "boater's handbooks" and so forth, assume they are. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it wrong either. Using Carsten's example above: it would be like assuming that people are so ignorant about birds that they will never learn the different between ducks and chickens, and so now we're just going to call them all chickens. Does that lead to understanding? No! It leads to nothing but ignorance.

YOU need to look at the way you are using a 'right'. That's what the problem is I think with your understanding. That's why your so adamant it's wrong to use the term. But, I appreciate that this discussion has moved to more of a debate about the 'sensibility' of the use of the term 'right of way' rather than your previous insistence that it's not used at all.

As I've also stated before on another infamous thread. I use the term 'stand on'. I've always done so. But I have no problem in explaining this term to someone who doesn't grasp the idea. And I am very clear to explain that it does not mean an absolute. And that's the same way I explain the road rules to young drivers and I emphasised it to young people I was testing for their licenses in the early 90's. NO 'right of way' is absolute.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

These are not authorities, but once again, simplified materials intended for low level audiences; even children. Again, trying to understand the Rules from these kinds of materials is like trying to understand how GPS works by reading Garmin's advertising blurb.

You edited your post I presume. This was not there before.

These ARE authorities! These ARE the government designated authorities throughout Australia and New Zealand. They are legitimate documents provided by the authorities to explain the basic rules. And remember Dockhead, you are the one that previously insisted these documents don't exist. That 'professional organisations' would not use the term 'right of way'.

You can't seriously dismiss all of this from every State and Territory with a claim that they are documents intended for children. That's just silly and I'll say childish to maintain that.

[mausgras]

Originally Posted by american

Around Phuket, there's a boat on fire, sunk, beached, on a reef, etc - with people drowning, going missing, being bludgeoned, etc... at least once per week. If you want a real horror show, look to the local news on traffic accidents (cars, buses, and motorbikes). It's basically Death Race 2015 on the roads there.

Thailand is ranked "third worst in the world" for traffic deaths.

All of this is well known to anyone who sails or drives in the region.

Back to the original post, still makes no sense why the sailboat captain - certainly aware of local dynamics - would insist on maintaining course and not turning off his auto pilot until it was too late.

Unless of course he was just fed up with it all... and thought he might teach someone a lesson.

Still waiting for video/photo from the passengers of the dive boat to be released!

I could not agree more. Thai ignore traffic rules and speed limits on the road as if they did not exist. The Thai attitude is that the rules are only for the other guy not me.

As for boating regs .... same same but different.

[RaymondR]

These ARE authorities! These ARE the government designated authorities throughout Australia and New Zealand. They are legitimate documents provided by the authorities to explain the basic rules. And remember Dockhead, you are the one that previously insisted these documents don't exist. That 'professional organisations' would not use the term 'right of way'.

You can't seriously dismiss all of this from every State and Territory with a claim that they are documents intended for children. That's just silly and I'll say childish to maintain that

Firstly, I would not underestimate the level of moronhood exhibited by any Australian authority. Western Australia used to have it written into their boating regulations, and still may have, that a tender must only be used to go between the vessel and the shore and for no other purpose. What was one to do if you saw someone being swept past an anchored parent vessel out to sea? Jump in your tender and quickly go to their assistance or muck about for half an hour hoisting anchors etc. whilst getting the parent vessel mobile to carry out a rescue?

The concept of stand on is more appropriate than right of way in a marine environment where vessels have more room to maneuver around each other and cannot just put on the brakes to stop than on the roads in vehicles which can rapidly brake and do not have to take down sails or luff up to come to a stop. "Stand on" and "pass astern" are much better descriptions of the maneuvers required of two vessels free to maneuver than exercising "right of way" and "stopping" until a road is "clear to enter" or "pass over"

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Certainly can. I have placed these before but received zero response. Now, I'd ask again Dockhead before you go canning these publications and perhaps even the 'authorities', that my argument is NOT that 'right of way' is in the COLREGS, as I've never claimed that. .........
Northern Territory Transport Authority which also contains the office of Maritime Authority. Page 28 first refers to 'right of way'.

The Northern Territory Transport Authority ( take note, Dockhead..... it says Authority) only uses 'right of way' when dealing with navigation on billabongs......

edited to add
'There are numerous small billabongs and other enclosed waters in the NT to which the regulations do not strictly apply. In the interests of courtesy and safety, boat users are asked to observe the following rules:'