Question about COLREGS rule 9

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Juho

I don't propose to add additional words, not even to replace existing words, but it is an interesting question if other words (active role, passive role) would have avoided some of the problems of the current words (give-way, stand-on).



One should use the current wording, unless it is clear that new words would improve the rules more than that change would cause harm.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Can you examine the logic of your response? "If other words..." really conflicts with "I don't propose to add additional words..."


From a purely debating classic sense, your position is indefensible. In a non-combative sense, it makes no sense.


The material in COLREGS has been around for a long, long time.


The difficulty I have is folks with Reading Comprehension 101 problems, not the blinkin' rules themselves.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

In that case all these threads with the explanations et al are waste of space and we should answer with quotes of COLREGS to every question. Is that what you want? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This one makes even less sense.


No, of course, not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.


Why?


Because those who question the rules ONLY seem to be fazed (not frased...???) by someone who actually quotes the rules and suggest they bloody read them.



You know, like the "right of way idiots."


And I believe that's what we SHOULD call them. Notice where the quotation marks are.


Teddy, the automobile analogy has been beaten to death. And it is always wrong. Please, stop espousing it.




StuM is right.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It is not hair splitting. Stand on has a clear meaning. We should all strive to use that phrase instead of inventing other confusing (or plain wrong) phrases. Stand on means something near to the exact opposite of right of way. And stand on is definitely not passive. The stand on vessel must be prepared to take action when it is clear the actions of the give way vessel alone will not be enough to avoid a collision.

If things get so far there's no "stand on" or "give way" vessel anymore. Everybody most do what they can to avoid collision.
And I know it's beaten to death and clear as sky for everybody here but apparently not to all "right of way idiots".
Suppose if you'd not be familiar with COLREG tell me what comes to mind about other vessel if another is "give way"?
Even for someone who actually reads the COLGREGS it's not clear the true meaning of these frases (as we have seen here on several occasions).

Teddy

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Can you examine the logic of your response? "If other words..." really conflicts with "I don't propose to add additional words..."

I discuss what the impacts of changing the wording would be. I don't propose to change the wording.

[markpierce]

Racing rules don't override Colregs. The difficulty could be differentiating between non-racing boats and other boats. In most situations, a sailboat shouldn't make course changes in the immediate presence of motor boats. Because, because, because, the sailboat is the "stand on" vessel and is required to maintain course.

[Wotname]

Stand on = maintain course and speed but doesn't mean go wherever I want.
Give way = get out of the way of the stand on vessel. As in allow the stand on vessel to maintain his way. Getting out of the way usually involves changing course or speed or both.

Simples...

[Juho]

Some notes on possible wordings (some food for your thoughts).

stand-on = maintain your course to allow the other vessel to take action
passive role = maintain your course to allow the other vessel to take action
give-way = take necessary actions to avoid any risk of collision
active role = take necessary actions to avoid any risk of collision

It would be easy to say e.g. "this vessel should stay passive from ... until ...". This would emphasize the temporary nature of being stand-on / passive (one phase of the crossing). Also stand-on could be used as a verb ("this vessel should stand on from ... until ...").

Pair active / passive gives me an impression of a situation where both vessels should avoid collision by all means, and at some point in time one of them should be passive, and the other one active (to achieve this). Pair give-way / stand-on appears to be more vessel oriented, giving the vessels some more permanent roles for the whole duration of the crossing.

It may often happen that vessels are not quite sure of which one of them is the give-way vs the stand-on vessel. There are all kind of signals to indicate different things, but I'm not aware of any that would indicate which one of these roles the vessel is assuming (maybe there are some for racing). If VHF is available, that could of course be used. In small boats for example some simple hand signals could be used. If both vessels would signal "planning to stand-on", that would be a good enough reason for both to quickly slow down or otherwise reconsider what they are doing. Just wondering about the possibilities of getting more clarity to the crossing situations.

[Chotu]

I keep a close eye on the relative bearing between the two boats in a situation like this. If your heading stays fixed and your bearing toward the other boat doesn't change, you're on a collision course. This can be considered like 3-4 mins in advance in a situation like this in a narrow channel. Like 10-15 minutes in advance in open water.

As the other boat gets closer, watch them.

Are they changing the relative bearing between you? No? Then you need to be prepared to make that change if time runs short.

Whatever you do, do it with gusto and decisiveness. Make a hard course correction to port in this case.

Show them your starboard side and hold your temporary course correction until the danger passes.

Rule #9 is possibly applicable but the rule that supersedes every other rule is:

You must take every possible action to avoid a collision no matter if you are stand on or give way vessel.

So when this boat wasn't responding as you had expected, it's just another hazard to navigation to avoid, be annoyed at for a few moments and continue about your day.

[CaptTom]

I don't see anyone arguing that one shouldn't avoid a collision, once it's become clear that action by the give-way vessel alone would not be sufficient to avoid it.

The discussion about the actions of the two vessels BEFORE that point is the more productive one. And even there, I don't see much disagreement.

As for the words "active" and "passive," I like them. No need to change the rules, but when teaching the rules, using these words might help some students wrap their minds around the concept. The more different words you can use to explain something, the more likely it is to sink in.

I find it's very hard to break people of the bad habits developed behind the wheel of a car, where every action is proscribed by lights, lines and signs. It's important to redirect them to the idea of taking on the responsibility for decision-making themselves. If I can get THAT across, I've succeeded.

[denverd0n]

Were you displaying the proper day shape (a vertical cylinder) for a boat constrained by draft? Of course not. So how was the other boat supposed to know that you were, in fact, constrained by draft? Obviously they couldn't. Had there been a collision, I have absolutely no doubt that would have come up in the aftermath.



I'm not saying this was your fault, but it wasn't entirely their fault either. Yes, they were kind of being jerks about it. Still, there are two sides to every coin. A big part of avoiding collisions is thinking to yourself, "What does this look like to the OTHER guy?"


I think I would just be happy that there was no collision, and so no damage was done to anyone's boat, and more importantly, to anyone's body.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Were you displaying the proper day shape (a vertical cylinder) for a boat constrained by draft? Of course not. So how was the other boat supposed to know that you were, in fact, constrained by draft? Obviously they couldn't. Had there been a collision, I have absolutely no doubt that would have come up in the aftermath.

I am surprised to learn that a boat that, for reasons of draft, can only navigate within the marked channel must display the vertical cylinder dayshape.

Of the many sailboats I've seen in this local channel (see photo), I've never seen one with the dayshape. I draw 8 feet with the board down. The bottom in this area shifts due to silting and so there may be uncharted shallows. If you were at the helm on my 25' boat, how far past the buoys would you go? Would you hoist the dayshape? The buoys mark a channel that is approximately 250 feet across, just wide enough to accommodate passing barges.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I am surprised to learn that a boat that, for reasons of draft, can only navigate within the marked channel must display the vertical cylinder dayshape.

Of the many sailboats I've seen in this local channel (see photo), I've never seen one with the dayshape. I draw 8 feet with the board down. The bottom in this area shifts due to silting and so there may be uncharted shallows. If you were at the helm on my 25' boat, how far past the buoys would you go? Would you hoist the dayshape? The buoys mark a channel that is approximately 250 feet across, just wide enough to accommodate passing barges.

There is no requirement to display a cylinder in that (or any) situation.
It is purely voluntary and has no significance within a narrow channel or fairway..



Rule 28: "A vessel constrained by her draught "MAY" ..exhibit...a cylinder"

The only place the cylinder is relevant is under Rule 18 (d) (i)



Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.


which just extends the overriding "shall not impede" requirement of Rule 9(b) to more than just within narrow channels and fairways if the cylinder is displayed and "circumstances adrmit".

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Were you displaying the proper day shape (a vertical cylinder) for a boat constrained by draft? Of course not. So how was the other boat supposed to know that you were, in fact, constrained by draft? Obviously they couldn't. Had there been a collision, I have absolutely no doubt that would have come up in the aftermath.

I don' think we have a CBD issue here. One boat was properly operating as far to the starboard side of the channel as was practicable. The other wasn't.

I don't see where it matters what was going on in the moron's head. The OP was stand on until it became clear that action by the other vessel alone would not avoid the collision, at which point you do whatever is necessary to avoid it, except turning to port if at all possible.

[GrowleyMonster]

The other guy probably wouldn't even wonder what that thing in your rigging was, and certainly wouldn't know. Plus, being constrained by draft means more than just needing to stay somewhere in the channel.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Were you displaying the proper day shape (a vertical cylinder) for a boat constrained by draft? Of course not. So how was the other boat supposed to know that you were, in fact, constrained by draft? Obviously they couldn't. Had there been a collision, I have absolutely no doubt that would have come up in the aftermath.

I always act on the assumption that any vessel following a channel is doing so because it can only safely navigate within that channel. Prudent seamanship says that if you can safely navigate outside the channel you should do so to avoid problems with vessels that are so constrained. ( a cylinder has no relevance within a narrow channel)


When entering Cairns, I stay outside of the leads until it gets too shallow to do otherwise. When leaving, I get outside the leads as soon as depth permits.

[Cadence]

Sounds like the OP just came across an Ahole.