Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by bmz

Duly noted; accordingly you may change the last "a" to "most." But in terms of the subject matter of this thread, is there any substantive difference between the terminology I used, and what I call the "schoolmarm" terminology? BTW, I will apologize for the schoolmarm characterization, as soon as someone shows me that there is a substantive difference.

Moreover, I believe my comments apply to your criticism that I use the term class B targets improperly, as well. Nothing you said affects the validity of what I said about class B targets. Hence, it is a rhetorical criticism not a substantive criticism.

The substantive difference is one of:

a) Getting hit by a 50 ton commercial vessel carrying a Class B AIS transponder will do more than "scratch your fiberglass" as you propose.

b) A sub 50' recreational vessel could be carrying a Class A AIS transponder affording him the same privileges as a 800' freighter in your strawman.

In conversations with people of unknown knowledge base one should strive to use precise descriptive terms that are widely known in the industry. Classifying vessels by which type of AIS equipment they utilize is totally ambiguous and seems to be used only by you.

[roland stockham]

I think it is worth noting at this point that, as I understand it, in the law of the sea there is no such thing as a 'recreational sailor'. You are the master (vessel owner) or Captain/skipper (person in charge of the vessel). In law there is no distinction between paid/employed or unpaid/recreational. There is however the principal that ignorance of the law is no defense. The idea that anyone would put to sea without at least reading the col regs is a pretty harsh judgement. In my experience most skippers I meet (admittedly most of that is in Europe) are well trained and, if they have not done a formal qualification, have gained there experience and learned from others and books. I do recommend that anyone reading this thread who has realized their knowledge of the coll regs is hazy or dated should both re-read them (takes less than 30min) and also gets a copy to put on board - should be one of the ref books every vessel carries along with a 'cheat sheet' for lights. It behoves us all to be adequately prepared for the voyages we undertake and understanding and respecting regulations and conventions is just as important as understanding and respecting the wind, waves and weather. Let us also treat each other as skilled mariners and give the respect that should command.

[Jim Cate]

In my experience most skippers I meet (admittedly most of that is in Europe) are well trained and, if they have not done a formal qualification, have gained there experience and learned from others and books.

If only this were true! In the parts of the world that I have cruised in, it sure ain't! This includes BC to Mexico and on across the Pacific. Once at sea, the odds are better that skippers are knowledgeable, but the vast majority in inshore waters seem to be woefully ignorant or are deliberately breaking the COLREGS (and often local ordinances as well).

Jim

[bmz]

Originally Posted by DotDun

The substantive difference is one of:

a) Getting hit by a 50 ton commercial vessel carrying a Class B AIS transponder will do more than "scratch your fiberglass" as you propose.

b) A sub 50' recreational vessel could be carrying a Class A AIS transponder affording him the same privileges as a 800' freighter in your strawman.

Originally, you said I used class B inappropriately because some larger sailboats use class A AIS. So when I asked you to show me a substantive difference that fact would make to my use of "class B", you respond by 1)advancing a new allegation--that some 50 ton commercial vessels have class B AIS; and 2) stating "A sub 50' recreational vessel could be carrying a Class A AIS transponder affording him the same privileges as a 800' freighter in your strawman."

So your first example of a "substantive difference" is to make a different new allegation; and your second is to essentially reiterate the original allegation again (without showing any substantive difference) but this time to add a new accusation: that my argument was a "strawman"

I gather you intend to continue to change your arguments each time I ask you to show me the substance of them.

I sure wish you guys could honestly engage in substantive discussions.


(BTW,Let us not forget that my original request was for someone to show me the substantive difference between my use of "yield the right-of-way" and "burdened" and the schoolmarm terminology "give way." No one has yet answered that original request; but instead, I have to deal with these attempts to misdirect the issues.)

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by bmz

As I have asked, can anyone show me the substantive difference in the terminology I used that was the original subject matter of this thread?

I have known sailors who did not fully understand the obligations of a stand on vessel. So when I give the helm to a guest on my boat, I will often say "you have the right-of-way over powerboats but you have to maintain your course." I feel more comfortable that I will be understood than if I had said "you are the stand on vessel to powerboats who are the give way vessels."

That fact that you have to qualify "right of way" to your guests illustrates the very point. You're telling them "It's kind of like having right of way, as you probably understand it, but it's really not. It's different."

The whole point of changing the terminology and the language used is to avoid this confusion. You can argue all you want that the words/phrases are equivalent, but as your instruction to guests reveals, it's not.

I think what you're arguing is that the words are equivalent and that everyone that uses the phrase "right of way" understands that it really means "stand on" and that they must responsibly maintain course. In my experience that is not true.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by bmz

Originally, you said I used class B inappropriately because some larger sailboats use class A AIS. So when I asked you to show me a substantive difference that fact would make to my use of "class B", you respond by 1)advancing a new allegation--that some 50 ton commercial vessels have class B AIS; and 2) stating "A sub 50' recreational vessel could be carrying a Class A AIS transponder affording him the same privileges as a 800' freighter in your strawman."

So your first example of a "substantive difference" is to make a different new allegation; and your second is to essentially reiterate the original allegation again (without showing any substantive difference) but this time to add a new accusation: that my argument was a "strawman"

I gather you intend to continue to change your arguments each time I ask you to show me the substance of them.

I sure wish you guys could honestly engage in substantive discussions.


(BTW,Let us not forget that my original request was for someone to show me the substantive difference between my use of "yield the right-of-way" and "burdened" and the schoolmarm terminology "give way." No one has yet answered that original request; but instead, I have to deal with these attempts to misdirect the issues.)

Ahh, now I understand: A " substantive" discussion is one that agrees with me.

Jim

[transmitterdan]

If your employer (or pension system, dividend source, customer, etc.) pays you substantially what you are entitled to receive is that good enough?

[bmz]

So now I have to teach these guys what "substantive" means? And these are the "terminology" experts.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Suijin

That fact that you have to qualify "right of way" to your guests illustrates the very point. You're telling them "It's kind of like having right of way, as you probably understand it, but it's really not. It's different."

The whole point of changing the terminology and the language used is to avoid this confusion. You can argue all you want that the words/phrases are equivalent, but as your instruction to guests reveals, it's not.

I think what you're arguing is that the words are equivalent and that everyone that uses the phrase "right of way" understands that it really means "stand on" and that they must responsibly maintain course. In my experience that is not true.

I don't know if I tell someone that we are the stand on vessel and the powerboats are the give way vessels, how much of that they will understand. As I said, I know some sailors who do not understand it well. But everyone understands "we have the right-of-way, but we must maintain our course." You apparently have more confidence in the Colreg terminology. Look, we have people here who do not even know what the word "substantive" means.

As I've said earlier, we should all understand the Colreg terminology and use it when appropriate. But it is not appropriate to use it as an attack on a commentor, where there is no substantive difference between the words he used and the Colreg terminology, and where the terminology itself is not the issue (like my original statements that commenced this thread).

[Paul Elliott]

I have known for a very long time that "right of way" doesn't confer absolute priority in all cases, even on land. I think that most people do.

Example: I was driving down a hill at a legal speed, approaching a cross street. The cross-street traffic had a stop sign, and I had "right of way". Just before I entered the intersection, a car blew through the stop sign into my path. I slammed on the brakes, but ultimately hit the other car. Fortunately there were no injuries.

The police officer's report assigned half the blame to me, claiming I must have been driving too fast (hand to God, I wasn't -- I had just pulled out of my driveway 100 feet up the road.) I suspect it was because the other driver was a pretty girl, and I was a scruffy hippie. Or perhaps not, but in any case, "right of way" is apparently a relative term and has been for a long time.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by bmz

I don't know if you simply don't understand, or are being disingenuous.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it is obvious that you are not clear about anything addressed here.

Do you think it is possible for you to stop with personal insults, or is that too disingenuous of me?

Please, just stop the personal insults. It is tiresome.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by bmz

Originally, you said I used class B inappropriately because some larger sailboats use class A AIS. So when I asked you to show me a substantive difference that fact would make to my use of "class B", you respond by 1)advancing a new allegation--that some 50 ton commercial vessels have class B AIS; and 2) stating "A sub 50' recreational vessel could be carrying a Class A AIS transponder affording him the same privileges as a 800' freighter in your strawman."

So your first example of a "substantive difference" is to make a different new allegation; and your second is to essentially reiterate the original allegation again (without showing any substantive difference) but this time to add a new accusation: that my argument was a "strawman"

I gather you intend to continue to change your arguments each time I ask you to show me the substance of them.

I sure wish you guys could honestly engage in substantive discussions.


(BTW,Let us not forget that my original request was for someone to show me the substantive difference between my use of "yield the right-of-way" and "burdened" and the schoolmarm terminology "give way." No one has yet answered that original request; but instead, I have to deal with these attempts to misdirect the issues.)

That would be a whole lot easier if everyone would use common definitions instead of making up their own and never disclosing such.

Please tell us what you mean by "Class A target" and "Class B target" in the context you are using the terms to disclose your personal navigation protocol.

[44'cruisingcat]

Was it 200 + posts on "Pan pan" vs "Pon Pon"?
And now this.

Got to love this forum!

[NevisDog]

Yea, some comments here are becoming a little tiresome, as I think we can all clearly see both sides now, regardless of which side we agree with. Friend of mine was driving north on highway, a car came down hill and entered the highway without slowing down, side-swiping his car - no way he could move over or avoid the crash, he never even saw it coming. He was held equally liable because he 'failed to take evasive action'. Similar thing happened to my son (I think he copped it because he was young and truck driver was old). So, having right-of-way doesn't mean diddly squat, even when we think it ought - you're still liable!

[El Pinguino]

I dearly wish people would stop banging on about AIS when talking about 'the rools' .

As far as a yacht is concerned it will tell you if another FO ( floating object ) is going to enter your RoC ( Ring of Confidence ).... from there on you really need to be using OTs (other tools) at your disposal.

I imagine that 99% of yachts have no heading or speed input into their AIS and nor have any Class B targets they can 'see' ... and no! .. COG is not 'heading' and should not be used in your calculations.

I'm surprised the COG v heading issue is never mentioned in these debates....

While it won't make a lot of difference well offshore it will when in tidal waters. With - say - a 3 knot stream on the beam of a 7 knot yacht the difference between COG and heading will be considerable and you will be dealing with quite the wrong aspect and 'aspect' is what it is all about for collision avoidence when in sight of each other.

And no I will not be getting into a debate about this.... to much other stuff going on in my day....

Meanwhile.. Class B..?

Its not just yachts.... I've seen RNZN warships beetling around and running Class B ... likewise high speed Auckland ferries....

Things like this... honking along at 25 knots..

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...738d6a36f38731