Courtesy when giving way

[Dockhead]

It is of course a good question, but I can offer something on this.

Not impeding, as you've often pointed out, is not the same as keeping out of the way. It requires action - where possible - prior to the risk of collision developing. It is intended to prevent the give-way, stand-on dance in the first place. I think ALL the commentators emphasise this aspect of not impeding.

It might seem logical that if you fail to avoid impeding then you ought to go right into giving way. The idea that you might be obligated to both not impede and stand on, at same time, seemed crazy to me. But I described in one of the posts above how Cockcroft explained this to me -- that is indeed how that works.

The answer to your question, or an answer, is that the obligation to not impede arises earlier than the give-way, stand-on Rules, and is not intended to modify those. Yet - once the risk of collision arises, and you become obligated under those Rules, the framers emphasised that nevertheless you must continue trying to not impede.


Your view does have the advantage that this conundrum is easier to resolve -- so no standing-on and not impeding at the same time -- you are only obligated to not impede if he can't safely give way. But in my opinion your view requires an excessively narrow reading of what it means to "not impede". So a question in return -- why would you be obligated to not impede if it only means that you are not to force the not-to-be-impeded vessel to make a maneuver it cannot safely make?



Without any obligation to not impede, you already have that obligation. Just like you have no right to stand on into danger, you have no right to create an unreasonable danger for others with your standing on. And if he can't maneuver safely to give way to you, then you will pretty soon have the obligation to do it yourself. The obligation to not impede would be rather superfluous.



Do you have any support for your view among the commentators? I seem to remember reading something somewhere, but I can't seem to find it (and I am at 35,000 feet over Siberia at the moment on my way to Singapore, with only a little bit of Internet -- Finnair have started restricting business class passengers to only one hour of Internet per long haul flight! ). It would be interesting to read something on this from the other point of view. Thanks for re-igniting my interest in the subject.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I asked GM, but he has declined to respond, so I'll put it to you. If the rule was meant to prevent the vessel not to be impeded from being required to manoeuvre, then wouldn't the rules simply state: ?

I fail to see why they would have gone to the trouble of putting in the "not impede" clauses, if the meaning of the rules are "keep out of the way of"? Can you offer an explanation?

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

it's not "something which is not there". ...Cockcroft read it that way.

when you get a moment, would you please indicate where/what you are looking at in Cockcraft. I'm am rereading it and don't see comments suggesting this.

I don't see the issue addressed directly.

But what I see is an explicit awareness that the vessel in the TSS may need to maneuver even in a 'not impede' situation, and the 'not to impede' vessel should, in their early actions, anticipate likely maneuver by the 'not to be impeded vessel'.

I do not see any commentary suggesting the 'not to be impeded vessel' should not maneuver or not have to maneuver.

But it is a big book, so I may well have missed something. And I have an old (2004) edition so there may be added text in later editions.

[Breaking Waves]

This article (by the Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce) has some interesting relevant commentary - greatly complaining about lack of definition of narrow channel, but also stuff on impeding.

It argues in several places 'that the duty not to impede should be replaced with a duty to “keep out of the way” of the other vessel' . . . which does rather imply that they believe the current 'not impede' is NOT to be interpreted as 'keep out of the way'. I had not noticed US inland rule 15b before, where the US has adopted this 'keep out of the way' language - Growley would be happy.

[Jim Cate]

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion of this set of rules. It is especially pleasing that it has been accomplished with no rancor despite some marked differences of opinion.

I'm left with a feeling that amongst the generally beautifully crafted rules that we are to follow, this one fails the test of being understood by ordinary seamen in the course of their sailing. If knowledgeable folks like those posting here can't agree on interpretation even in the calm of their cabin or den (or airplane seat), how can a tired and worried skipper, faced with an oncoming vessel "not to be impeded" be expected to do just the one right thing? Seems that a rewrite is in order, and from what was recently posted, perhaps that will be forthcoming.

At any rate, please continue... I'm watching with interest.

Jim

[GrowleyMonster]

In the case of a seemingly ambiguous rule, obviously the safest course of action is to take the safest interpretation as your guide, and not necessarily the most convenient one. That should do it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

when you get a moment, would you please indicate where/what you are looking at in Cockcraft. I'm am rereading it and don't see comments suggesting this. . . .

If you read through the thread above, you'll find a lot of answer to questions you've been answering.


Cockcroft does not go into this in his book. I was in personal correspondence with Cockcroft prior to his death, and what he told me is described in one of the posts above.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion of this set of rules. It is especially pleasing that it has been accomplished with no rancor despite some marked differences of opinion.

I'm left with a feeling that amongst the generally beautifully crafted rules that we are to follow, this one fails the test of being understood by ordinary seamen in the course of their sailing. If knowledgeable folks like those posting here can't agree on interpretation even in the calm of their cabin or den (or airplane seat), how can a tired and worried skipper, faced with an oncoming vessel "not to be impeded" be expected to do just the one right thing? Seems that a rewrite is in order, and from what was recently posted, perhaps that will be forthcoming.

At any rate, please continue... I'm watching with interest.

Jim

This is a hard question from a theoretical point of view, but in practice I don't think it's actually all that hard. When you're under Rule 9, don't bother ships, keep well clear and don't interfere with them; stay out of channels being used by ships to the extent you can. This is really a matter of actual common sense (that rare thing, so often misused) and Rule 9 kind of describes what good sailors instinctively know is right anyway. Just remember that the Part B rules are not trumped by Rule 9; know how you are supposed to maneuver when those come into effect and follow them correctly or deviate from them carefully and consciously (agreeing passing arrangments if at all possible).



Most good sailors follow what the commentators recommend, there are cites in posts above, for example https://www.academia.edu/13679530/Ru...ge_in_COLregs; "Collision Avoidance -- Not to Impede", Karen Williams, Journal of Navigation 2002 495-505, and L&W Navrules Handbook:


"The 'shall not impede' language in these cases creates an exception to the general rules, making them more practical. Vessels directed 'not to impede' other vessels should take early action to keep clear by wide margins. The other vessel shouldn't become concerned enough to alter its course or speed, or otherwise feel obligated to act differently from the way it would if the would-be impeding vessel weren't there." Rule8.html

I can add one more piece of information on this -- the UK Coast Guard also definitely interprets Rule 10 this way, and will get on the radio and chew you out if you are holding a collision course with a vessel in a busy TSS like the Dover Strait one, even from miles away.


Lodesman disagrees with this, and believes that Rules 9 and 10 do not prohibit forcing the not-to-be-impeded vessel to maneuver to give way, if there is sufficient sea room for this to be done safely.


In practice, I don't think this is such a significant point. Lodesman cited a hypothetical case (wide channel, vessels meeting head on) where the not-to-be-impeded vessel could clearly maneuver without any big hassle -- even under my reading of the Rules I don't think the action Lodesman proposes is any big problem. In most real life cases where Rule 9 is in effect, there will be doubt whether the not-to-be-impeded vessel can really maneuver safety, or even intends to, and you will not stand on in any case, and a good sailor will not approach closely enough on a collision course to create a risk of collision in any case.


So it's theoretically interesting, but practically probably not a big deal.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your view does have the advantage that this conundrum is easier to resolve -- so no standing-on and not impeding at the same time -- you are only obligated to not impede if he can't safely give way. But in my opinion your view requires an excessively narrow reading of what it means to "not impede". So a question in return -- why would you be obligated to not impede if it only means that you are not to force the not-to-be-impeded vessel to make a maneuver it cannot safely make?

I don't see this as excessively narrow - it's simply practical. Both sailing vessels and fishing vessels are (as per rule 18) considered less manoeuvrable generally than the vessels that are not to be impeded. Put them into constrained waters, and there is a limit to the ability of the "more manoeuvrable" vessel to manoeuvre, particularly with regards to stopping. In a crash stop, most large merchantmen will cover 1000 yards or more and usually make a 90º turn to stbd - this would obviously not be acceptable in a narrow channel or one that is virtually so. So it puts an onus on the "less manoeuvrable" vessel to provide room so that the large vessel can get by - if it has to manoeuvre, then the amount of manoeuvre should be manageable (ie. no crash stops, or a need to slalom).

Without any obligation to not impede, you already have that obligation. Just like you have no right to stand on into danger, you have no right to create an unreasonable danger for others with your standing on. And if he can't maneuver safely to give way to you, then you will pretty soon have the obligation to do it yourself. The obligation to not impede would be rather superfluous.

Rule 2 is perhaps not specific enough. The not impede regime lays it out for vessels that would otherwise be privileged in rule 18, to behave with courtesy.

Do you have any support for your view among the commentators? I seem to remember reading something somewhere, but I can't seem to find it

I read an article in a professional seaman's magazine at some point that echoes my view, but can't seem to find it. The article BW linked obviously sees the US veering towards the view that it should mean "keep out of the way of", and the rules should be amended to say that. I can only see that creating more problems, as it will then force "more manoeuvrable" vessels into being required to stand-on to sailing vessels or fishing vessels, that simply won't have the speed or manoeuvrability to get out of the way. As it is written, those vessels can take early action to (for example) favour a particular side of a channel and force (to use your parlance) the other vessel to steer to the other side of the channel.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a hard question from a theoretical point of view, but in practice I don't think it's actually all that hard. When you're under Rule 9, don't bother ships, keep well clear and don't interfere with them; stay out of channels being used by ships to the extent you can. This is really a matter of actual common sense (that rare thing, so often misused) and Rule 9 kind of describes what good sailors instinctively know is right anyway. Just remember that the Part B rules are not trumped by Rule 9; know how you are supposed to maneuver when those come into effect and follow them correctly or deviate from them carefully and consciously (agreeing passing arrangments if at all possible).



Most good sailors follow what the commentators recommend, there are cites in posts above, for example https://www.academia.edu/13679530/Ru...ge_in_COLregs; "Collision Avoidance -- Not to Impede", Karen Williams, Journal of Navigation 2002 495-505, and L&W Navrules Handbook:


"The 'shall not impede' language in these cases creates an exception to the general rules, making them more practical. Vessels directed 'not to impede' other vessels should take early action to keep clear by wide margins. The other vessel shouldn't become concerned enough to alter its course or speed, or otherwise feel obligated to act differently from the way it would if the would-be impeding vessel weren't there." Rule8.html

I can add one more piece of information on this -- the UK Coast Guard also definitely interprets Rule 10 this way, and will get on the radio and chew you out if you are holding a collision course with a vessel in a busy TSS like the Dover Strait one, even from miles away.


Lodesman disagrees with this, and believes that Rules 9 and 10 do not prohibit forcing the not-to-be-impeded vessel to maneuver to give way, if there is sufficient sea room for this to be done safely.


In practice, I don't think this is such a significant point. Lodesman cited a hypothetical case (wide channel, vessels meeting head on) where the not-to-be-impeded vessel could clearly maneuver without any big hassle -- even under my reading of the Rules I don't think the action Lodesman proposes is any big problem. In most real life cases where Rule 9 is in effect, there will be doubt whether the not-to-be-impeded vessel can really maneuver safety, or even intends to, and you will not stand on in any case, and a good sailor will not approach closely enough on a collision course to create a risk of collision in any case.


So it's theoretically interesting, but practically probably not a big deal.

Wow, you really mean it this time. Triple post! LOL

[GrowleyMonster]

I just noticed the post count on this thread is stuck on 158. Is this thread dead already? Maybe cookie issues on my end?
<EDIT> Now I see Dockhead's triple post again. Very strange. Maybe the database got corrupted somehow?