All things COLREGS

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Read rule 8(f)(ii) - the vessel that is required to not impede the other, is not relieved of this obligation when risk of collision exists. He must allow the other a clear path, and is expected to take into account that the not to be impeded vessel when giving way, can only do so to the extent that he is not expected to stray from that clear path. That also means that the vessel required to not impede is required, if necessary to avoid impeding the other vessel, to break rule 17 and not stand on.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the "if a tree falls in the forest..." argument; it is so far from the gist of my proposal that it only serves to confuse the whole issue. Your attempts at rephrasing what I've written seem to frequently come out as the complete opposite, so I ask that you carefully consider my point(s) before responding.

Carsten, you're putting your foot in it just like I did 5 years ago with Lodesman

I am entirely sympathetic to your position, which is based on absolutely sound instincts about how these rules ought to work. I had exactly the same instincts. But the rules don't actually work like you and I might think they ought to -- they work the way Lodesman is describing them.


Concerning the original question of whether you can read a "right of way" into the COLREGS or not, I think that discussion has run out of interesting points, so this will be my last contribution on the subject.


Anyone can use words however you want to -- as I wrote earlier. It's a free country. But to refer to standing-on as some kind of right of way is really torturing the language, and using the words like that is profoundly unhelpful to understanding of the nature of the COLREGS and how you are supposed to behave under them, which is the reason why so many people have such a bad reaction to it.

We've been around the houses on rights versus obligations, but consider this -- right of way on land implies freedom to maneuver as you like nearly without restriction -- you can speed up, slow down, stop, turn, as you like, when you have the right of way on road.

Being the "not to be impeded" vessel under Rules 9 or 10 is also a little like this -- because being "not impeded", unlike standing-on, does not imply any obligations at all, and you are not forbidden to change course or speed. The problem is that as soon as there's a risk of collision, your freedom is out of the window and you're already under obligations as the stand-on vessel, if that's what the Part II rules provide. So although I think Lodesman is right about this, it's a bit of an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question with almost purely theoretical significance.

It is otherwise with standing-on. This is so unlike having right of way on the road that knowledgeable people rebel at the thought that you could call it that. Far from being a condition of freedom, like right of way is on land, and as is implied by the word "right", being the stand-on vessel is much less free than being the give-way vessel. The stand-on vessel must not, during that phase of a crossing where standing-on and giving-way is taking place, change course or speed, so loses all right to maneuver in any way. By contrast, the give-way vessel is not restricted at all as long as it fulfills two conditions: (a) it maneuvers in a positive way, in ample time, and in a way adequate to resolve the situation, etc., as required by Rule 8; and (b) in many circumstances should not turn to port. In doing so, the give-way vessel has the freedom to change speed and course provided those things are observed, and even make a turn it planned to do, if that doesn't contradict the other requirements. On the contrary, the stand-on vessel, during the time it is required to stand-on, is in a complete state of unfreedom, with no power at all to decide on its course or speed, no right to make any kind of turn, slow down, or do anything at all, which cannot be called any kind of "right", in any normal way.

But, like I said, it's a free country, and people can call it whatever they want. There's no law against wrong use of terminology. People calling standing-on having the right of way should not, however, be surprised, when experienced mariners have a negative reaction to this kind of application of the terminology. For sure don't use the terms like that in any kind of examination -- most RYA, ASA, and other examiners would flunk you on the spot.


I'm afraid I don't have anything else useful to say on the matter.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We've been around the houses on rights versus obligations, but consider this -- right of way on land implies freedom to maneuver as you like nearly without restriction -- you can speed up, slow down, stop, turn, as you like, when you have the right of way on road.

Being the "not to be impeded" vessel under Rules 9 or 10 is also a little like this -- because being "not impeded", unlike standing-on, does not imply any obligations at all, and you are not forbidden to change course or speed. The problem is that as soon as there's a risk of collision, your freedom is out of the window and you're already under obligations as the stand-on vessel, if that's what the Part II rules provide. So although I think Lodesman is right about this, it's a bit of an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question with almost purely theoretical significance.

This is exactly the argument I have been trying to make. I regret if Lodesman has thought I was trying to incorrectly quote him. As you - I am willing to concede that a "right of way" may be implied, although only under certain circumstances (channel TSS). I also believe (but I'm not going to go to the trouble of reading through the REGs and quoting them) that ships within channels or TSS are obligated to, in so far as possible, maintain course and speed while within the TSS/Channel (if they are going to be classed as "not to be impeded"). So they do have certain obligations even as a "not to be impeded" . But also, as you, I think we've gotten into virtually all the corners of this discussion and so I'll bow out.

Thank you all for an interesting discussion

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

My apology, my comment about the poll indicating that more than 60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no such thing of 'right of way', I was referring to the first question in the poll. Less than 40% of people agreed with this comment.

The other comment I made was in relation to the 4th question in the pole. It was a specific question asking whether the phrase 'right of way' appears in the COLREGS. Which it doesn't.

That's interesting and disappointing ... I rated your poll and your interpretation of it higher that they deserve. Why? The Dockhead's comprehensive replay on the subject explains logically why.

The only thing I can add to it is my personal experience with the poll and its results ...

I was one of the stupid who did not realize that you are suppose to vote more than once. I voted #4 as that question was referring to formal regulations and was more "binding" than the potentially folksy interpretation of the rules suggested by #1. Being smarter now, I would vote #1 and #4.

That leads me to believe that more confused people would do the same now. Short of redoing the poll, the #1 and #4 should be considered as two overlapping sets that overall might lead to 100% of votes (or close to it) dismissing the notion of the "right-of-way".

So, the poll is faulty, so are its results, and your interpretation of the results is skewed and incorrect IMHO. Anyhow ... water under the bridge, be well.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your poll is confused on several different levels.

First of all, very few people understood that you are suppose to vote twice.

Second of all, it doesn't address the question you want answered -- which is whether or not you can read a "right of way" into the COLREGS.

The first question does not mention the COLREGS at all. The correct answer is "Yes, there is a right of way under some circumstances" e.g. U.S. Inland Rules. How people answer that question have nothing to do with what you were looking for.

The second question only concerns whether right of way is mentioned in the COLREGS. Obviously it is not mentioned, as you say yourself, whatever you think about whether one can be implied. Anyone answering "yes" to this is simply confused.

Lastly, you say the poll shows that "60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no right of way etc.". Where do you get that math?

Even if the question were stated like that, which it is not, the numbers are nothing like that. On the first question, 5 out of 27, or only 18.5%, gave the correct answer "yes, vessels have right of way under certain circumstances". At least two people who answered "yes" -- that would be me, and the guy who posted about it above, do not believe that there is any right of way under COLREGS -- the "yes" answer referred to racing and/or U.S. Inland Rules. So that leaves maximum 3 out of 27, or 11%, who might believe that you can read this into the COLREGS. But we don't even know this, because of how the question was written. At least one person, Lodesman, who believes that there might be a right of way under COLREGS, reads this into the "not impede" rules, not the "stand-on", "give-way" parts.


The other question is whether the COLREGS "defines" or "refers to" a right of way. 41 out of 44, or 93%, correctly answered "no".


Your assertion that "60% of people are not convinced of the argument that there is no such thing of 'right of way'" is completely unsupported by the poll results, especially if we are talking about the COLREGS, and not racing rules.

For Petes sake Dockhead, it was just an interesting poll. There will always be dogmatics who want to argue over how to interpret a poll or who don't resd the instructions which clearly stated you can answer more than one question if you so like. But regardless, it was simply a little poll initially for entertainment sake. Interpret in any way you like. After all, when it gets down to it, there were only a mere 61 people who took it at all.

The main thing I wanted to parse out from this is that your extremely insistant belief around the words of 'right of way' that you continued to post on another thread are not shared by all. Ignoring the poll and others were still rejecting your assertion. Others pointed out through the thread that the only place they have seen such an assertive reaction about this is on CF. And you seem to be the main antagonist of this argument, admiringly you have your loud supporters.

In this your final post you have displayed what concerns me the most, your belief thst anyone who uses this term is somehow 'inferior', 'unprofessional', 'wrong', 'has no understanding of the stand on rule'. This attitude is I admit what gets me the most. Apart from it being offensive, to use your popular word, 'wrong'.

Im comfortable continuing to follow most of the world, government agencies, marine agencies, ngo's, professional sailors and Mariners in concluding it helps to understand the 'stand on' rule as a 'right of way' as long as you don't erroneously understand it in the manner you do.

But, peace be with you there are other expositions of the COLREGS I have read that I admire your understanding and knowledge of. Just not this one.

And I conclude my responses as well.

[FamilyVan]

I agree with dockhead, not because I'm his follower. I just agree with him.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Wotname]

19 pages, 276 replies, 5,500+ views....

So can we hurry up and move onto "All Things COLREGS No. 2"
Now there is a thread that deserves a little more support :che ers:

Chose the emoti that feels best!

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Chose the emoti that feels best!

[weavis]

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

. . . The main thing I wanted to parse out from this is that your extremely insistant belief around the words of 'right of way' that you continued to post on another thread are not shared by all. Ignoring the poll and others were still rejecting your assertion.

Who?

The idea that standing on is not right of way is not a controversial or subtle idea. It is espoused by all of the professional mariners on here, as well as the US Coast Guard and the RYA and the authors of the COLREGS themselves. Who are these "others", who are supposedly rejecting this idea? You are the only person, who has made such an assertion in this thread.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

In this your final post you have displayed what concerns me the most, your belief thst anyone who uses this term is somehow 'inferior', 'unprofessional', 'wrong', 'has no understanding of the stand on rule'. This attitude is I admit what gets me the most. Apart from it being offensive, to use your popular word, 'wrong'.

Im comfortable continuing to follow most of the world, government agencies, marine agencies, ngo's, professional sailors and Mariners in concluding it helps to understand the 'stand on' rule as a 'right of way' as long as you don't erroneously understand it in the manner you do.

". . . most of the world . . . marine agencies, professional sailors and Mariners?" This is surrealistic -- which ones? This looks like another "60% of poll responders reject the idea . . . ". The US Coast guard is very clear about the matter; cited above by MaineSail. You have had several professional mariners participating in this thread -- ditto.

I have never called anyone unprofessional or, much less, "inferior." I have said that using the phrase "right of way" to describe standing on under the COLREGS, is "wrong". I stand by that. It does not mean that anyone is forbidden from talking like that, and only you can decide what terminology you are "comfortable with", but for the sake of good order -- it is wrong according to the very widely accepted use of this terminology. And don't try out this terminology on an RYA yachtmaster examiner -- you will be flunked on the spot.


I care about it because a significant proportion of recreational sailors don't very well understand the concepts of collision avoidance at sea, which causes inconvenience and actual danger to other water users. Willful misuse of this particular terminology reinforces and perpetuates these mistakes; that is why it is worthwhile not leaving these things unanswered.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The COLREGS use the definition (g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.


It has long been established that such restriction applies to a vessel out of the ordinary so restricted by the nature of what she has to do. , a dredger being a common example

A common ship under no unusal burden of work would be entirely incorrect to asset such restriction



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am glad you posted that RAM is one of the oft mis-cited regs.

That's why I posed the questions on the ships photo the other day. Cylinders flying is not RAM and for either ship to fly double ball would be incorrect IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum