All things COLREGS

[goboatingnow]

so far I've not claimed anything in order to substantiate

Hmm

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I think your wrong!



But I'll wait for others to way in before I add my reasonng.



I'd love to add a 'vote' to see how many agree with you, but I don't know how.

Sorry rustic charm. This is a claim you made ( to a response that claims , correctly there is no right of way at sea )

Perhaps you might lets us no know your " reasoning "

Otherwise we are all agreeing with each other here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Hmm




Sorry rustic charm. This is a claim you made ( to a response that claims , correctly there is no right of way at sea )

Perhaps you might lets us no know your " reasoning "

Otherwise we are all agreeing with each other here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Now your being really pedantic goboatingnow!

And if you read through the thread, and even look at the poll. NO, 'we are NOT all agreeing with each other here' at all.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I think your wrong!

But I'll wait for others to way in before I add my reasonng.

I'd love to add a 'vote' to see how many agree with you, but I don't know how.

You may believe that you think a lot, but your thinking about the COLREGs willl not be worth much unless you read them.

Read them and you will answer your own question. You will not find the expression "right of way".

[Rustic Charm]

My point of view:
I’m a little surprised that only (so far) 68% of polled readers agree that COLREGS do not refer to ‘right of way’. Sort of suggests to me that 40% havn’t read a copy of the COLREGS ?
I’d suggest that the first pole question is the only one that is false. I’d suggest that vessels do have ‘right of way’, that the COLREGS do ‘define’ who has right of way.
I’m going to propose that the claim that there is ‘no such thing as right of way’ for vessels is a construct of amateur teaching on the COLREGS. Such as CF and some other forums, some club guides etc. Now, I’m not saying (before some get all hot under the collar about it ) that there are not professional sailors and mariners commenting on it. What I am suggesting is that authoritive organisations, such as government bodies, don’t appear to be so anal about this claim. Below I’ve posted five such links. Four are from Government organisations that explain the regulations as ‘right of way’. Perhaps it’s a nation thing, but I doubt it, doing searches on google, seems to me that it’s not officialdom that is pushing this wheelbarrow but dogmatism. And perhaps a little of 'I know more than you do'.
So, why is this occurring? It sort of reminds me of my police academy days, there was an old well experienced Sgt who taught us traffic regulations. I remember him clearly espousing, “there’s no such thing as a CAR in the regulations, there are only ‘motor vehicles’ and ‘vehicles’ “. And of course he was kind of correct, our local regulations don’t refer to ‘cars’, never! But the interesting thing is that when I graduated from the Academy, and got into the real world, even magistrates refer to ‘cars’. The actual ‘complaint’ of when someone breaks the Law has to refer to a ‘motor vehicle’ and/or vehicle, but that’s only in order to substantiate the offence. No one other than this old Sgt insisted there are ‘no such thing as cars’. The COLREGS are pretty much the same. 'right of way' is never found in print, but it's pretty clear, the COLREGS often refer to a vessel that has a right of way over another, termed 'stand on'.
Ducttape, suggests that the term ‘right of way’ was specifically excluded from the regulations. I’m unable to verify this with a reference, but I wouldn’t mind betting there is some truth for it. From my studies of linguistics and anthropology I can imagine that they were trying to avoid a problem in translating the word ‘right’, which in translating that word becomes problematic when in several languages it get’s confusing with morality and an absolute. Which I think some people on CF read it as. But, I’d question whether the words, ‘stand on’ help very much. They translate better, but have to be explained. I mean, ‘what are we standing on’! This is why I think many authorative organisations, e.g governmental agencies, continue to use the term ‘right of way’. Some go further and quite rightly point out that ‘right of way’ is not an absolute . You do not have ‘absolute right of way’ which is true in all jurisdictions. I’d propose it’s similar to traffic regulations in some places. Here in Tasmania for example, you do not have an ‘absolute right of way’ on the road, even with traffic lights. Unfortunately many drive like they do, but that’s not the legal situation. However, with driving a ‘motor vehicle’, it’s not a universal understanding because in some countries, many perhaps, if you have ‘right of way’ then it’s an absolute . But regardless the concept is the same, there is such a thing as a ‘right of way’, but in any case even car drivers should avoid accidents and in some it’s a mandatory regulation, ‘you must avoid an accident’ .
I do see Ducttape that you have later posted ‘one easy way to settle this would be to agree that a boat may have ‘right of way’, but that it is not absolute. I think we may be arguing semantics’. Which is absolutely my point. Those who insist there is no such thing as ‘right of way’ in the COLREGS and that you must use the term ‘stand on’, are being semantical. And what’s particularly interesting is that some will then accuse anyone of using the terminology of ‘right of way’ as having not read the COLREGS or not understood them. Neither is true. The moment this argument is raised then the same must be said of official authorities that continue to use the term 'right of way'. Have they not read the COLREGS .

What’s important is not the terminology but understanding, that you have a ‘right of way’, as long as you don’t view it as an absolute. I for one will continue to use the term 'right of way', because in English most people know what it means more than 'stand on'.
Remember now, be nice.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/safety/collision-regulations.aspx

http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/speed-operational-areas/operating-port-areas/

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/safety-rules/rules-regulations/know-the-rules.html

http://www.transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/recreational-maritime/safe-operation/boat-handling

http://www.yachtingaustralia.com.au/site/yachting/nsw/downloads/Rules/Basic%20Rules.pdf

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

You may believe that you think a lot, but your thinking about the COLREGs willl not be worth much unless you read them.

Read them and you will answer your own question. You will not find the expression "right of way".

Here, is an illustration to my point.

I'm being accused of 'not reading the COLREGs' because I use the term 'right of way'. With this logic, all those government authorities and sailing schools and others that continue to use the term, 'right of way', have not read the COLREGS.

This is exactly why I raised the thread in the first place. Because this sort of dogmatism is what does cause confusion. God help anyone who doesn't speak English, because they wouldn't be using the terms 'stand on' either.

[Reefmagnet]

You're over thinking the whole situation. The COLREGS are all about preventing collisions. The term "stand on" does not imply right of way at all. One "stands on" so the vessel that is obliged to "give way" if danger of collision exists knows exactly what course the other - stand on - vessel is maintaining. Boats aren't cars. You don't pull up at intersections and look left and right before proceeding on open water. If the "right of way" vessel was ducking and weaving or otherwise doing what it pleased, it'd be like dodgem cars out there.

[bletso]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're over thinking the whole situation. The COLREGS are all about preventing collisions. The term "stand on" does not imply right of way at all. One "stands on" so the vessel that is obliged to "give way" if danger of collision exists knows exactly what course the other - stand on - vessel is maintaining. Boats aren't cars. You don't pull up at intersections and look left and right before proceeding on open water. If the "right of way" vessel was ducking and weaving or otherwise doing what it pleased, it'd be like dodgem cars out there.

So right you are. Your second sentence says it all.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by monte

Sorry that's not it, I'll draw it, port and starboard tacks..
Attachment 98582
So the opposite of both vessels under power...

I can only surmise that the upwind rule has to do with safety. No one should expect a downwind sailboat to turn into a lee shore.

If an upwind boat has to tack towards a shore, he can hail for room or tack back with plenty of downwind options momentarily.

A second theory of mine is that it is "easy" to fall away accidentally and screw up the other guy. Going upwind is harder than going downwind and most of us are trying to get upwind to put some "money" in the bank. We should be able to expect the upwind boat to behave precisely (Four Winds post demonstrates that - thanks for confessing FW)

Anyone else have a guess?

In regards to "right of way" - When racing it is extremely common vernacular to ask, "Who has rights?" or state, "Stand on. We have rights."

While perhaps not vernacularly correct it is clarifying.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Anyone else have a guess?

In regards to "right of way" - When racing it is extremely common vernacular to ask, "Who has rights?" or state, "Stand on. We have rights."

While perhaps not vernacularly correct it is clarifying.

The racing rules DO talk about right of way.....

[FamilyVan]

I absolutely agree with your theory. Upwind vessel is give way because if he is upwind of you he should in theory have more sea room or maneuvering options then the downwind vessel. I think I even remember learning this in school- but it's been 20 years, so I might be making that up.

As far as RC's comments she makes some very good points about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law- I generally agree with the comments.

But here's the hitch. The ColRegs don't define the obligations of one vessel- they define the obligations of both. Vessel A does X, vessel B does Y. If you are stand on and you need to make a left at the intersection, you can't, you have to drive past the intersection and make a Uturn because you need to maintain course and speed.

Rule 17 softens those obligations for both vessels- nobodies aloud to run into each other.

Then flip ahead to 19. Who has right of way there? Nobody- you're just not allowed to go fast or alter to port regardless.

Then throw in Rule 2 of course refers to any precaution which may be required by ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

The rules go to some length to indicate the master can make the best choice and the regs offer guidelines on how to make his decisions.

I personally know of several cases where a ship has run down a smaller vessel, where in the narrow interpretations the regulations may have perceived right of way, but hitting the nitwit was impossible do to the physics involved.

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

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

................ If the "right of way" vessel was ducking and weaving or otherwise doing what it pleased, it'd be like dodgem cars out there.

You've never shared the water with a commercial crabber tending his pots, have you? Their "course" resembles that of a squirrel crossing the road.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

The racing rules DO talk about right of way.....

Yes. I didn't want to get "into" that in a COLREGS thread.

Perhaps "right of way" is in part a bleed over from other "activity specific" rules.

PS - The poll is getting interesting. There are a number of votes for "A boat does not have right of way."

If the COLREGS are silent on "right of way" (and they are) - Then we can't presume that a boat does or doesn't have right of way. Can we?

That's the point of the COLREGS for me. They don't define rights. They define behavior.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You've never shared the water with a commercial crabber tending his pots, have you? Their "course" resembles that of a squirrel crossing the road.

Our crabbers never leave the creeks thank goodness.

[Rustic Charm]

[QUOTE=Ex-Calif;1770439]
If the COLREGS are silent on "right of way" (and they are) - Then we can't presume that a boat does or doesn't have right of way. Can we?

QUOTE]

Rule 18 - Except where rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require: a) A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of,
(i) a vessel not under command; the vessel not under command has the right of way!
(II) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

The rule doesn't seem to be 'silent' from what I can see. The rule seems to be proclaiming these vessels (i) to (iv) have right of way.

And there are lots of other examples of it.

[Ex-Calif]

What version of the regs do you have and where did you get it? Or did you add the exclamated sentence?

My version below (http://www.collisionregs.com/MSN1781.pdf)

Does not state "right of way" - It defines behavior - "shall keep out of the way of"

BTW - If you are going to copy and paste a regulation and then quotate it and then add your own words to it, It is no longer a quotation of the regs. It is an interpretation (your interpretation) of the regs and should not be quotated. Sorry bad form on your part.

Rule 18
Responsibilities between vessels
Except where Rules 9,10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.
(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre.
(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.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draught shall navigate with particular caution having full
regard to her special condition.
(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their
navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the
Rules of this Part.
(f) (i) A WIG craft shall, when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface, keep well clear
of all other vessels and avoid impeding their navigation;
(ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules of this Part as a
power-driven vessel.