All things COLREGS

[carstenb]

Rustic,

You may feel this is nitpicking, but "rights" are an absolutist term. You either have it or you do not.

Saying I have my "right of way" (well not all the time - there are exceptions) means you do not have a "right",

"rights" are not relativitstic.

The reason some of us are rather insistant on understanding this is that the concept of "stand on vessel" and "give way vessel" is a core concept in the Colregs. Failure to adequately understand these concepts means you will not fully understand rest of the Colregs.

A right is something you have (and can excercise) at your choosing.

An obligation is something you must do (no discussion)

To that is a vast difference.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I always find it funny a rules thread will get more disagreement than an anchor or gun thread

Your right Don - which only goes to show how many posters here do not understand the Colregs

[monte]

Funny you should say the about correct terminology Wotname. I have a problem with commands to Jen because I'm always changing them on her. They make sense to me but to her they're all different ( well they are I guess) I dont mean to but I'm just saying what's in my head without thinking about it. For instance if we are pointing on a starboard tack and I want to bear away I might say
Bear away a bit
Or fall off a bit
Or turn a bit to port
Similarly with sheet handling I'll alternate between
Ease the sheet a bit
Ease the jib
Loosen the jib sheet
Sheet out
I don't mean to but I guess it's from a lifetime of using and hearing the terms on different yachts and never deciding one was better than the other. Nether the less a good example of why using the correct terminology makes it easier and more efficient for the skipper and crew and I will be working on consolidating those commands to make it easier. It doesn't help that Jens first language is French so those commands are even more obscure..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Exactly

It's a CF thing. But there are plenty of CF people who use the expression. But then there are a few, I don't think a lot, but they seem to be the usual ones, who get a bee in their bonnet that the term shouldn't be used. 'It's wrong'! They say.

sorry over 80% of your " poll" agree there is no right of way

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

sorry over 80% of your " poll" agree there is no right of way

And it has nothing to with democracy or voting even if the poll results would be reversed. The Colregs are the rules.

[Maine Sail]

From the USCG:

"5. Who has the "right of way" on the water?

The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)).

Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10).

The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances; no Rule exonerates any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2). Neglect, among other things, could be not maintaining a proper look-out (Rule 5), use of improper speed (Rule 6), not taking the appropriate actions to determine and avoid collision (Rule 7 & 8) or completely ignoring your responsibilities under the Rules.

Note, a power driven vessel means any vessel propelled by machinery; regardless of the machinery being used or not."






The right-of-way conveyed in that ONE circumstance is for US inland navigation rules NOT international COLREGS..

[Dockhead]

I've been travelling and just saw this thread -- wow!

When Rustic Charm raised this question, I promised to write something, which I dutifully did on the plane. But there isn't really anything in the couple of pages of blather I wrote, which has not already been said very well by others here, so I think I won't bore anyone by posting it.

Carsten, Family Van, and others really put their finger on the essence of the thing -- we don't call it a "right of way" because standing on is not a right -- it's a particular role prescribed by the Rules, and performing your assigned role in a crossing is an obligation, no less when you are the stand-on vessel, than when you're the give-way vessel. Thinking of it as a right is extremely harmful, and leads to very harmful misconceptions, like the common misconception of inexperienced sailors assuming that if they have the "right of way", they can "give up" this right and just maneuver willy-nilly, which all experienced sailors know is dangerous and wrong ("Johnny O'Day", "Rule of Tonnage", etc.). This error is the direct result of misapplying land concepts of collision avoidance -- like right of way -- to the sea.


It seems to me that a lot of electronic ink has been wasted on semantics here. Rustic Charm wants to use words in his own way -- well, go right ahead. You can just as well insist that your yacht is not a yacht, it's a bus. Why? Well, it's big, it carries people, it has a diesel engine, it goes places, it has a steering wheel -- why not?

Well, Rustic -- call your yacht a bus, if you like. Go right ahead. We don't call our yachts busses, because we see essential differences between yachts and busses. Just like we don't call standing-on having a right of way.

But Kudos for raising the question -- it's actually quite interesting, and has taken us over some new ground, something I didn't think possible for this well-worn topic

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

sorry over 80% of your " poll" agree there is no right of way

You must be reading another poll. 10 people of 37 people, that's less than 30%.

In any case, the poll was never a 'vote'. You can't decide such a thing as a vote.

[FamilyVan]

I can think of few things as stressful as barreling down a river, with the current behind me, on a big heavy vessel, then knowing the club racers believe they have right of way and believe that I have the ability to some how magically stop my vessel.

No problem, I only have 20 000 tons of taconite on board, I'll just hit the breaks because somebody on cruisers forum told you it's you're right because that's the hierarchy- sail over power.

[Dockhead]

I'm not going to post all the carp I wrote on the plane, but to summarize one point which might be worth making: the differences in the rules on land and sea flow directly from differences in the processes of collision avoidance on land and on sea. On land, vehicles follow roads -- defined paths -- so you know where that vehicle is going -- you don't need AIS or radar on land. Crossing situations are over in seconds or fractions of seconds -- unlike at sea, where they may typically last for 30 minutes. So collision avoidance on land is a single phase operation -- one guy drives, the other waits for the road to be clear -- and that's all there is to it. The guy who "just drives" has the "right of way".

It's totally different at sea, where collision avoidance goes on through several distinct phases -- 1. detection and determination of likely risk of collision; 2. maneuvering prior to risk of collision and/or vessels in sight of one another; 3. maneuvering under steering & sailing rules; 4. maneuvering after it is evident that the give-way vessel is not taking action; 5. maneuvering in extremis.


Only during Phase 3 does anyone stand-on or give-way. It is a huge misconception of inexperienced sailors to think that Phase 3 is all there is all there is to collision avoidance -- as if they were on land. They are not even aware of the things they are supposed to be doing in the earlier phases.


The misconception is perpetuated by sailors who sail in crowded coastal waters and don't actually ever get into steering & sailing rules situations and so just don't understand. Some of them correctly stay out of channels and generally keep clear of commercial shipping -- absolutely correct when in restricted waters where the paths of commercial shipping are obvious, and this is possible. They think that's all there is to it, and refuse to believe that you actually need the COLREGS. When we talk about standing-on and giving-way, they don't understand that we're only talking about one phase of a crossing. They imagine that we're going out into busy harbors and pulling out in front of ships and making them maneuver out of our way, which of course is absolutely forbidden under the Rules.

Other harmful misconceptions which arise from the misapplication of land concepts of collision avoidance like right of way:

1. “I’m under sail, and so I have the right of way. So I’m just going to sail on and let other people worry about getting out of my way.” This is stupid, dangerous and a violation of the COLREGS on several levels. You do not have the right of way, ever, and you might be the stand-on vessel only under certain circumstances and only during a certain phase of an encounter with another vessel. At no time and under no circumstances are you ever allowed to "just sail on and let other people worry about getting out of the way."

2. “I don’t need to know how to do COLREGS, because I have a better way – I just don’t insist on my ‘right of way’ and always just maneuver myself.” We’ve had endless discussions about this and they are not worth repeating it here, but this is just as harmful and dangerous as Misconception 1 above. The stupid little ditty about “Johnny O’Day”, and harmful nonsense about a “law of tonnage”, is often used to spread this harmful Misconception #2. The worst thing about this Misconception is that it assumes that standing-on is a right which you can use, or give up, as you like. But standing-on is not a right at all! It’s an obligation!

3. “I don’t need a hand bearing compass or any of that junk – if I see a big scary ship, I’ll just dodge out of the way. My sailboat is far more maneuverable than the big scary ship.” Unlike the situation in a car, collision courses at sea cannot be determined with the naked eye (even if you can get a very rough idea by ranging with a stanchion). Besides that, you generally cannot “just dodge out of the way”, because although your sailboat can turn on a dime, it is slow as molasses, compared to a ship, and you can’t open up the distance in a couple of minutes. The idea that you are far more maneuverable than a ship is false – you can change direction quickly, but not location, and it’s the location which counts.

and:

4. "I'm under sail, so I have the right of way. I can tack and maneuver around however I like, and power driven vessels around just have to stay out of my way." This is the situation Family Van was writing about -- a gross violation of the Rules and a harmful misapplication of the idea of right of way. On land, when you have the right of way, you can speed up, slow down, turn, do whatever you want. At sea, however, when you become the stand-on vessel in Phase 3 of a crossing, you don't have any rights at all -- you are obligated to hold your course and speed. A totally different concept.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Carsten, Family Van, and others really put their finger on the essence of the thing -- we don't call it a "right of way" because standing on is not a right -- it's a particular role prescribed by the Rules, and performing your assigned role in a crossing is an obligation, no less when you are the stand-on vessel, than when you're the give-way vessel. Thinking of it as a right is extremely harmful, and leads to very harmful misconceptions, like the common misconception of inexperienced sailors assuming that if they have the "right of way", they can "give up" this right and just maneuver willy-nilly, which all experienced sailors know is dangerous and wrong ("Johnny O'Day", "Rule of Tonnage", etc.). This error is the direct result of misapplying land concepts of collision avoidance -- like right of way -- to the sea.

Dockhead, this is where I partially agree. If people take it as an absolute, then yes they have taken it too far and it will get them in trouble. And in training, and doing their boat licenses they can learn that a 'right of way' is not an absolute. It's certainly drummed into people here despite the fact that 'right of way' is used to explain the 'stand on' vessel. I personally cannot see how it's a direct result of misapplying land concepts though because there is no absolute 'right of way' in road rules either in most western countries. An ' Absolute right of way' will lead you to the hospital in the same way that an 'absolute right of way' on the water does.

And when you say 'we don't call it', your referring to yourself and those few advocating on this thread that the terminology matters too? Because after all as I have repeated The Racing Rules of Sailing, the official rules of sailing use the term and they are based on the COLREGS, so do many many Government agencies, including many marine agencies and teaching schools (I've already named some). And they are not some non authorities helping to explain things who have got it wrong. Many are the very authorities that represent signatories to the conventions. Main Sail's post introducing the USCG 5 or 'right of way', even seems the legislators don't see it as an absolute. Because there it is, in legislation.

Even the way you are using the English term 'right' seems as if you have reinterpreted the word, to mean some kind of 'absolute must have'. The term 'right' whether used as an adjective noun or verb does not have that sort of power. And that leads me to think your adding almost an American slant to the word. 'Its my right'! And Carstenb, I acknowledge your post, and NO, 'right' is not an absolute term at all. It's a moral term.

It seems to me that a lot of electronic ink has been wasted on semantics here. Rustic Charm wants to use words in his own way -- well, go right ahead. You can just as well insist that your yacht is not a yacht, it's a bus. Why? Well, it's big, it carries people, it has a diesel engine, it goes places, it has a steering wheel -- why not? Well, Rustic -- call your yacht a bus, if you like. Go right ahead. We don't call our yachts busses, because we see essential differences between yachts and busses. Just like we don't call standing-on having a right of way.

And this is when you show forth as a bully. Your accusing me of using words in my own way and then go on with this crap about a bus. Very intelligent.

I've been suggesting along with a couple of others that the words used does not matter and yet you accuse me of being semantic. I've been suggesting that along with marine authorities, government agencies, and other sporting bodies, that it's the meaning of 'stand on' that is important, not the insistence that the words 'stand on' are used. And for that you turn to bullying!

But Kudos for raising the question -- If you meant this then you wouldn't have reverted to accusations and this ridiculous crap about a bus.

it's actually quite interesting, and has taken us over some new ground, something I didn't think possible for this well-worn topic

Yes, it has been interesting. And I'm sure it's been helpful for a few. But god help those who dare venture forth with such discussions in fear of people like you turning to mocking and bullying.

I find discussions like this helpful. I don't feel threatened by others who have a different view of things. I certainly don't feel the need to belittle and insult people like a couple have on this thread. There is simply no need for that sort of behaviour. Everyone should be free to raise their questions and to reject answers if they so wish. And they should be able to do that free from abuse, ridicule and insult.

I along with a number of authorities, sporting clubs, NGO's and teaching facilities around the world continue to use the words in COLREGs 'stand on vessel', and like them, I'll continue to help explain the term as 'the vessel that has right of way'.


And with that, I'll bow out and wish you all a good night.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You must be reading another poll. 10 people of 37 people, that's less than 30%.

In any case, the poll was never a 'vote'. You can't decide such a thing as a vote.

Dunno if the calculating percentages works the same way as "right of way" but looks to me that 100% don't regard "right of way" proper concept. Thou about 15% agrees which makes a total of 115%

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I find discussions like this helpful. I don't feel threatened by others who have a different view of things. I certainly don't feel the need to belittle and insult people like a couple have on this thread. There is simply no need for that sort of behaviour. Everyone should be free to raise their questions and to reject answers if they so wish. And they should be able to do that free from abuse, ridicule and insult.

I completely agree, and certainly no ridicule or abuse was intended by anything I wrote. I really regret that you took it that way and apologize for any offense.

The analogy of yachts and busses was entirely serious, and was not meant as ridicule. You say that "right of way" fits "standing on", so long as you don't insist on the idea of a "right" being understood in any "absolute way".

My point was that a yacht could also be called a bus, if you don't insist on the word "bus" being used too literally. A yacht resembles a bus in many ways. Just like standing-on in some ways resembles right of way. You can use the terminology like that if you want, but does it add to understanding? Or subtract from it? The point was intended in a serious way.

Does terminology matter? I think everyone can decide for himself. I, personally, resist the loose, and I think, careless application of the term "right of way" to situations at sea, because it leads to a number of misconceptions which are discussed above. The U.S. Coast Guard article cited by MaineSail also resists the idea of right of way at sea, for the same reasons. You may have a different view, and that's fine. If we all agreed about everything all the time, we wouldn't have anything to talk about, would we?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You must be reading another poll. 10 people of 37 people, that's less than 30%.

In any case, the poll was never a 'vote'. You can't decide such a thing as a vote.

huh, question 1 and 4 are essentially the same, they represent the vast majority of polled results

never said it was a vote , merely expressing the result of poll of presumably people on CF

[carstenb]

Let's look at Websters Unabridged dictionary for the meaning of the two terms (here I've used right of way versus obligation

Right of way:

a : a precedence in passing accorded to one vehicle over another by custom, decision, or statute
b : the right of traffic to take precedence


Obligation

something that you must do because of a law, rule, promise, etc.

So in terms of the Colregs, a "stand on vessel" has an obligation to maintain course and speed (due to law/rule).

A "stand on" vessel does not have a right (precedence in passing accorded to one vehicle over another).

This is why we refer to the "burdened" vessel. The vessel is burdened with an obligation - not released from an obligation by any "right"