Question about COLREGS rule 9

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by stormalong

Forcing the issue puts you in the wrong. If there was a collision and you saw it coming but did not take any action to avoid it you are wrong.

Taking the starboard side of the channel and horn signals are actions, next would be full astern and signaling that if the oncoming traffic still omits their responsibilities. In no case would I do a turn and be rammed on the side as there are also the consequencies of possible collision to consider (remember Titanic!).

Teddy

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Juho

Colregs might be easier to learn and teach if they would use those words (passive and active role). That could mean less confusion with the "right of way" thinking and more focus on the idea of eliminating the risk of collisions.

Why add yet another level of WRONG words?


There is a reason they state: stand on & give way.


Why not just use what's there in writing in COLREGS already?


And passive and active don't actually work given what COLREGS DO say.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by StuM

Sorry, but it's not hair splitting. Every time someone quotes "right of way" (and "privilege" for that matter) in one of these posts it reinforces a very dangerous misconception held by many less experienced sailors that one vessel has a "right" to do as he chooses including sailing across a narrow channel in front of another vessel because he is under sail and it is up to everyone else to keep out of his way regardless.



I have no doubt that the skipper of the sailing vessel under discussion had this misconception.


I will continue to correct this bad terminology every time it comes up here.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Taking the starboard side of the channel and horn signals are actions, next would be full astern and signaling that if the oncoming traffic still omits their responsibilities. In no case would I do a turn and be rammed on the side as there are also the consequencies of possible collision to consider (remember Titanic!).

Teddy

With the draft stated, I doubt the OP was in a boat that could $hit and git. Turning to port would be non sensical.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Why add yet another level of WRONG words?

I don't propose to add additional words, not even to replace existing words, but it is an interesting question if other words (active role, passive role) would have avoided some of the problems of the current words (give-way, stand-on).

There is a reason they state: stand on & give way.

Why not just use what's there in writing in COLREGS already?

One should use the current wording, unless it is clear that new words would improve the rules more than that change would cause harm.

And passive and active don't actually work given what COLREGS DO say.

That would be worth a separate discussion. In some places different wordings might improve the text, while in other places there might be also reverse effects. It would be a considerable effort to walk the text through and consider the impact of alternative wordings in all the rules. I guess one key feature behind the idea of using words active and passive is that it is quite easy to tie them to the basic message of doing something to avoid collisions, while words give-way and stand-on may easily be (mis)read as saying something about "right of way".

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by hiebert

The basic rule in COLREGS to follow is stated in Rule 18 para(a)- The power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of NUC vsls, sailing vessels etc. So you can have pass him port to port OR stbd to stbd. But it is your duty to keep clear of a sailing vessel.

BOTH vessels have obligations under the rules. In this case, assuming the other vessel was under sail alone (no engine,) then they would be OBLIGATED to maintain course and speed. Narrow channel or not.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

BOTH vessels have obligations under the rules. In this case, assuming the other vessel was under sail alone (no engine,) then they would be OBLIGATED to maintain course and speed. Narrow channel or not.

As Empty Pockets pointed out, "narrow channel" is quite relevant as the hierarchy of Rule 18 ("pecking order") is explicitly overridden by Rule 9 ("narrow channels").

While what constitutes a "narrow channel" is unfortunately and somewhat famously undefined, I suggest one definition (supposedly from a NSW Supreme Court ruling) that might be useful to consider:

"…any waterway used as a passage for vessels…and so narrow that its safe navigation by vessels would be obviously better secured by the certainty of the two approaching vessels taking opposite sides of it whatever the conformation of the sides of the channel might be…"

To me, tacking across a channel when traffic is present violates rules 9(a), (b), and (d). It's also good to keep in mind Rule 8 ("don't cut it close"), as just because you might be able to pull off fancy moves in a channel doesn't mean you're still providing sufficient sea room to the other traffic. Finally, if the sailing vessel had a motor but didn't use it or have it ready for immediate use, Rule 2 ("it's your fault anyway") would also be relevant.

[Lake-Effect]

Since the consensus seems to be that the OP was being reasonable to hold course and speed (aka "stand on") in the channel, about the only improvement he could have made would have been to sound the horn or attempt to hail the skipper of the sailboat.

[jalmberg]

Imagine processing all these subtleties while some nitwit who doesn't know the rules, anyway, is headed right for you. It's enough to make me want to stay offshore!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by hiebert

The sailing vessel proceeding on the wrong side of the channel is a mistake, but it is a minor mistake. Meaning if there was a collision, you in the power driven vessel will take most of the blame.

No it's a major mistake. Without that breach of Rule 9, there would be no risk of collision so other rules would be irrelevant.

[jalmberg]

Originally Posted by StuM

No it's a major mistake. Without that breach of Rule 9, there would be no risk of collision so other rules would be irrelevant.

I have to agree with this, by the rule of common sense. It's like a car crossing over to the wrong lane. On coming cars have a few seconds to take some sort of action, which may be right or wrong, but surely the primary mistake was crossing over in the first place.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by StuM

No it's a major mistake. Without that breach of Rule 9, there would be no risk of collision so other rules would be irrelevant.

+1 Quite correct IMHO.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Since the consensus seems to be that the OP was being reasonable to hold course and speed (aka "stand on") in the channel, about the only improvement he could have made would have been to sound the horn or attempt to hail the skipper of the sailboat.

Still should be prepared to take whatever action necessary to avoid collision in the event that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action as prescribed by the rules or if collision cannot be avoided by the other vessel's actions alone.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Why add yet another level of WRONG words?


There is a reason they state: stand on & give way.


Why not just use what's there in writing in COLREGS already?


And passive and active don't actually work given what COLREGS DO say.

In that case all these threads with the explanations et al are waste of space and we should answer with quotes of COLREGS to every question. Is that what you want?
For someone not understanding a meaning of a frase some occasional euphemism is helpfull. This one especially for them misunderstanding the "stand on" as opposed to the "give way". The problem here lies that the frase "give way" implies as someone being the "give way" vessel should stop to give way for another vessel as in road trafic. From that false conclusion it's natural to understand "stand on" as "right of way". IMHO the explanation of the "active" and "passive" vessel with the forementioned frases clears that misconception.

Teddy

[transmitterdan]

It is not hair splitting. Stand on has a clear meaning. We should all strive to use that phrase instead of inventing other confusing (or plain wrong) phrases. Stand on means something near to the exact opposite of right of way. And stand on is definitely not passive. The stand on vessel must be prepared to take action when it is clear the actions of the give way vessel alone will not be enough to avoid a collision.