Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[El Pinguino]

'If there is anyone on CF who says they don't know what a port tack is, I will stop using the term.'

Having gone to sea on the good ship 'Hardship' where hard tack was not unknown in the foc's'le I sat all my tickets without having to know about such fancy terms as 'port tack' and 'starboard tack'.

I struggle - even into the present day - with the word and even today have to stop and have a bit of a think if someone uses it.

Therefore I would be no end delighted if you stopped using the word 'tack'.

Where do I stand on ants... my stand on ants is that ants have their place in our ecosystem and should be cherished ....

Argentinian fire ants? Horrible creatures.. I stand on them.

[El Pinguino]

'What the Coast Guard noticed through court cases though was that skippers involved in collisions would claim that they had "the right of way" or that they had "privileges." This implied something that doesn't exist in The Rules is that you have no affirmative obligation to avoid a collision at sea, no matter how much 'in the right' you are. So, The Rules were changed to remove this unintended subtlety. Just about every reference to the term 'right of way' was removed from The Rules and the terms 'privileged' and 'burdened' were changed to 'stand-on' and 'give-way,' respectively. "

http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.c...EGs-part-1.pdf

That is a very deeply flawed piece... unless the 'priviliged' defence was being used internationaly pre 1860 or the it is simple discussing US local laws.

Hubert Moore's book that I linked to earlier is very good , in that he offers a multitude of cases to clarify the points he makes regarding the interpretation of the rules... ie... the Kerrymore 1873 etc. Hubert Moore was, like yourself, in the law business but his speciality was Admiralty Law... much of the precedence he cites still stands today. ( pardon me if some of my terminology is incorrect... I am but a simple sailorman ).

'That's just a secondary source, but similar statements are found in a multitude of sources. It is what I was taught in the '70's.'

Just as the use of the term 'right of way' can be found in a multitude of sources... many of them involved in the education of navigators big and small.... some 45 years after the 1972 change.

But as they say.. them as can... do.

Them as can't ... teach .

Any advance on the IMO notes?

[weavis]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

England v Scotland.... Rights of Way in England are designated ... in Scotland you can go wherever you like although wandering through someone's living room is not encouraged..

https://www.scotways.com/faq/law-on-...land-and-wales

Oh crud... Thats why the police were called...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

'What the Coast Guard noticed through court cases though was that skippers involved in collisions would claim that they had "the right of way" or that they had "privileges." This implied something that doesn't exist in The Rules is that you have no affirmative obligation to avoid a collision at sea, no matter how much 'in the right' you are. So, The Rules were changed to remove this unintended subtlety. Just about every reference to the term 'right of way' was removed from The Rules and the terms 'privileged' and 'burdened' were changed to 'stand-on' and 'give-way,' respectively. "

http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.c...EGs-part-1.pdf

That is a very deeply flawed piece... unless the 'priviliged' defence was being used internationaly pre 1860 or the it is simple discussing US local laws.

Hubert Moore's book that I linked to earlier is very good , in that he offers a multitude of cases to clarify the points he makes regarding the interpretation of the rules... ie... the Kerrymore 1873 etc. Hubert Moore was, like yourself, in the law business but his speciality was Admiralty Law... much of the precedence he cites still stands today. ( pardon me if some of my terminology is incorrect... I am but a simple sailorman ).

'That's just a secondary source, but similar statements are found in a multitude of sources. It is what I was taught in the '70's.'

Just as the use of the term 'right of way' can be found in a multitude of sources... many of them involved in the education of navigators big and small.... some 45 years after the 1972 change.

But as they say.. them as can... do.

Them as can't ... teach .

Any advance on the IMO notes?

Your legal terminology is just fine! Just "precedents" not "precedence" -- typo.

I struggle to see what we are disagreeing about.

I never said that everyone who uses the term "right of way" is an idiot. I think there are three categories of people using this term:

1. People who perfectly understand everything, and just don't care about the terminology. Communication between two such people will be no problem.

2. People who are "talking down" to their audience, trying to use terms people will understand.

3. People who don't understand the difference in concepts.


I personally think that it's a very unfortunate term to use as it feeds some fundamental misunderstandings which a whole lot of recreational sailors have about collision avoidance.


Just out of curiosity, however -- what professional source do you have, which refers to "right of way", 45 years after the '72 Rules? Someone writing in 1900 I can understand, but I've never seen the term used in any serious, professional source newer than the '72 Rules. Only stuff "talking down" to laymen, "boater safety" carp and the like. The term is certainly never used in Falwell or Cockcroft, and the official U.S. Coast Guard site (previously quoted by someone), says that "right of way exists only in one case . .. ." etc. So I would be quite curious to see if you have run across something different.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by markpierce

In my slow (six-knot) motorboat have had rare confused encounters with sailboats. Recall one exception several years ago a mile east of Angel Island in San Francisco Bay. A sailboat tacked without apparent reason resulting in an apparent collision. Only a sudden ninety-degree turn to starboard on my part avoided collision. Being kind, presume the sailboat crew was unaware of my presence.

There is an argument that a sailing vessel tacking upwind, making regular and predictable tacks, is standing on and not violating its obligations to hold course and speed.

This is based on an old collision case, which is still good law, where a stand-on vessel which deviated from its course to pick up a pilot, was held NOT to have violated its obligations to hold course and speed, because the course change should have been anticipated by the give-way vessel.

It's a complicated question, but in any case, in my opinion, Rule 2 absolutely forbids tacking willy nilly into a risk of collision situation.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your legal terminology is just fine! Just "precedents" not "precedence" -- typo.

I struggle to see what we are disagreeing about.

I never said that everyone who uses the term "right of way" is an idiot. I think there are three categories of people using this term:

1. People who perfectly understand everything, and just don't care about the terminology. Communication between two such people will be no problem.

2. People who are "talking down" to their audience, trying to use terms people will understand.

3. People who don't understand the difference in concepts.


I personally think that it's a very unfortunate term to use as it feeds some fundamental misunderstandings which a whole lot of recreational sailors have about collision avoidance.


Just out of curiosity, however -- what professional source do you have, which refers to "right of way", 45 years after the '72 Rules? Someone writing in 1900 I can understand, but I've never seen the term used in any serious, professional source newer than the '72 Rules. Only stuff "talking down" to laymen, "boater safety" carp and the like. The term is certainly never used in Falwell or Cockcroft, and the official U.S. Coast Guard site (previously quoted by someone), says that "right of way exists only in one case . .. ." etc. So I would be quite curious to see if you have run across something different.

Did you read the usage by Moore? Quite reasonable in my view. In fact I am currently reading it from end to end... yes ..I know.. the word 'anorak' comes to mind...

However ... in 'power driven vessels crossing' https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Collision-regulations

https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowle...rules-boating/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id...lision&f=false

http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

Not quite 'professional' at one level but written by 'professionals' for the education of lesser mortals.... so that usage feeds on itself and so it goes on...

Good luck ridding the world of 'right of way'..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Did you read the usage by Moore? Quite reasonable in my view. In fact I am currently reading it from end to end... yes ..I know.. the word 'anorak' comes to mind...

However ... in 'power driven vessels crossing' https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Collision-regulations

https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowle...rules-boating/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id...lision&f=false

http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

Not quite 'professional' at one level but written by 'professionals' for the education of lesser mortals.... so that usage feeds on itself and so it goes on...

Good luck ridding the world of 'right of way'..

Well, it's not my mission to "rid the world" of "right of way" or global warming or hunger or whatever. At this stage I just want to make a small contribution according to my modest abilities, and enjoy life as much as I can

The sources you quote are, in my opinion, firmly in Category 2 from my list -- people talking down to laymen who are presumed to be too stupid to understand more complicated concepts. Who are presumed to get confused with unfamiliar terms. I hate that kind of stuff, which I think causes more harm than good, but wise men may disagree and all that. In any case, you won't find Farwell or Cockcroft ever, ever using such terms. By the way, I have corresponded with Cockcroft, who is retired but still kicking and still interested in these issues.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

. . . Any sign of the IMO notes on the 1970 convention - saying not to use 'right of way' - that is the foundation of this thread?

It will take me some time to go through all these materials, but I've just gotten through the first part of the Protocols of the first Convention in 1889.

It makes for really interesting reading! The term "right of way" is used quite a lot. But also a lot of other curious terminology -- the stand-on vessel is sometimes referred to as the "holding-on vessel" , and the give-way vessel is sometimes called the "keeping-out-of-the-way vessel". "Burden" and "privilege" also appear.

A typical sentence:

"One of these ships is called the holding-on ship, and has the right of way. The other of the two ships is the giving-way ship, and has to give way to the holding-on ship."

Page 531

So whether or not the terms appear in the Rules themselves, they were certainly used in connection with the Rules. At least they were in 1889.

I will keep reading (I need to do it anyway) and will post anything else interesting I find.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

England v Scotland.... Rights of Way in England are designated ... in Scotland you can go wherever you like although wandering through someone's living room is not encouraged..

https://www.scotways.com/faq/law-on-...land-and-wales

I stand corrected ... there are a FEW rights of way in scotland ... but as I said, in general although you can go anywhere you do not actually have a "right of way". Even though it may be commonly described as such.

[Phoenician]

Going back to this thread's original intent, I'd be interested to hear people's experiences with ships displaying "not under command", especially after reading the following article:

QUOTE:

On 22 February 2012, there was a major collision between vessel MM and ZH off Hong Kong. The investigation has come to a conclusion, and now we think it is the time to review and share this case. Hopefully, similar cases can be avoided in the future through learning this tragic incident.

When vessels approached ports before schedule, growing numbers of seafarers, in breach of the COLREGS, like to use NUC signals while drifting off ports and terminals awaiting orders. Nearly every world's major port has seen such wrongful conduct where local authorities criticize this lazy habit and urge seafarers to comply with the COLREGS. In the collision between MM and ZH, ZH used NUC signals during their 12 hours waiting for berth. Their aim is straight. Through displaying NUC signals, other vessels would believe that ZH is a vessel in difficulty, and therefore the burden will be solely upon other vessels to take measures to avoid collision. The Master of ZH ordered his crew to display NUC signals through the vessel's Automatic Identification System (AIS) and to exhibit NUC shape on the vessel's mast. Half an hour before the accident when the Chief Officer came to take the control of the vessel, he expressed no objection to the NUC signals. Neither did other crew members that were in the wheel house at the time of the accident. Before the incident, the duty officer, the Chief Officer, was speaking with the sailor about his prospective retirement life without noticing the deteriorating visibility and approaching MM. The Master was walking around the wheel house, and he also did not recognize the risk of collision with MM. Two minutes before the accident, the Chief Officer heard the whistle of MM and asked the Second Officer what was the sound signals for NUC vessels. The Second Officer replied that there is no such signal as provided by COLREGS. Seconds before the accident, another prolonged blast was heard by all those in the wheel house but it was too late to avoid the collision.

Regarding MM, the vessel had been steering at about 17.5 knots by auto pilot until the collision happened. About 22 minutes before the accident, the Chief Officer sighted a fishing vessel narrowly cleared MM's starboard at a distance of only about 150 meters. At that time, there were dozens of radar targets, including ZH, lying ahead near MM's planned route. The Chief Officer's attention was heavily attracted by the nearby fishing vessel traffic. Although ZH was detected on the radar, the Chief Officer thought ZH was a fishing vessel, and he paid no special attention to it. About 19 minutes before the accident, as per the instruction of the Master, the Chief Officer started to execute Restricted Visibility Check List at the table. At the same time, he instructed the duty sailor to go outside the wheel house for watching the fishing vessels at MM's port side. Two minutes later, the visibility continued to deteriorate, and the Chief Officer ordered the duty sailor to sound fog whistles as per COLREGS. The sailor did so and MM had since then been sounding at an interval about 1 minute one prolonged blast. Afterwards, the Chief Officer once again ordered the sailor to check the fishing vessel on the vessel's port side. The sailor did so again failed to see anything due to the heavy fog. He reported the same to the Chief Officer and then came to the radar finding ZH was ahead at only 4 miles. He reported his finding but the Chief Officer only replied he was noted and continued his job of Restricted Visibility Check List. Seconds before the accident, the sailor shouted "a ship in front" but it was too late to avoid the collision.

The accident shows that abuse of NUC signals is not only against the COLREGS but also does little help for collision prevention. According to Rule 3(f) of the COLREGS, a "vessel not under command' is unable to maneuver in accordance with the Rules because some exceptional circumstance and is unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. The exceptional circumstance means main engine breakdown and likewise. However, waiting for berth by no means shall be considered as exceptional. At the material time, ZH was a power-driven vessel rather than NUC vessel. Therefore, ZH should have complied with the responsibilities as provided in Rule 18 of the COLREGS. ZH should not have used the NUC signals but show the appropriate lights and shapes according to Rule 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the COLREGS. Furthermore, according to Rule 35 of the COLREGS, in restricted visibility ZH should have sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes two prolonged blasts in succession with an interval of about 2 seconds between them. MM also has fault and she did not maintain a proper look-out. However, consideration must be given to the fact that there were dozens of vessels ahead of MM, and ZH had not sounded fog whistles as per the COLREGS.

The accident should be noticed by shipowners, operators and all the seafarers that inappropriate use of NUC signals can result in severe collision. According to the COLREGS, vessels are not entitled to display NUC signals while drifting off ports and terminals awaiting for berth and must act as per responsibility of power-driven vessels prescribed in the Regulations.

UNQUOTE

Source: Article by Xu Congbao and Qiu Yuhao

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Phoenician

Going back to this thread's original intent, I'd be interested to hear people's experiences with ships displaying "not under command", especially after reading the following article:

QUOTE:

On 22 February 2012, there was a major collision between vessel MM and ZH off Hong Kong. The investigation has come to a conclusion, and now we think it is the time to review and share this case. Hopefully, similar cases can be avoided in the future through learning this tragic incident.

When vessels approached ports before schedule, growing numbers of seafarers, in breach of the COLREGS, like to use NUC signals while drifting off ports and terminals awaiting orders. Nearly every world's major port has seen such wrongful conduct where local authorities criticize this lazy habit and urge seafarers to comply with the COLREGS. In the collision between MM and ZH, ZH used NUC signals during their 12 hours waiting for berth. Their aim is straight. Through displaying NUC signals, other vessels would believe that ZH is a vessel in difficulty, and therefore the burden will be solely upon other vessels to take measures to avoid collision. The Master of ZH ordered his crew to display NUC signals through the vessel's Automatic Identification System (AIS) and to exhibit NUC shape on the vessel's mast. Half an hour before the accident when the Chief Officer came to take the control of the vessel, he expressed no objection to the NUC signals. Neither did other crew members that were in the wheel house at the time of the accident. Before the incident, the duty officer, the Chief Officer, was speaking with the sailor about his prospective retirement life without noticing the deteriorating visibility and approaching MM. The Master was walking around the wheel house, and he also did not recognize the risk of collision with MM. Two minutes before the accident, the Chief Officer heard the whistle of MM and asked the Second Officer what was the sound signals for NUC vessels. The Second Officer replied that there is no such signal as provided by COLREGS. Seconds before the accident, another prolonged blast was heard by all those in the wheel house but it was too late to avoid the collision.

Regarding MM, the vessel had been steering at about 17.5 knots by auto pilot until the collision happened. About 22 minutes before the accident, the Chief Officer sighted a fishing vessel narrowly cleared MM's starboard at a distance of only about 150 meters. At that time, there were dozens of radar targets, including ZH, lying ahead near MM's planned route. The Chief Officer's attention was heavily attracted by the nearby fishing vessel traffic. Although ZH was detected on the radar, the Chief Officer thought ZH was a fishing vessel, and he paid no special attention to it. About 19 minutes before the accident, as per the instruction of the Master, the Chief Officer started to execute Restricted Visibility Check List at the table. At the same time, he instructed the duty sailor to go outside the wheel house for watching the fishing vessels at MM's port side. Two minutes later, the visibility continued to deteriorate, and the Chief Officer ordered the duty sailor to sound fog whistles as per COLREGS. The sailor did so and MM had since then been sounding at an interval about 1 minute one prolonged blast. Afterwards, the Chief Officer once again ordered the sailor to check the fishing vessel on the vessel's port side. The sailor did so again failed to see anything due to the heavy fog. He reported the same to the Chief Officer and then came to the radar finding ZH was ahead at only 4 miles. He reported his finding but the Chief Officer only replied he was noted and continued his job of Restricted Visibility Check List. Seconds before the accident, the sailor shouted "a ship in front" but it was too late to avoid the collision.

The accident shows that abuse of NUC signals is not only against the COLREGS but also does little help for collision prevention. According to Rule 3(f) of the COLREGS, a "vessel not under command' is unable to maneuver in accordance with the Rules because some exceptional circumstance and is unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. The exceptional circumstance means main engine breakdown and likewise. However, waiting for berth by no means shall be considered as exceptional. At the material time, ZH was a power-driven vessel rather than NUC vessel. Therefore, ZH should have complied with the responsibilities as provided in Rule 18 of the COLREGS. ZH should not have used the NUC signals but show the appropriate lights and shapes according to Rule 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the COLREGS. Furthermore, according to Rule 35 of the COLREGS, in restricted visibility ZH should have sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes two prolonged blasts in succession with an interval of about 2 seconds between them. MM also has fault and she did not maintain a proper look-out. However, consideration must be given to the fact that there were dozens of vessels ahead of MM, and ZH had not sounded fog whistles as per the COLREGS.

The accident should be noticed by shipowners, operators and all the seafarers that inappropriate use of NUC signals can result in severe collision. According to the COLREGS, vessels are not entitled to display NUC signals while drifting off ports and terminals awaiting for berth and must act as per responsibility of power-driven vessels prescribed in the Regulations.

UNQUOTE

Source: Article by Xu Congbao and Qiu Yuhao

Showing NUC and drifting has become a common practice. I have seen swarms of tankers in the North Sea drifting near Rotterdam.

I don't think there is any intention to deceive -- the idea is that the engines are shut down and not capable of being started up instantly so the vessel is not capable of being maneuvered. So it really is equivalent to a NUC situation -- only you're not supposed to be NUC voluntarily.

Whether it's a good practice or not is debatable. It's certainly efficient -- allowing the plant to be shut down and avoiding the process of anchoring. Does it create a special risk of collision? I dunno. But if I were the owner of a fleet of tankers, I wouldn't do it. Because of the risk of cases like this one, and query whether insurance will even pay out.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Suijin

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmz

The issue is not the best way to quickly communicate to ignorant crew members what "stand on" means. The issue is what the COLREGS say, and what it means. Education is a different subject.

And I believe that saying "It's like right-of-way, but different" firmly establishes that you know it's not a semantic issue. If it were a semantic issue, you could say "right-of-way" without any further qualification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmz

Interesting that you accuse people of uncivil behavior here and then promptly engage in ad hominem attacks. It seriously undermines your complaint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmz

I disagree. Carefully written and worded rules, which have legal and financial weight, should be carefully interpreted and discussed. Getting loose with the language, particularly here with people of varying degrees of experience and knowledge is dangerous.

Wow, I go sailing for one day and you all write three pages of comments.

Out of necessity, this post has to be about semantics: the meaning of words.

I seldom use the word semantics, because most people use it improperly. You think semantics means mere words, without a difference in meaning. That is the opposite of what semantics mean. I won't quote the dictionary, I will leave it up to you; that will be a good learning experience. If I had used the word "semantics" descriptively, I would have done it the opposite of what you have ascribed to me; I would have said: "this is not an issue of semantics, because the terms I used did not mean anything different from the Colreg terms."

You also made a semantic error in your use of "ad hominem." Ad hominem does not mean to criticize others; it means to attack another person's argument by denigrating that person, rather than respond to the substance of his argument. When I said there were people here who do not even know what the word substantive means, it was not ad hominem because: 1) I was not responding to those people's arguments; and, 2) the criticism was relevant to the argument I was advancing--that I avoid using terms people may not understand.

Another word I want to address is the word "hypocrisy." I was amazed at how deftly you could jump from commenting on my "ignorant crew" to accusing me of ad hominem argument because I commented on people not understanding the word "substantive," all the while being blissfully unaware of your display of hypocrisy. BTW, please show me where I accused others of "uncivil behavior."

In closing, let's look at the semantics of your final argument. You talk about how "dangerous" it is to get loose with words "which have legal and financial weight." How can that have any meaning as a response to what I said "where there is no substantive difference between the words he used and the Colreg terminology, and where the terminology itself is not the issue (like my original statements that commenced this thread)."

By definition, words which have no substantive difference cannot create a dangerous situation or have legal and financial weight, unless one term is more likely to be misunderstood than the other. I use terms that are understood by almost everyone; your preferred terms are understood by perhaps 1% of the population and 50% of the sailors. If your criticism applies at all, it would apply to the Colreg terminology only.

Your post underscores what I have been trying to say here. I prefer to use easily understood terms (and there is no substantive difference) and avoid using esoteric (even if "proper") terminology; especially, if I don't know if that terminology is fully understood. Your failure to understand the far less esoteric terms you employed in your response, pretty well tells it all.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

yes ..I know.. the word 'anorak' comes to mind...
.

NOw that there is right funny....

[Matt Johnson]

I asked 10 people last night what they would do in a scenario using the term "right of way"..... Everyone single person said they would move to avoid a collision. Not one of these people had been outside of a harbor in any boat and 90% were drunk (one sober women).

Now, where is the issue really? The other more nuanced parts of stand on are important to safe passage for everyone, but the main discussion seems to be that some think by saying "right of way" instead of "stand on" people will instantly start playing chicken and never blink.


Matt

[weavis]

Originally Posted by bmz

You also made a semantic error in your use of "ad hominem." Ad hominem does not mean to criticize others; it means to attack another person's argument by denigrating that person, rather than respond to the substance of his argument. When I said there were people here who do not even know what the word substantive means, it was not ad hominem because: 1) I was not responding to those people's arguments; and, 2) the criticism was relevant to the argument I was advancing--that I avoid using terms people may not understand.

Another word I want to address is the word "hypocrisy." I was amazed at how deftly you could jump from commenting on my "ignorant crew" to accusing me of ad hominem argument because I commented on people not understanding the word "substantive," all the while being blissfully unaware of your display of hypocrisy. BTW, please show me where I accused others of "uncivil behavior."

In closing, let's look at the semantics of your final argument. You talk about how "dangerous" it is to get loose with words "which have legal and financial weight." How can that have any meaning as a response to what I said "where there is no substantive difference between the words he used and the Colreg terminology, and where the terminology itself is not the issue (like my original statements that commenced this thread)."

By definition, words which have no substantive difference cannot create a dangerous situation or have legal and financial weight, unless one term is more likely to be misunderstood than the other. I use terms that are understood by almost everyone; your preferred terms are understood by perhaps 1% of the population and 50% of the sailors. If your criticism applies at all, it would apply to the Colreg terminology only.

Your post underscores what I have been trying to say here. I prefer to use easily understood terms (and there is no substantive difference) and avoid using esoteric (even if "proper") terminology; especially, if I don't know if that terminology is fully understood. Your failure to understand the far less esoteric terms you employed in your response, pretty well tells it all.

Im not a lawyer.
I go to court maybe 3 days a month for legal issues pertaining to medical cases. I have done for 25 years.

As far as terminology goes, it is my experience in a court scenario that if you use the wrong expression or explanation, you lose the case. Words mean specific things and proper terminology is required, especially when describing a procedure and the progression of. Make it vague or incorrect.. your going no where fast.

I have on several occasions been in court where the judge has sent everyone home or dismissed the case simply because different phrases or wording has been used. I have often asked our counsel to get the other side to be more clear or precise as we cannot be sure of what they are refering to. The judge would get ticked after about the 4th complaint. This particular judge was an ex dr who went into law, eventually he would demand without our request for absolute preciseness.

It matters in medicine. I think it might matter in court in maritime law.

Surely it behoves all sailors to LEARN the correct COLREGS terminology and pass it on via USAGE rather than sit and argue about it..

Theres $10 worth.