Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[Juho]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

And again, what if you're sailing, hard on the breeze and you get headed?

I think the words (in Colregs) concerning sailboats could be more accurate, describing the reasons why motorboats are supposed to give way to sailboats. In addition to being slowish and more difficult/slower to handle, also changes in wind may lead to changes in course and speed.

The movements of sailboats should thus be seen (and possibly described in the Colregs) as more random than the movements of other boats. Other boats shall take this into account, and leave sufficient space, also in the close hauled scenarios.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Juho

I think the words (in Colregs) concerning sailboats could be more accurate, describing the reasons why motorboats are supposed to give way to sailboats. In addition to being slowish and more difficult/slower to handle, also changes in wind may lead to changes in course and speed.

The movements of sailboats should thus be seen (and possibly described in the Colregs) as more random than the movements of other boats. Other boats shall take this into account, and leave sufficient space, also in the close hauled scenarios.

Agreed. This seems to be an oversight in the regulations. It's quite likely that the stand on vessel, if it's a sailboat, could find it completely impossible to maintain it's course and speed.

[bmz]

My position from the beginning has been that the relevance of terminology depends on context, and if you going to criticize someone's use of what you consider to be the improper terminology, it had better be substantive and not just a juvenile way of attacking someone's position.

Rather than deal with hypotheticals--which can almost always be tortured into supporting your position--let's look at my actual statements to see if there was any substance to the criticism:

"The class B targets are all small and maneuverable, and if you are a sailing vessel most of them will have to yield to you. In any event, when you get close enough you will both see each other easily and the burden vessel should yield" More importantly you can't get into "as much trouble" crashing into a class B vessel as a class A vessel;[Crash into a class B vessel and you will scratch your fiberglass] crash into a class A vessel, and you will die."

So you think it's more important for your Cliff notes to focus on virtually irrelevant terminology distinctions as opposed to protecting the lives of sailors? . . ."

I don't think there is any substantive difference--but then again--I was the defendant. Can anyone show me that there is a substantive difference?

[bmz]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Agreed. This seems to be an oversight in the regulations. It's quite likely that the stand on vessel, if it's a sailboat, could find it completely impossible to maintain it's course and speed.

Also agreed.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by bmz

My position from the beginning has been that the relevance of terminology depends on context, and if you going to criticize someone's use of what you consider to be the improper terminology, it had better be substantive and not just a juvenile way of attacking someone's position.

Rather than deal with hypotheticals--which can almost always be tortured into supporting your position--let's look at my actual statements to see if there was any substance to the criticism:

I don't think there is any substantive difference--but then again--I was the defendant. Can anyone show me that there is a substantive difference?

IMO, you use the term 'class B targets' improperly. I know of multiple sailboats that carry an AIS Class A transponder.

[robbievardon]

Transmitterdam,this is not intended to be rude or anything else other than a genuine query based on your post.I do not have a copy of the C regs but I want to query the reference to "right of way". Having been on a large commercial vessel on 2 occasions where a rising tide was required to counter the lack of depth, (2 different rivers) with no bow thrusters and 1 fixed prop how does one decide how to avoid a collision when the water flow past the rudder is basically zero? Steerage can only be obtained by increasing engine speed creating potentially a greater hazard to all in close proximity

[BigBoater917]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This thread is to carry over some out of place (but interesting!) discussions from another thread.









So is "right of way" the same thing as "standing on"?

No, indeed! The whole concept of "right of way" is ENTIRELY different from the concept of standing on according to COREGS. The distinction is not in terminology -- the distinction is in the whole concept itself.

Use of the term "right of way" immediately identifies the lubber, and will get you an instant flunk with many examiners even in a Day Skipper exam.

"Right of way" is a condition -- it's a right. You have priority -- you can drive on as you like and it is entirely up to the other driver to avoid you. This makes sense on the road where cars and trucks follow defined paths (i.e. roads) and travel at very high speed. What collision avoidance procedure can you follow driving 60 mph down a highway, with a car standing at a side street? You have the right of way and you drive on. The car at the side street is entirely responsible for staying out of your way.

It works completely differently at sea. Let me count the ways:

1. Unlike right of way, the requirements to stand-on and give-way under the COLREGS is not a permanent status which applies during all phases of a crossing. These obligations arise only after (a) vessels are in sight of one another; and (b) a risk of collision exists. And this order of maneuvering ends when either the stand-on vessel has a reasonable doubt as to the efficacy of the give-way vessel's maneuver, or action by the stand-on vessel is required.

2. Unlike the vehicle privileged with right of way, the vessel designated as the stand-on vessel remains at all times equally responsible for avoiding the collision. Standing-on does not mean proceeding heedlessly -- it means taking the passive role -- "holding still" -- so that the give-way vessel, which has the active role, can work out and execute a maneuver. The stand-on role is actually less privileged than the give-way role -- the give-way vessel has an actual right -- that is, to initially determine how the vessels will cross.

3. Unlike the vehicle privileged with right of way, the stand-on vessel has no right to maneuver as it likes. Because, as has been said, standing on is not a right. Standing-on is in fact an obligation – you are legally obligated to hold your course and speed for a certain phase of a crossing with another vessel, and this obligation is not a joke, and not something you have a right to ignore. That’s because the give-way vessel – which is actually more “privileged” than the stand-on vessel, because the give-way vessel has the right initially to determine how the two vessels will cross – needs to be able to count on your course and speed in order to work out the crossing. That’s why commercial skippers say over and over again to us – “Stand-on, for God’s sake, when you are required, and don’t jink around out there like a WAFI. Follow the Rules!”.


The terms "privileged" and "burdened" were banished from the Rules with the 1972 revisions, for the specific purpose of being very clear about all of the above, and to try to stamp out all of the misconceptions which come from this "right of way", "privilege", and "burden" thinking. There are notes to the 1972 IMO Convention available online if you want to read more.

I think you're absolutely correct. It is beyond semantics. Right of way is often interpreted as " I can do whatever I want" as a commercial operator I often see the misappication of this. Stand on is a much more specific way of explaining that vessels responsibilities.

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by Juho

I think the words (in Colregs) concerning sailboats could be more accurate, describing the reasons why motorboats are supposed to give way to sailboats. In addition to being slowish and more difficult/slower to handle, also changes in wind may lead to changes in course and speed.

The movements of sailboats should thus be seen (and possibly described in the Colregs) as more random than the movements of other boats. Other boats shall take this into account, and leave sufficient space, also in the close hauled scenarios.

When there are calls for the rules to be constructed in such a way as to meet the differing challenges of being "powered by sail" consideration needs to be given to a few factors.
1. The regs can not cover all variations to situation and even to try to would make the documents way too long.
2. More prescriptive rules in relationship to vessels powered by sail would require that all masters of vessels understanding sailing (not going to happen). In fact the Colregs even recognize that in some cases even other sailors may not be able to determine what tack you are and and provides for where there is doubt that you will assume that you are the give way vessel.

The problem with the Colregs is that too many treat it like a recipe book - look at the index and go to the section on crossing situation, overtaking or what ever.

The Colregs are the set of rules agreed to by the International Community that were designed to bring some predictability to an unpredictable environment with the goal of preventing collisions at sea. As an International Convention they were written in accordance with certain legal conventions and principles. One of these is that a section in an Act or IA shall not limit the generality of the sections that precede it unless it is expressly worded to do so. In the Colregs the principle or presiding section is Rule 2 which clearly states that nothing in the rules will over ride it. This is mirrored in the other rules where there a reflection of Rule 2 (placed at the end of the rule so as to to limit the normal application of that particular rule.

The interaction with Rule 2 and the possible argument that they could restrict the general applicability of Rule 2 is one of the reasons why Privileged and Burdened were replaced and "Right of way" does not appear.

All IMHO,

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

Transmitterdam,this is not intended to be rude or anything else other than a genuine query based on your post.I do not have a copy of the C regs but I want to query the reference to "right of way". Having been on a large commercial vessel on 2 occasions where a rising tide was required to counter the lack of depth, (2 different rivers) with no bow thrusters and 1 fixed prop how does one decide how to avoid a collision when the water flow past the rudder is basically zero? Steerage can only be obtained by increasing engine speed creating potentially a greater hazard to all in close proximity

I cannot answer as there are insufficient specifics to comment on the required action in this scenario.

But a vessel constrained by her draft and maneuverability will most likely not be a stand-on vessel. It all depends on the other traffic. So my best guess is that such a vessel would need to display the proper signals about her situation and would be allowed to proceed on her way with other vessels giving way. But that's just a guess given the lack of info in what other vessels are involved.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by BigBoater917

I think you're absolutely correct. It is beyond semantics. Right of way is often interpreted as " I can do whatever I want" as a commercial operator I often see the misappication of this. Stand on is a much more specific way of explaining that vessels responsibilities.

Pure supposition.

I don't believe there is a single person in the boating community, who understands basic boating "rules-of-the-road", that truly believes "right-of-way" means a god given right without exception.

In reality, any boater who has not familiarized themselves with colregs, and truly believes they are entitled to do whatever they please without exception, is not going to be influenced by the terminology used in colregs or in reference to their obligations to others on the water.

This is why, this debate is simply a matter of "terminology and semantics".

If one learns colregs, they will understand what "stand-on" means; if they don't, they won't.

(Same is true if "right-of-way" is transposed with "stand-on" in the regs.)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Pure supposition.

I don't believe there is a single person in the boating community, who understands basic boating "rules-of-the-road", that truly believes "right-of-way" means a god given right without exception.

In reality, any boater who has not familiarized themselves with colregs, and truly believes they are entitled to do whatever they please without exception, is not going to be influenced by the terminology used in colregs or in reference to their obligations to others on the water.

This is why, this debate is simply a matter of "terminology and semantics".

If one learns colregs, they will understand what "stand-on" means; if they don't, they won't.

(Same is true if "right-of-way" is transposed with "stand-on" in the regs.)

A number of people on here have explained that not only the words are different, but more importantly, the concepts are different.

You may call a motorcycle a "bicycle" if you want to. Go right ahead -- it's a free country. And then if people are confused, you can say -- "motorcycle, bicycle, what's the difference? I know what I mean." Well, there is a very important difference between the concept of a motorcycle and the concept of a bicycle, something we express by using different words. Same thing with "right of way" and "standing on".

The differences in the two concepts have been explained in some details by various people. It is a lot more than "God given right in all circumstances" versus "right". Standing on is not a right at all -- it is an obligation, and there is no element of right in it whatsoever. It is absolutely totally different, and different in a way which very many recreational boaters fail to understand, including a number who have posted here. Think clearly; speak clearly. If you mix up unlike things in your speech (motorcycle, bicycle, stand on, right of way, etc.), then don't be surprised if people conclude that you are also confused in your mind, even if you're not.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by DotDun

IMO, you use the term 'class B targets' improperly. I know of multiple sailboats that carry an AIS Class A transponder.

Duly noted; accordingly you may change the last "a" to "most." But in terms of the subject matter of this thread, is there any substantive difference between the terminology I used, and what I call the "schoolmarm" terminology? BTW, I will apologize for the schoolmarm characterization, as soon as someone shows me that there is a substantive difference.

Moreover, I believe my comments apply to your criticism that I use the term class B targets improperly, as well. Nothing you said affects the validity of what I said about class B targets. Hence, it is a rhetorical criticism not a substantive criticism.

[BigBoater917]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Pure supposition.

I don't believe there is a single person in the boating community, who understands basic boating "rules-of-the-road", that truly believes "right-of-way" means a god given right without exception.

In reality, any boater who has not familiarized themselves with colregs, and truly believes they are entitled to do whatever they please without exception, is not going to be influenced by the terminology used in colregs or in reference to their obligations to others on the water.

This is why, this debate is simply a matter of "terminology and semantics".

If one learns colregs, they will understand what "stand-on" means; if they don't, they won't.

(Same is true if "right-of-way" is transposed with "stand-on" in the regs.)

Just because you choose not to believe it doesn't make it any less true. I have anecdotal evidence that is contrary to that but it's just that, anecdotal, my personal experience.

I treat most situations with recreational boaters as if they have no knowledge of the rules and no sense of self preservation. By maneuvering in accordance with the rules I at least have some defence.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A number of people on here have explained that not only the words are different, but more importantly, the concepts are different.

You may call a motorcycle a "bicycle" if you want to. Go right ahead -- it's a free country. And then if people are confused, you can say -- "motorcycle, bicycle, what's the difference? I know what I mean." Well, there is a very important difference between the concept of a motorcycle and the concept of a bicycle, something we express by using different words. Same thing with "right of way" and "standing on".

The differences in the two concepts have been explained in some details by various people. It is a lot more than "God given right in all circumstances" versus "right". Standing on is not a right at all -- it is an obligation, and there is no element of right in it whatsoever. It is absolutely totally different, and different in a way which very many recreational boaters fail to understand, including a number who have posted here. Think clearly; speak clearly. If you mix up unlike things in your speech (motorcycle, bicycle, stand on, right of way, etc.), then don't be surprised if people conclude that you are also confused in your mind, even if you're not.

But we are not talking about bicycles and we are not talking about God-given rights. So let's talk about the relevant terminology.

As I have asked, can anyone show me the substantive difference in the terminology I used that was the original subject matter of this thread?

I have known sailors who did not fully understand the obligations of a stand on vessel. So when I give the helm to a guest on my boat, I will often say "you have the right-of-way over powerboats but you have to maintain your course." I feel more comfortable that I will be understood than if I had said "you are the stand on vessel to powerboats who are the give way vessels."

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A number of people on here have explained that not only the words are different, but more importantly, the concepts are different.

And a number have agreed that it is just terminology and semantics. Throughout the ages there have been countless errors in popular belief.

Popular belief does not make anything true, necessarily.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You may call a motorcycle a "bicycle" if you want to. Go right ahead -- it's a free country. And then if people are confused, you can say -- "motorcycle, bicycle, what's the difference? I know what I mean." Well, there is a very important difference between the concept of a motorcycle and the concept of a bicycle, something we express by using different words. Same thing with "right of way" and "standing on".

No, this is not the same thing as what I am saying. I am saying that it doesn't matter what term is chosen to represent something in a regulation, as soon as that same regulation includes a clear definition.

The differences in the two concepts have been explained in some details by various people.

And those explanations are wrong, "Stand-On" and "Right-Of-Way" have always meant the same thing with respect to crossing situations, according to Colregs.

It is a lot more than "God given right in all circumstances" versus "right". Standing on is not a right at all -- it is an obligation, and there is no element of right in it whatsoever. It is absolutely totally different, and different in a way which very many recreational boaters fail to understand, including a number who have posted here.

Again, you are assigning the different definitions of the terms, not colregs.

If colregs defines the terms, they mean what the definition states, nothing more, nothing less, and any argument otherwise is simply a "terminology and semantics" argument that is totally irrelevant to the subject (exactly as I stated in the beginning, and no one has successfully refuted with a single fact or citation).

Does it matter whether one uses the term "rouge" or "red" when referring to a specific colour that is defined by a specification, (say R255,G0,B0)?

No, it makes absolutely no difference.

The definition specifies what all are talking about in reference to that colour, the definition pertains to.

Could someone who uses the term red in a different context mean something else? Yes. If they erroneously apply it to the instant case defined, would the terminology make a difference. Not one IOTA.

Again, there is no universally known understanding of the word "stand-on" outside of the colregs context. The only reason it is clear in this context, is because colregs defines what the term means. For that purpose, the term "red" could have been transposed for "stand-on" and it would have meant the exact same thing. Anyone who applies their own definition that the boat has to be painted "red" if someone has to give way to it, would simply not understand the term in the context, and they won't until they use the referenced definition, exactly the same scenario as with the term "stand-on".