Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For gods sakes, get out of your heads and arm chairs, quit getting your nighty in a knot over terminology, and raise a freaking sail. That should clear the nonsense.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps when those of us who could boat AND read prior to 1972 finally bite the dust, sink, move on, etc., the terminology "issue" will be put to rest.

Those that think that spelling and terminology "in the internet age" don't count, I believe, are incorrect. Would it not be similar to incorrectly suggesting one use the cunningham to raise the mainsail? I can understand when it may appear that voice recognition software makes errors in "translation," and many of us have cut the spelling Nazis some slack , their, they're and there are still fingernails on a blackboard to many of us.

If burdened doesn't appear anymore, why do some continue to insist on the use of the word?

If terminology didn't matter, I'm sure some electrical gurus wouldn't mind swapping amps and amp hours...see, doesn't matter at all!!! SAE and AWG? Metric, feet, fathoms...??? A yard's as good as a meter, right?

Thanks, Dockhead, for this clear explanation. Bookmarked this and the other thread.

[poiu]

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.

Where I'm from we use the word bike to mean bicycle and motorbike. I told my aunt recently we did a bike ride of 40 miles in a hour. She said gosh you must be really fit. Then I had to explain at length what happened. It's sloppy language. Quite right old boy.

I think that the existence of the term "give way" in the Colregs is part of the problem. It is too close to the words "right of way" and encourage the idea that the concept of right of way is connected. It would be better if another term such as "head off" for example were used instead.

You or someone needs to petition Wikipedia for change too, as they made use of the term 'right of way' on their entry for Colregs.

[Paul Elliott]

Theoretically speaking, I agree with Rod on the semantics issue. Just because someone may have an incorrect understanding of the old term "right of way" as defined in COLREGS, it doesn't change the actual meaning.

In practice, "stand on" is probably a better choice for the term, because it is less likely to be misunderstood by someone who has not properly learned the rules.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by BigBoater917

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.

Please share your anecdotal evidence, where one who fully understood colregs, believed "right-of-way" and "stand-on" meant something completely different with respect to colregs.

I know you can't because it isn't possible.

If they understand colregs, and that the definition for "stand-on" means exactly the same thing as the former term "right-of-way", then by very definition, they can't.

Conversely, please show me your anecdotal evidence where one who does not understand colregs, knows exactly what "stand-on" means in colregs context.

I know you can't because it isn't possible.

"Stand-on" only means something in colregs context because colregs defines it.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

In practice, "stand on" is probably a better choice for the term, because it is less likely to be misunderstood by someone who has not properly learned the rules.

Exactly. And that is, of course, the whole issue here. The overwhelming majority of the folks out there toodling around in boats have only the very vaguest understanding that there even IS something like the COLREGS. At most, they once briefly glossed over the rules. As I said before, here on Tampa Bay, that probably describes at least 90% of the people at the controls of a boat, on an average weekend.

Of course the semantics don't really matter to someone who understands the COLREGS. I mean, DUH! That is not the target audience for this change of terminology, though. The change of terminology is an attempt to get through the thick skulls of those who DON'T understand that this is NOT like driving a car. And in that context, it is much more than just semantics.

This, of course, won't change the minds of those who want to believe that it is "only" semantics, and that the words don't really matter. Fine. Believe what you want. And I will do the same -- firmly believing that you are completely wrong!

[David M]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

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

The Rules do not cover every minute detail of using common sense and good seamanship. The Rules in their own subtle way even admit that.

What would I do? Fall off (with respect to the wind before the header) and hold my new course and speed as much as possible.

[roland stockham]

This is off thread in a way but reading the comments I am struck by the number of people who appear to remember the change in terminology. A lot of people say that cruising is becoming dominated by older people and it's not something I paid much attention to but the number of commentators who would appear to have 50+ years experience is surprising as is the fact that there does seam to be quite a debate going on about a change made when I was still in grade school and I am close to retirement!

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by roland stockham

This is off thread in a way but reading the comments I am struck by the number of people who appear to remember the change in terminology. A lot of people say that cruising is becoming dominated by older people and it's not something I paid much attention to but the number of commentators who would appear to have 50+ years experience is surprising as is the fact that there does seam to be quite a debate going on about a change made when I was still in grade school and I am close to retirement!

I am older than you by a couple of years, but I doubt if I read COLREGS when it still used "right of way". However, many of the texts and literature I read (and still have in some cases) do use the old terminology. Funny thing about old print-on-paper books -- they don't update themselves!

"Right of way", "burdened", "stand on", etc., are what we call a "terms of art" -- words or phrases that have a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession. They mean what they are defined to mean, no more, no less. This may bear little relationship to any meaning these phrases may have outside the field in question.

I don't think it is useful to argue that the old COLREGS "right of way" means something else just because that phrase may have other interpretations in normal parlance. However, I can easily accept that "stand on" is a better term of art because it is less likely to cause confusion among the poorly-informed.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

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

Then you are still holding your course (to windward); in sailing, don't interpret course as 'compass course'. Just don't be stupid enough to tack right in front of the vessel that has given way.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

I am older than you by a couple of years, but I doubt if I read COLREGS when it still used "right of way". However, many of the texts and literature I read (and still have in some cases) do use the old terminology. Funny thing about old print-on-paper books -- they don't update themselves!

"Right of way", "burdened", "stand on", etc., are what we call a "terms of art" -- words or phrases that have a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession. They mean what they are defined to mean, no more, no less. This may bear little relationship to any meaning these phrases may have outside the field in question.

I don't think it is useful to argue that the old COLREGS "right of way" means something else just because that phrase may have other interpretations in normal parlance. However, I can easily accept that "stand on" is a better term of art because it is less likely to cause confusion among the poorly-informed.

Precisely. I have no issue with someone "preferring" the term "stand-on", (frankly I prefer it myself), I just have an issue with terminology police attempting to force their preference or opinions on others.

I know the regulations well enough that if
I hear someone use an alternate term, I know full well what they mean.

[robbievardon]

Transmitterdan,Scenario as follows, but change large cargo to cargo as by todays standards it would probably be regarded as small. Fully laden cargo vessel going upstream on a rising spring tide, progress intermittently interrupted by grounding and a rather alarming roll before the tide refloated her. Mid to Starboard side of channel. General river traffic, ie motor boats,sail boats, row boats, tourist boats, commercial fishing boats, 4 cross river ferries. River narrower than ships length.Notices were posted in advance (weeks)of ships visit at HM office and discharge docks. What would you put on the notice? For the most part the pilot would take the boat up on a night or early morning tide to try to avoid some of the traffic. Unfortunately at that time sail had right of way and I remember very clearly the time an old sailor chose to enforce his "right" to tack his way upriver in front of us regardless of the fact he vanished from view below the bow frequently and we had little steerage to manouver by and a full quota of other craft.Just what signals should the vessel have displayed. At least 72 changed that rule to a more realistic recognition of ships dimensions.Would you not say we should have had "right of way"?
following comments are from various posts. I fail to understand how a vessel in a stand on situation following the rules can have less right to decide how it should cross the path of the give way vessel than the give way vessel which in itself is probably the most frequent cause of collision at sea. Stand on is stand on,give way is the prescribed option for the give way vessel, bearing in mind that the No 1 aim is to avoid a collision so that in all cases a collision is the fault of both Masters. I wonder how many sailors/boaters could look at a cargo vessel and say how long it would take time/distance to get to dead in the water and just how far sideways that stop would take the ship. As for calling merchant ship masters stupid, I find that very disturbing and next time when they are called upon to run round in circles looking for some ill prepared sailors who are in trouble I would recommend the master declines the offer of help,saves his Company thousands of dollars and continues on his way to port.
Finally i find it terrible that any Forum designed to pass around information/ideas should degenerate into a platform for a slanging match, not just this thread but others too.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by justwaiting

1. The regs can not cover all variations to situation and even to try to would make the documents way too long.

The regulations can not list all possible circumstances, but they should be written so that the provide a complete framework that makes it possible for the legal system to determine who was right and who was (more) wrong in all cases. And those rules should be as easy to follow and as fair and sensible as possible. It may be useful to study if the rules can be made more compact, more accurate, more understandable and more fair. Not necessarily possible, but possibly possible .

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.

We must also accept the fact that most small boat captains will not study the original Colregs but will just learn few simple rules (from some other source) that apply to their boat.

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.

Yes, and many have not even opened that book.

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.

Yes. I tend to think that the philosophy is pretty close to "everyone shall avoid collisions at all cost, and here are some (legally binding) rules and guidance on what kind of actions and priorities the judge will consider important when he decides which one of you will be blamed more for the collision".

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Perhaps when those of us who could boat AND read prior to 1972 finally bite the dust, sink, move on, etc., the terminology "issue" will be put to rest.

Those that think that spelling and terminology "in the internet age" don't count, I believe, are incorrect. Would it not be similar to incorrectly suggesting one use the cunningham to raise the mainsail? I can understand when it may appear that voice recognition software makes errors in "translation," and many of us have cut the spelling Nazis some slack , their, they're and there are still fingernails on a blackboard to many of us.

If burdened doesn't appear anymore, why do some continue to insist on the use of the word?

If terminology didn't matter, I'm sure some electrical gurus wouldn't mind swapping amps and amp hours...see, doesn't matter at all!!! SAE and AWG? Metric, feet, fathoms...??? A yard's as good as a meter, right?

Thanks, Dockhead, for this clear explanation. Bookmarked this and the other thread.

I don't know if you simply don't understand, or are being disingenuous.

The Internet is intolerant of commenters who use schoolmarm attacks that have no substantive impact, in lieu of addressing issues of substance. That's why I have continued to ask if anybody could tell me the substantive difference between the terms I used and the schoolmarm terms.

And you respond:"Would it not be similar to incorrectly suggesting one use the cunningham to raise the mainsail?.... I'm sure some electrical gurus wouldn't mind swapping amps and amp hours...see, doesn't matter at all!!! SAE and AWG? Metric, feet, fathoms...??? A yard's as good as a meter, right?"

Do you not understand what an issue of substance is? Or are you disingenuously using issues of substance and pretending they are the "schoolmarm" issues that I was deriding. You may be thanking Dockhead for his "clear explanations," but it is obvious that you are not clear about anything addressed here.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

... At least 72 changed that rule to a more realistic recognition of ships dimensions.Would you not say we should have had "right of way"?

... As for calling merchant ship masters stupid, I find that very disturbing ...

Finally i find it terrible that any Forum designed to pass around information/ideas should degenerate into a platform for a slanging match, not just this thread but others too.

I don't know how to separate out the above quotes so this will have to do:

1. So now the vessel constrained by draught will "stand on" and the sailboat shall "give way" - as a sailboater, I have no problem with that. "Right-of-way" sounds good in this scenario but even the deep draught/stand-on vessel has responsibility to maintain course as appropriate (for example, not switch sides of channel for no reason).

2. I agree, I know a number of merchant ship captains and none of them are stupid. May I offer apology on behalf of whoever posted that. All on this forum will very much appreciate the rescue missions carried out, often in atrocious weather, by merchant ships coming to the aid of pleasure craft.

3. This forum seems to allow most views to be expressed without censorship, so long as valid, relevant information is included. Censorship in any form is always a hard call - when to intervene; that is the nature of forums and internet nowadays - hopefully the positive information exchange exceeds the negative impact, on balance. Doesn't always work out that way but I for one have benefitted from DockHead's thread and from much of the ensuing argument. Please don't take forum talk personally, just like pub talk, it's hard to control, or take back once spoken.

[robbievardon]

Poiu, you bring to mind a similar view I have expressed several times before: Do not believe any single source information. Research your subject through several sources or you can/will in the end make a fool of yourself .