Collision avoidance at night

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The '72 COLREGS did away with the concepts of "burdened" and "privileged", but Auspicious didn't mean "burdened" in this way. I don't have a problem with how he uses the term. Standing on is a burden indeed. Everyone is burdened, always.

I defer to my attorney. *grin*

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The '72 COLREGS did away with the concepts of "burdened" and "privileged", but Auspicious didn't mean "burdened" in this way. I don't have a problem with how he uses the term. Standing on is a burden indeed. Everyone is burdened, always.

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I defer to my attorney. *grin*

Have seen his bill yet?

This has been a most educational discussion, as are most/all of the COLREGS "classes."

Later,
Dan

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The '72 COLREGS did away with the concepts of "burdened" and "privileged", but Auspicious didn't mean "burdened" in this way. I don't have a problem with how he uses the term. Standing on is a burden indeed. Everyone is burdened, always.

Indeed! His usage was an exemplar of why the term was dropped and why it should not be applied to one vessel when discussing collision avoidance. As he, you (and I on many previous occasions ) have pointed out, both vessels are 'burdened"

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I agree strongly with Dockhead. There are no "finely shaded differences." The terminology of "right of way" was dropped on purpose decades ago specifically because all parties are burdened with responsibilities for collision avoidance. The distinction has nothing to do with people being thrashed on this forum. It has everything to do with the word, intent, and spirit of the COLREGS and the various national variations (Inland Rules in the US, the Canadian rules, ....).

I did not say people were thrashed, I said that some of these terms which we are debating, have been thrashed. No harm, we are just having an interesting discussion IMHO.

I do think we have to consider that there is value in determining which vessel, in a meeting situation, is the one that should hold it's course until it is apparent the the other vessel is not obeying the rules and there is a risk of collision. If we do not define which vessel is supposed to take action to alter course or speed first, then we may have chaos.

People have mentioned that there have been various terms used, over the years, to define the vessel that must take first action and which one should delay action until it is necessary to avoid collision. In any case this fundamental concept is still expressed in the rules.
And yes, of course, both parties are still responsible for taking whatever action is necessary to avoid collision.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by waterman46

People have mentioned that there have been various terms used, over the years, to define the vessel that must take first action and which one should delay action until it is necessary to avoid collision. In any case this fundamental concept is still expressed in the rules.
And yes, of course, both parties are still responsible for taking whatever action is necessary to avoid collision.

For over 40 years, there have only been two terms where risk of collision exists and they are clearly stated in rules 16 and 17, "stand on vessel" and "give way vessel".



There is only one other relevant term in certain situations: "not impede".

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by waterman46

I did not say people were thrashed, I said that some of these terms which we are debating, have been thrashed. No harm, we are just having an interesting discussion IMHO.

You're correct. You wrote what you meant and I missed the nuance. I get it now.

This goes to communication between vessels. It's a reason for repeating back what you thought you heard the other vessel said they are going to do. This is especially true when there is the potential for language issues such as, for example, Americans and Brits talking past each other. *grin*