Did I have to give way? Plus short-long blast.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think it's semantics at all. I think it is really fundamental.


Let's think this through logically:


"Johnny O'Day" is given to us as a model for what we should not do -- be "right and dead", versus prudently giving up that "right" and getting out of the way.


But how can you be "right and dead"?


Rule 17(b) says:



When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.



So if "Johnny O'Day" stood on, knowing the other vessel was supposed to give way, and kept on standing on until a collision, he was in violation of Rule 17(b).



There is simply no way you can be Johnny O'Day without violating the Rules.



And anyone who even thinks that is is allowed at all to carry on holding your course and speed once a collision starts to be imminent, just doesn't understand the rules, and this Johnny O'Day thing perpetuates this kind of misunderstanding and justifies not learning the right way to do collision avoidance. The result of it is that some people feel justified in just making up their own rules, and "boaters" maneuvering according to their own rules and not according to the COLREGS, are not predictable, and therefore a danger to others. And that is why they call us WAFI's.


I think this conversation has been carried on in CF a few thousand times already, but I guess it's still worth talking about.

Maybe it is you can be correct and dead? Just because someone follows this rule of that, if they get run over by a ship it is correct and dead. Granted boaters should know the rules, not like some of the arm chair sailors looking things up. Common sense goes a long way.

[David M]

Basically, the COLREGs do come down to common sense. There has to be some structure though so that everyone is on the same page as to how a potential collision is going to be avoided. That's what the rules do in a nutshell.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by David M

I just wanted to add to the discussion Dockhead that one cannot give up their rights or obligations even if they wish they could. One example is being obligated to hold their course and speed.

You cannot necessarily just head off as you wish willy nilly if there is a risk of collision and one is the stand-on vessel.

It pays to learn the COLREGS because out there you are obligated to obey them even if you wish you could ignore them and do your own thing. No such thing as weight-of-way or commercial vs non-commercial.

Totally agree, every word

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Maybe it is you can be correct and dead? Just because someone follows this rule of that, if they get run over by a ship it is correct and dead. Granted boaters should know the rules, not like some of the arm chair sailors looking things up. Common sense goes a long way.

Absolutely right, that "common sense goes a long way", and the Rules are full of common sense. And Rule 2 explicitly says that following the Rules is no excuse if you don't apply good seamanship -- "the ordinary practice of seamen".


But that's no excuse for not knowing or following the Rules. Rule 2 itself, the very one which allows you to deviate from the Rules when it's absolutely necessary, also says:



"Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules. . . "

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by David M

The captain of the port can designate that all vessels over 1600 tons have the right away over any other vessel under 1600 tons. This applies in SF Bay. I don't know about Puget Sound.

It's not necessarily what the COLREGS say. Local authorities have the right to add to or change the COLREGS for their area......that is in the COLREGS.

No such thing as semantics in the COLREGS. The wording is very specific and defined. COLREGS are written so as not to be ambiguous. A lot of thought over many years has been put into the COLREGS. Don't think you can interpret it as you wish to favor what you believe it means. Coast Guard investigators know case law and the rules like the back of their hands. They are judge, jury and prosecutors when sh*t happens. Decisions are often declared by the percentage of which side is responsible. Rarely is someone 100% clear of not being responsible.

What I've managed to find is the following -
Our Olympic class ferries are over 4000 tons.
The director of the TSS responded to an inquiry about whether sailboats are stand on vessels wrt ferries. He does not give the ferries any special privileges. He does a cya at the end saying the USCG might have a differing opinion.
http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cadence

It is semantics.

No, it is fundamental to collision avoidance.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

This contributes nothing to the discussion.

Let me guess, you were one of those quoted as advocating the same wrong solution.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Absolutely right, that "common sense goes a long way", and the Rules are full of common sense. And Rule 2 explicitly says that following the Rules is no excuse if you don't apply good seamanship -- "the ordinary practice of seamen".


But that's no excuse for not knowing or following the Rules. Rule 2 itself, the very one which allows you to deviate from the Rules when it's absolutely necessary, also says:



"Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules. . . "




Did anyone here see the Repo Man? The Alex Cox movie? The "code" of the Repo Men?

Well, the COLREGS are our Code.

I do not disagree. If the consequences are being held accountable or being run over by a ship I'll take the prior. I've been there in a restricted waterway in sheets of rain in the middle of the night. I guess holding my course would have relieved me of accountability if they could find me and my family. I feel sure the container ship never even knew my Clorox bottle was there and if they did could do nothing. I didn't know she was there until it was almost to late. Needless to say when I went forward and could see not only he starboard light I changed course. Or the wife did, take her starboard turn to the right, pull the f__n thing toward you. Not something I would repeat. Fortunately we didn't luff in the lee of the ship. So it isn't always black and white. Before someone chimes in on electronics, this was 40 years ago.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I do not disagree. If the consequences are being held accountable or being run over by a ship I'll take the prior. I've been there in a restricted waterway in sheets of rain in the middle of the night. I guess holding my course would have relieved me of accountability if they could find me and my family. I feel sure the container ship never even knew my Clorox bottle was there and if they did could do nothing.

On the contrary. Whether it was a "restricted waterway" or not:



(ii). The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b). When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

[cal40john]

Many of you are taking the position that the OP was crossing in front of the ship come hell or high water and was willing to die to stand up to his rights.

He prepared to tack out of the way. He reasonably thought the ship would want to turn to deeper water so held his course. When the ship blew 5 shorts he tacked and got out of the way.

He was prepared to take action other than stand on and altered course when his interpretation of the situation was proven incorrect. (From the point of view of the ship captain.)

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by cal40john

And you can be 1/2 mile to 3 miles away when you see that the ship isn't going to Tacoma and starts its turn into Elliot Bay.

Said only half in jest, wouldn't it be nice if ships had turn signals?

[JohnHutchins]

Originally Posted by cal40john

Many of you are taking the position that the OP was crossing in front of the ship come hell or high water and was willing to die to stand up to his rights.

He prepared to tack out of the way. He reasonably thought the ship would want to turn to deeper water so held his course. When the ship blew 5 shorts he tacked and got out of the way.

He was prepared to take action other than stand on and altered course when his interpretation of the situation was proven incorrect. (From the point of view of the ship captain.)

Yes. This has been a frustrating thread to read for many reasons. First someone quite new to the forum who seems to have been asking a good faith question got beat up on, more or less called incompetent and a danger to himself and others by longstanding members who seem not to have actually read what he wrote. The situation he was describing was a little baffling and so far as I can tell he probably was the stand on boat and the cruise ship ought to have taken some action to avoid him. Given that it didn't he was right to do that he did, which was tack and avoid the collision. Whether he waited too long is an interesting question I guess but bit irrelevant to his questions which were what might the short long signal mean and was there some rule he was missing that would make the cruise ship the stand on boat.

But whether he waited too long or not it seems to me that some folks here owe him an apology for some of the things they've said.

I'm inclined to think he may not have waited too long given his reasonable belief that the cruise ship would want to turn toward deeper water and that his action -- standing on -- was appropriate given that. The reality we face in a world of boats much faster than we are is that we depend very much on anticipating what other boats will do. Which is another reason this thread has been frustrating to read.

A primary reason the colregs exist is a recognition that captains acting in good faith to avoid collision could actually increase the risk of collision unless those actions are taken in a coordinated way. The do not exist to favor or disfavor categories of traffic, they exist to a make it a little more likely that people will know what everyone is going to do so that collisions are more easily avoided. And the person who is privileged, really -- who gets in the first instance the right to decide how a collision will be avoided -- is the give way boat. The "vessel not to be impeded" is put in the clearly difficult for many position of not immediately deciding how it wants to avoid collision and implementing that strategy it is instead required to maintain course and speed so that the give way boat can make sound decisions about how to avoid a collision. That is why "law of tonnage" comments, even in jest, drive me a bit batty. We ought to comply with the rules and stand on at least until it's apparent that the other boat isn't going to or it's apparent that we absolutely have to take some other action as we depend on the rules more than many other kinds of marine traffic.

A high speed powerboat can often avoid a collision by its action alone and regardless of what any other boat may do. That can be true until quite late in the game. Those of us who sail slow boats can very quickly find ourselves in situations where NO action of our own can avoid a collision and we depend utterly on the other boat also taking appropriate action or at least on correctly deducing what action the other boat is likely to take.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Said only half in jest, wouldn't it be nice if ships had turn signals?

They do, sound signals: one hoot = he is directing his course to starboard
two hoots = he is directing his course to port.

I actually wondered if the OP's incident was someone who accidentally didn't hoot equal hoots.

It might even be where the expression "giving a hoot" originally came from.

Ann

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I do not disagree. If the consequences are being held accountable or being run over by a ship I'll take the prior. I've been there in a restricted waterway in sheets of rain in the middle of the night. I guess holding my course would have relieved me of accountability if they could find me and my family. I feel sure the container ship never even knew my Clorox bottle was there and if they did could do nothing. I didn't know she was there until it was almost to late. Needless to say when I went forward and could see not only he starboard light I changed course. Or the wife did, take her starboard turn to the right, pull the f__n thing toward you. Not something I would repeat. Fortunately we didn't luff in the lee of the ship. So it isn't always black and white. Before someone chimes in on electronics, this was 40 years ago.

Perfectly good seamanship!


But why do you think you had any other choice?


How could you be "held accountable" for "holding your course"?


On the contrary, you were REQUIRED to change your course, and what you did was exactly what the Rules required. When this bit happened: "I feel sure the container ship never even knew my [boat] was there and if they did could do nothing", that is exactly what the Rule is talking about when it says: ". . . as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules."


I hate this "Johnny O'Day" ditty because it reflects, and reinforces a really fundamental, WAFI-esque misunderstanding of how collision avoidance works, and reinforces bad, WAFI-esque practices in collision avoidance. It implies a total misunderstanding of what it means to be the stand-on vessel -- that standing-on means you just charge on, like having right of way on land, and that you throw the Rules out the window if you take action yourself. It's not, and you don't. It implies that rather than following a systematic procedure, and doing different things in different phases, which is what is required by the Rules, you just make up your own WAFI-esque thing. It reinforces disdain for the Rules, which is just wrong on every possible level.



It is crucial to understand that the practice of collision avoidance is a SYSTEM, and it doesn't work if it's not done SYSTEMATICALLY.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

This contributes nothing to the discussion.

So, let's talk about the "rule of tonnage" and what's wrong with it.


People who cite the "rule of tonnage" are fundamentally trying to excuse their ignorance of the details of the COLREGS through deference. It is rare indeed that individuals who demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the COLREGS promulgate this "rule."


The first problem is that it doesn't always work. If you're a sailing vessel with a maximum speed of, say, 7 knots, and there's a ship (or barge or unladen tug) roaring around at 20 knots, you can't get away unless you anticipate the ship's next move. If you draw six feet and are in a congested area in a narrow channel where there are multiple barges or whatever converging on your location, you can't just open the throttle and head over to the shallows like a runabout can.


And if you're out in light airs and all you can make is 3 knots, well, that's why the COLREGS make you the stand-on vessel, because there isn't much you can do to give way to something 800 feet long with 2400 horsepower.



The second problem is that you're going to have to figure out where the line is drawn on your law of tonnage. Are you going to give way on that blanket basis to a water taxi? A 36' dive boat? A motor yacht that's six feet longer than your sailboat? They're all faster than you. How will they know what to expect? How are you ever going to get through a congested area if you're off cowering in the shallows for 15 minutes every time something big goes by?



The third problem is that retreating into the "law of tonnage" eschews other practical and expedient means of dealing with heavier traffic, particularly coordinating a meeting, crossing, or passing on the VHF, or using whistle signals. It's intimidating especially if you're in the habit of deferring to "tonnage." I think the best way the OP could have handled the situation would have been to call the cruise boat up on bridge-to-bridge, cite the converging tracks, and ask them how they would like to meet. That's how you do courtesy.


My approach is that I go about my business and follow the rules. I listen to 13 and 16. I don't call them up unless I have something to say. I watch what they're doing and try to anticipate. If they're taking a bend to starboard wide to keep away from the shoaling then I'll ask if they want a green-to-green pass. If it's tight and I'm passing 10 yards away I'll call and tell them that I'm paying attention and that I'm prepared for the wake when I hit it, so they can devote their undivided attention to the WAFI on water skis behind me.