Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I have a hard copy of the 1960 rools ... effective from 1st September 1965.... a small booklet handed out by the MNAOA 'for the information of their members'.

You are correct , no mention of 'right of way', 'burdened', 'privileged', 'give way' or 'stand on' anywhere in the rules.....

The expression 'giving-way vessel' is used in Rule 21 but that's it.

In the rules effective from 1st September 1975 the only use of 'give way' and 'stand on' is in the headers of rules 16 and 17.... while 'giving way vessel' appears twice , and 'give way' vessel' once , within rule 17... the **new** rule 21.

Indeed. And thanks to Ramblinrod for questioning this. It seems I may have posted wrong information about its having been the 1972 revisions. This is one description of the changes:

"First, back in the day, vessels were designated as 'privileged' and 'burdened.' The privileged boat would hold her course and speed and the burdened boat would take 'early and substantial' action to avoid the collision. 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 --– 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."

That's from the U.S. Naval Institute.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...PnUmZX-IlVAHZA



I'll try to dig up the correct information about which edition of the COLREGs this happened in.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

My "ignorance"? Hmmm.

I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake -- I'm a lawyer, and spent many years doing it for money. "Scoring points" among strangers holds no interest for me. I engage in these discussions in order to learn from those who know more than I do, and to help others with things I know more about, and maybe most importantly, to hone my ideas, finding flaws in them, with challenges from smart people who disagree with me.

Therefore, I sense that there is not much in it for me, in responding to this post. But briefly:

1. I am not much interested in terminology -- I am interested in principles of collision avoidance. It was you who tried to turn it into a "debate" over "mere semantics", but it was never that.

2. The full quote was this:



What was objected to in this post was not terminology at all, but a large number of errors of substance:

a. Class B targets are "all small and maneuverable"
b. Class A targets are "not maneuverable"
c. You must give way to "all Class A targets"

I have shown with facts and math about maneuverability of different kinds of vessels in open water.

Other posters have pointed out that you can't make such assumptions about other vessels based on AIS class.

"c" flatly contradicts the COLREGs

Elsewhere you said that "large commercial vessels, by virtue of their size and/or draft, are stand on vessels," which as almost everyone knows, also contradicts the COLREGs, and is dangerously wrong.


For the record, these are the things which were challenged, and not only be me, and which were rebutted. The question of terminology was an obfuscating distraction.

1)

"My "ignorance"? Hmmm. "

Yes, if I just wanted to put you down, I would belittle your ignorance, and make a big issue over your incorrect use of words like you did with me in the quote that started this thread. But, I said I didn't want to do that.

2) I am a lawyer too (retired). And one of the things left over from my professional career is a distaste for disingenuous argument tactics--strawmen, ad hominem, bringing in extraneous irrelevant issues, etc.

3) If you are not interested in terminology, why did you attack mine? And don't say you're only interested in principles of collision avoidance, that is not the title of this thread and that is not the issue that you presented on page 1 of this thread.

4) You allege: "It was you who tried to turn it into a "debate" over "mere semantics." Alleging something does not make it so, so kindly if you can, show me where I tried to turn the issue to "mere semantics" (for the purposes of this discussion I will use the word "semantics" as you did--as the opposite of substantive. If we use the term semantics correctly, I agree we could call this an issue of semantics. But I never use the term "mere semantics".). In contrast to your allegation, here is how I tried to steer the "debate:"
"I have been asking, begging, pleading, ad nausea for anyone to show me the substantive difference between "yield to you" and "should yield" versus the schoolmarm "give way to you" and "should give way," and "burden[ed] vessel" versus the schoolmarm "give way vessel." But no one ever does; instead, they either attack me ad hominem or like you did above-- go off to attack terminology I did not use."
Notwithstanding the above, you refuse to show me a substantive difference.

Don't forget exactly what my position is:
"As I've said earlier, we should all understand the Colreg terminology and use it when appropriate. But it is not appropriate to use it as an attack on a commentor, 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)."


5) You state:

"2. The full quote was this:"

and then you proceed to include a long quote from a post of mine in a different thread, the majority of which was never before cited or quoted in this thread. After you cite that new material, you try to bring in new arguments on issues which aren't even included in this thread:

"What was objected to in this post was not terminology at all, but a large number of errors of substance:"then you list three new arguments not previously raised here
"a.Class B targets are "all small and maneuverable"
b. Class A targets are "not maneuverable"
c. You must give way to "all Class A targets" "

But, as noted above, that has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is all about the correct terminology ONLY; Here's how you started this thread:

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

Sorry, I am not going to allow you to evade the issue here by bringing in new material irrelevant to the issues here.*

So, from lawyer to lawyer, how about stop playing games. And please show me the substantive difference between "yield to you" and "should yield" versus the schoolmarm "give way to you" and "should give way," and "burden[ed] vessel" versus the schoolmarm "give way vessel." If you can't, then please acknowledge that you can't.


* (Interestingly, when I tried to respond to those issues on that other thread--Re: Collision Avoidance -- Dealing with Multiple Targets, you objected saying:

"This tread is on advanced topics, on one specific and narrow topic, actually. These comments are beginner level stuff, and it is a distraction. It's not to say that these questions are not interesting -- they are. But they are not for this thread. I'm starting a new one just for this discussion ."

( That"new one" is this thread)
Contrary to what you allege here, I did try to respond to you and others in that other thread. But there somewhat like you're doing here, rather than respond to the substance of my argument, you insisted that I come to this new thread. If you wish, I will be happy to return to that thread to pick up with those arguments. So please kindly tell me which you prefer (but first please have my deleted posts on that thread returned to their proper position).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by bmz

1) Yes, if I just wanted to put you down, I would belittle your ignorance . . . .

If you have some actual question of substance you would like to discuss, I will be glad to participate.

But I can't perceive anything in this post but a desire to mud-wrestle, and we don't do that on here. Sailing Anarchy is a good place for that, if that's what you're looking for.

[El Pinguino]

So, if I am ever down below having a quiet scratch and the helm asks me 'I have a light three points on the xx bow... do we have right of way ?' I shall - in future - berate them about incorrect usage and spend the next half hour or two explaining to them that they are indeed a very foolish and ignorant person... by which time we shall have been run down... sunk ... and drowned.

When people throw verbiage from pre 1980 'inland rules' from a land far far away into the mix one wonders if they really do know their subject.

Just how many of the last 138 posts have been like my imaginary conversation with my helmsman? Rather a lot methinks ....

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

...Just how many of the last 138 posts have been like my imaginary conversation with my helmsman? ....

Yea, my better half completed her coastal skipper's ticket last year, so now I can berate her at length each time she asks about 'right-of-way' and explain how incompetent her tutor really was ... (meantime we'll likely be run down by the other vessel).

But thanks for thread, even if it became bogged in mire - now I'll understand when someone mentions being burdened or privileged, as I've never seen those (US only?) terms before this discussion.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

So, if I am ever down below having a quiet scratch and the helm asks me 'I have a light three points on the xx bow... do we have right of way ?' I shall - in future - berate them about incorrect usage and spend the next half hour or two explaining to them that they are indeed a very foolish and ignorant person... by which time we shall have been run down... sunk ... and drowned.

When people throw verbiage from pre 1980 'inland rules' from a land far far away into the mix one wonders if they really do know their subject.

Just how many of the last 138 posts have been like my imaginary conversation with my helmsman? Rather a lot methinks ....

My Nautical college tutor told us that it was better to learn the basics of Colregs without deviation rather than have the judge explain it as he passed sentence....

Is it not better to use the currently understood LEGAL and DEFINED terminology rather than fiddle around with non correct terms that then will require translation to the accepted COLREGS understanding?

23:20 here in Seville Spain.

Aah... a bottle of Rioja just appeared... Should I have said wine to be precise?

Get with the program bmz............ Use the requisite terms and no confusion will ensue.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by weavis

My Nautical college tutor told us that it was better to learn the basics of Colregs without deviation rather than have the judge explain it as he passed sentence....

Is it not better to use the currently understood LEGAL and DEFINED terminology rather than fiddle around with non correct terms that then will require translation to the accepted COLREGS understanding?

23:20 here in Seville Spain.

Aah... a bottle of Rioja just appeared... Should I have said wine to be precise?

Get with the program bmz............ Use the requisite terms and no confusion will ensue.

Actually, Rioja is more precise than wine. Similarly, I could say that I am having Rioja tonight. However, if I wanted to be even more precise, I could say that I am having a Vina Alarde, Rioja Reserva 2009 tonight(true). So, precisely what wine are you having tonight? (No, I am not starting a new argument; that was just a "we have something in common" opener).

Remember, I did not oppose the Colreg terminology; I just opposed the improper use of the Colreg terminology:
"As I've said earlier, we should all understand the Colreg terminology and use it when appropriate. But it is not appropriate to use it as an attack on a commentor, where there is no substantive difference between the words he used and the Colreg terminology, and where the terminology itself is not the issue"

In the quotes that DocKhead used to open up this thread, he quoted where I objected to his attack on my terminology because, as I alleged, it was a "schoolmarm" attack which was not only irrelevant to the subject matter of my post, but more importantly, there was no substantive difference between the terminology I used and the schoolmarm (Colreg) terminology.

Perhaps the best way to show this to you is to state that I could never find myself in a losing position before your judge because I "yielded the right-of-way" to a stand on vessel as opposed to gave way to that vessel, because other than schoolmarm terminology, they mean the same thing. Similarly, I could never be held liable because I viewed my vessel as the "burdened" vessel as opposed to the "give way" vessel.

You went to a nautical college; but there are a lot of sailors who have not had the benefit of your education. There are even a few here who do not know what the word "substantive" means. Accordingly, when I give the helm of my boat to someone else, I could say don't forget that we are the stand on vessel; but I continue to feel more comfortable saying "we have the right-of-way, but you must maintain your course."

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. And thanks to Ramblinrod for questioning this. It seems I may have posted wrong information about its having been the 1972 revisions. This is one description of the changes:

"First, back in the day, vessels were designated as 'privileged' and 'burdened.' The privileged boat would hold her course and speed and the burdened boat would take 'early and substantial' action to avoid the collision. 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 --– 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."

That's from the U.S. Naval Institute.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...PnUmZX-IlVAHZA



I'll try to dig up the correct information about which edition of the COLREGs this happened in.

Hmmmm...'back in the day' just doesn't do it for me....

I've been back as far as 1890/97 ... I believe they were the first international rules.....

No mention there about right of way, burdened, or priviliged...

The author does use the term 'right of way' once , in his interpretation of Article 27. That appears to be it.

Maybe 'back in the day' was back in the day when Noah was still a deckboy......

enjoy


https://archive.org/stream/rulesroad...e/n23/mode/2up

https://archive.org/stream/rulesroad...e/n81/mode/2up

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Hmmmm...'back in the day' just doesn't do it for me....

I've been back as far as 1890/97 ... I believe they were the first international rules.....

No mention there about right of way, burdened, or priviliged...

The author does use the term 'right of way' once , in his interpretation of Article 27. That appears to be it.

Maybe 'back in the day' was back in the day when Noah was still a deckboy......

enjoy

I'vw become more and more convinced that the whole concept of right of way, burdened and privileged is US-centric, based on old US Inland Rules (which were superseded in 1980) and has never been part of any International Conventions or Rules.

Unfortunately, some US training establishments haven't caught up and still teach using the pre-1980 terminology.

And some sailors who were taught pre-1980 or taught using an outdated syllabus are set in their ways and can't or won't grasp the fundamental difference between "right of way" and "privileged" versus "stand-on".

Just to confirm the current USCG stance on this:
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ

5. Who has the "right of way" on the water? The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)). Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10). The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances; no Rule exonerates any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2). Neglect, among other things, could be not maintaining a proper look-out (Rule 5), use of improper speed (Rule 6), not taking the appropriate actions to determine and avoid collision (Rule 7 & 8) or completely ignoring your responsibilities under the Rules.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'vw become more and more convinced that the whole concept of right of way, burdened and privileged is US-centric, based on old US Inland Rules (which were superseded in 1980) and has never been part of any International Conventions or Rules.

Unfortunately, some US training establishments haven't caught up and still teach using the pre-1980 terminology.

...........

You're not Robinson Crusoe!

[Stu Jackson]

Thanks for that one, Stu.

Very helpful.

Seems if folks stop arguing about terms that aren't longer in use, and may never have been!!!, things would be a lot simpler.

The "I'm right, you're wrong" crowd does get tiresome, especially when it is directed at a frequent contributor who has provided important and useful information on a regular basis.

I'm sure, Stu, we could fit an amps and amp hour reference in here somewhere, couldn't we?

Originally Posted by StuM

I'vw become more and more convinced that the whole concept of right of way, burdened and privileged is US-centric, based on old US Inland Rules (which were superseded in 1980) and has never been part of any International Conventions or Rules.

Unfortunately, some US training establishments haven't caught up and still teach using the pre-1980 terminology.

And some sailors who were taught pre-1980 or taught using an outdated syllabus are set in their ways and can't or won't grasp the fundamental difference between "right of way" and "privileged" versus "stand-on".

Just to confirm the current USCG stance on this:
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ

5. Who has the "right of way" on the water? The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)). Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10). The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances; no Rule exonerates any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2). Neglect, among other things, could be not maintaining a proper look-out (Rule 5), use of improper speed (Rule 6), not taking the appropriate actions to determine and avoid collision (Rule 7 & 8) or completely ignoring your responsibilities under the Rules.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by StuM

And some sailors who were taught pre-1980 or taught using an outdated syllabus are set in their ways and can't or won't grasp the fundamental difference between "right of way" and "privileged" versus "stand-on".

.

I don't think that you meant "fundamental difference." Fundamentally, they are all similar terms describing collision avoidance. However, there may or may not be a "substantive difference."(a difference that makes a difference) Hence, if the difference is only in terminology, then there is no substantive difference.

For example. If you notice my discussion with Dockhead above, I used terms that were not substantively different from the Colreg terms. Moreover, even though I know the Colreg terminology, I will continue to use them where they are likely to be more easily understood--everyone knows what yield the right-of-way means (although probably not here, because there are simply too many with a schoolmarm mentality).

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

***
The "I'm right, you're wrong" crowd does get tiresome,

***

I certainly agree with you there; in fact this entire thread was generated because I said that it was inappropriate to attack someone here simply because they didn't use the Colreg terminology when there was no substantive difference between the terms used and the Colreg terminology.

My position is that no one should attack anyone simply because he wants to attack. Hence, I most certainly agree with you that "The 'I'm right, you're wrong' crowd does get tiresome." My biggest problem here is getting people to practice what they preach

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by bmz

... "The 'I'm right, you're wrong' crowd does get tiresome." My biggest problem here is getting people to practice what they preach

You are correct ... but now both of us are again guilty of the same thing! It's a no-win thing I'm afraid.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by bmz

<>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My position is that no one should attack anyone simply because he wants to attack. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Once you understands the concept that disagreeing with you is NOT "attacking" you, it might be possible that one could just learn something.

Here's another approach: If "burdened" and "privileged" either NEVER appeared in Colregs, and/or was ELIMINATED in 1972, 1980 or some other year when I was a LOT younger than my 71 years, why is it that some maintain that it should still be employed instead of the words that ACTUALLY DO APPEAR in the regs?