Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[El Pinguino]

There is a big difference between words being removed because they are incorrect and confusing and words that have **never** been in the International regs ( I couldn't care less about the words that are used on riverboats navigating the upper reaches of the Butfud River ).

If someone wants to use 'right of way' thats fine by me just so long as they are aware they don't have 'absolute' right of way.... Hubert Moore drew attention to that in his book back in 1900.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by bmz

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).

You think wrong. I meant "fundamental difference".

Fundamentally, they are completely opposite concepts: right versus obligation.
That is a very substantive difference.

--
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
Or for the more biblically inclined: Jeremiah 5:21

[transmitterdan]

It happens a lot in this forum and others where someone posts a "correction" and the person being "corrected" claims they have been attacked. I have seen very few "attacks" on CF but lots of claims of "attack". If you think you are being attacked try to step back and see it for what it is and don't read into it something that is not there. bmz has not been attached by anyone in my opinion.

Finally, it is not correct to say "right of way" is the same (or substantially the same) as "stand on". They are polar opposite in the plain language meaning of the words and concepts. That is not an attack on anyone but a simple statement about the meaning of words. Lighten up folks.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It happens a lot in this forum and others where someone posts a "correction" and the person being "corrected" claims they have been attacked. ...

Often it's due to the wording of those corrections inferring a sort of put-down. If we could all try to refrain from those itsy-bitsy put-downs (or slights, or one-upmanship), and our responses to them, it would make these threads so much more enjoyable IMO. It does mean conscientiously re-writing our initial drafts, where we fire up and say, "No, that's not right..." so I guess it's not gonna happen soon ... or maybe I'm just over-sensitised to put-downs.

[transmitterdan]

I agree we need to reread our posts before hitting send. But "that's not right" is not the same as a "put down" in my opinion. I see a lot of people that don't see it that way though. I wish we could simply disagree without assuming there is something personal intended. As in this post which is not intended to be a personal attack.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

........
Finally, it is not correct to say "right of way" is the same (or substantially the same) as "stand on". They are polar opposite in the plain language meaning of the words and concepts. That is not an attack on anyone but a simple statement about the meaning of words. Lighten up folks.

Yes... but.... the plain language meaning of right of way as used by landsmen is quite different to the plain language usage as used by sailors....

Frinstance the law relating to right of way over private property in Scotland is quite different to the law in England and the plain language usage of right of way when speaking of motor vehicles on public roads is quite different again.

Meanwhile the Shorter Oxford also says it can be used in relation to railways while giving equal billing to both the land and the sea usage mentioned above...

I don't think there is one 'plain language' meaning.....

[Dockhead]

Then all the more reason to use the correct, precise term, isn't it?

Lots of less experienced sailors bring the land concept of "right of way" to the water, which is a real problem. Do we want to feed this misunderstanding by using the less precise term, which they are guaranteed to misunderstand?

Terminology is all about communication. If you want to be understood clearly, then it really helps a lot to speak clearly, and to avoid sloppy use of ambiguous terms which are likely to be misunderstood.

But again - terminology is by far not the most important thing being discussed in this thread, and I rather regret that such a big deal has been made out of it.

[bmz]

You said:

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".

Then I said:

"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)"

Then you:

Originally Posted by StuM

You think wrong. I meant "fundamental difference".

Fundamentally, they are completely opposite concepts: right versus obligation.
That is a very substantive difference.

Webster's defines "fundamental" as:
1.a. "serving as an original or generating source"
2.a. "dealing with general principles rather than practical application"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamental

So you think that "privileged" and "stand on" are original or generating sources that do not deal with practical application? They are original or generating sources for what two different bodies of knowledge? And if they don't address practical applications, why are we wasting all of our time arguing over them?

I know you like to refer to the Bible; is it okay if I discuss the Bible-- Chapman Piloting and Seamanship, 66ed. 2009.

Chapman describes "privileged", "stand on", "burdened" and "give way" as all part of the "right of way rules,"stating specifically:

"Officially, the privileged vessel is now the stand on vessel, the burden vessel is now the give way vessel."

Id at 150.
Chapman uses privileged and stand on, and burdened and give way as synonyms extensively. Id at 156 – 162. e.g. "stand on (privileged) vessel" id at 158.

Moreover, there are modern publications which use privilege/burden exclusively:
–********

*" A sailboat running free is burden to one who is close hauled
–********* If both sailboats are close hauled the one with a starboard tack is the privileged one
–********* If both sailboats are running free the one with a starboard run is the privileged one
–********* If both sailboats are running free and moving in the same direction the leeward boat is privileged
–********* A sailboat with wind abaft is the burden vessel
***
SAIL BOATS MEETING POWER BOATS*
Sailing vessels are privileged over power vessels UNLESS the sailboat is over taking a power boat or the power boat is a fishing vessel engaged in fishing. Barges have Right of Way over all in the Intracoastal Waterway.*

FISHING VESSELS*
Vessels engaged in fishing (using nets, trawls, or lines) have Right of Way over other vessels. HOWEVER fishing vessels do NOT have the right to block navigation channels while fishing.*

ADDITION RULES
–********* Privileged vessels must maintain course and speed when maneuverers are occurring
–********* Burden vessels should pass privileged vessels astern"

Boating Safety – Right of Way: Part 4 of 16 » Marine Sciences (Before you criticize this source as "only an extension service," be careful that there are no Gators around when you do that)

Another modern source:

"Right Of Way
All the gear in the world won't help unless you know the basic rules.
The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) say if you are in immediate danger, then a departure from the right-of-way rules may be necessary. Put another way: Don't hit the other boat even if the rules say you're the privileged vessel.
***
The boat on your starboard side is the privileged/stand-on vessel so it has right of way, and you should steer toward the boat's stern so as to avoid any confusion. That said, if you are the privileged vessel but the other boat shows no intention of changing course, then slow down and let it pass or steer behind it.
3. Sailboats: If under sail, they have right of way. If they're under power, consider the vessel a powerboat and follow the established rules."*

Right of Way - Trailering Tips - BoatUS Magazine (Again, before you belittle the source, remember a lot of us get our boat insurance through Boat US and their interpretation of right of way rules can be very important)

Accordingly, there is no "fundamental" difference in the terminology at issue here. But, even if there is no fundamental difference, I have said that we should not mix the terms if there is a "substantive" difference between them.

That's where my interest in this issue comes in. I was criticized because I used the terms "yield the right-of-way" and "burdened." However, inasmuch as there is no substantive difference between these terms and "give way" that criticism was inappropriate.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Then all the more reason to use the correct, precise term, isn't it?

Lots of less experienced sailors bring the land concept of "right of way" to the water, which is a real problem. Do we want to feed this misunderstanding by using the less precise term, which they are guaranteed to misunderstand?

Terminology is all about communication. If you want to be understood clearly, then it really helps a lot to speak clearly, and to avoid sloppy use of ambiguous terms which are likely to be misunderstood.

But again - terminology is by far not the most important thing being discussed in this thread, and I rather regret that such a big deal has been made out of it.

The 'land concept' of right of way in Scotland is that you can walk across private property.... however even there you do not have absolute right of way. If the farmer is coming your way in a BG tractor towing a very wide implement with whirling blades it is probably advisable to alter your course, yield, come about or just hove to.

[AKA-None]

I have to agree that a land based individual will take the phrase right of way to mean the other guy needs to yield in all circumstances. If anyone doesn't believe that then look at traffic statistics. We should use the correct terminology and explain it to them. We do this for other areas where specific terminology exists so why wouldn't we do it here?

Meanwhile back at the ranch I overheard a sailing vessel arguing with a tug on a river that they had the right of way since they were a sailboat under sail. The sailor was quite put out when corrected by the tug captain.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The 'land concept' of right of way in Scotland is that you can walk across private property.... however even there you do not have absolute right of way. If the farmer is coming your way in a BG tractor towing a very wide implement with whirling blades it is probably advisable to alter your course, yield, come about or just hove to.

. Ha, ha

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by bmz

I don't know if I tell someone that we are the stand on vessel and the powerboats are the give way vessels, how much of that they will understand. As I said, I know some sailors who do not understand it well. But everyone understands "we have the right-of-way, but we must maintain our course." You apparently have more confidence in the Colreg terminology.

The issue is not the best way to quickly communicate to ignorant crew members what "stand on" means. The issue is what the COLREGS say, and what it means. Education is a different subject.

And I believe that saying "It's like right-of-way, but different" firmly establishes that you know it's not a semantic issue. If it were a semantic issue, you could say "right-of-way" without any further qualification.

Originally Posted by bmz

Look, we have people here who do not even know what the word "substantive" means.

Interesting that you accuse people of uncivil behavior here and then promptly engage in ad hominem attacks. It seriously undermines your complaint.

Originally Posted by bmz

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).

I disagree. Carefully written and worded rules, which have legal and financial weight, should be carefully interpreted and discussed. Getting loose with the language, particularly here with people of varying degrees of experience and knowledge is dangerous.

[El Pinguino]

This is how this thread started... Post #1
'The terms "privileged" and "burdened" were banished from the Rules with the 1972 revisions,'

No they weren't.... they were not in the 1884 'Rules' and they have never been in any of the 'Rules' from that date onwards. It is interesting how closely our present 'Rules' follow the 1884 ones.

' There are notes to the 1972 IMO Convention available online if you want to read more.'

They are not mentioned in the notes to the 1972 Convention that I have been able to find... a link would be a fine thing.

'Right of way' afloat is mentioned by Hubert Moore in 1900....

However no mention of 'right of way' can be found in the Hackney Carriage Act of 1873 so one must assume that the term found its way ashore after the coming of the motorised carriage in the early 1900's., not the other way around.

[El Pinguino]

IMO Notes on the 1972 Convention.

COLREG

[StuM]

Originally Posted by bmz

You said: Then I said:

Webster's defines "fundamental" as:
1.a. "serving as an original or generating source"
2.a. "dealing with general principles rather than practical application"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamental

So you think that "privileged" and "stand on" are original or generating sources that do not deal with practical application? They are original or generating sources for what two different bodies of knowledge? And if they don't address practical applications, why are we wasting all of our time arguing over them?

Before you start quoting dictionary definitions, you may like to learn how to use a dictionary. (I used to teach high school English, I can help if needed )

Hint: where a dictionary gives multiple meanings: to put it in terms of "sets", those separate numbered definitions are a union, they are not an intersection. ( I also used to teach mathematics - you may like to study set theory ) .

IOW, you are making a basic mistake in trying to conflate two of several different definitions of the same word (neither of which is apposite in this situation).


Try the OED:
1.1 Affecting or relating to the essential nature of something or the crucial point about an issue.

I know you like to refer to the Bible; is it okay if I discuss the Bible-- Chapman Piloting and Seamanship, 66ed. 2009.

It's time someone updated Chapman's to reflect events since 1980 ( or to be less US-centric)

Moreover, there are modern publications which use privilege/burden exclusively:
–******** Boating Safety – Right of Way: Part 4 of 16 » Marine Sciences (Before you criticize this source as "only an extension service," be careful that there are no Gators around when you do that)

Another modern source:
Right of Way - Trailering Tips - BoatUS Magazine (Again, before you belittle the source, remember a lot of us get our boat insurance through Boat US and their interpretation of right of way rules can be very important)

They are precisely the sort of sources that I referred to earlier. They still use obsolete terminology and I gurantee that Boat US will use COLREGs or Inland Rules asappropriate in any decisions they make, not some 30 year superceded concept.

That's me fjnished with issue. You can lead a horse to water....