Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[markpierce]

In my slow (six-knot) motorboat have had rare confused encounters with sailboats. Recall one exception several years ago a mile east of Angel Island in San Francisco Bay. A sailboat tacked without apparent reason resulting in an apparent collision. Only a sudden ninety-degree turn to starboard on my part avoided collision. Being kind, presume the sailboat crew was unaware of my presence.

[ramblinrod]

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.

I think you are making way too much out of it, and should give people more credit for not being totally stupid.

In the pub, after a race, when a sailor says, "I was on starboard tack so had right of way over the port tack boats at the start line", everyone knows full well they are referring to their "stand on" position, and would not bother to scold them or try to "teach" them on the proper terminology, because everyone knows they already know it, and to stop them for this frivolity, would interfere with, and take away from, their telling of the story.

To do so, would absolutely be just a matter of "terminology and semantics".

If some dense land lubber 3 booths over thought that meant the guy could crash into them if the port tack boats didn't move, it would not make one IOTA difference.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I think you are making way too much out of it, and should give people more credit for not being totally stupid.

In the pub, after a race, when a sailor says, "I was on starboard tack so had right of way over the port tack boats at the start line", everyone knows full well they are referring to their "stand on" position, and would not bother to scold them or try to "teach" them on the proper terminology, because everyone knows they already know it, and to stop them for this frivolity, would interfere with, and take away from, their telling of the story.

To do so, would absolutely be just a matter of "terminology and semantics".

To do so, would absolutely reveal that you know nothing about sailboat racing.

You should not confuse COLREGs with The Racing Rules of Sailing.

When sailboats are racing under the RROS, then "right of way" IS applicable and there is NO such concept as "stand on".
"Section A. A boat has right of way over another boat when the other boat is required to keep clear of her."

Everyone should know that they are NOT referring to their "stand on" position, and that they ARE using the correct terminology. In yesterday's race, we had right of way at the start line over another boat on the same tack as us - we were the leeward boat. We had NO OBLIGATION TO STAND ON. Indeed, if we had both been a bit closer to the line, we would have luffed up and forced them over before the start.

The closest RROS to the concept of "stand on" are Rules 16.2 and 17 and neither of them require a "right of way" boat to maintain their heading.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

If some dense land lubber 3 booths over thought that meant the guy could crash into them if the port tack boats didn't move, it would not make one IOTA difference.

In fact that land lubber would have a slightly better grasp of the situation than you.

Rule 14 (b) applies.
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However,
a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not
keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(b) shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not
cause damage or injury

[Kelkara]

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.

I think this is another case of the term "right of way" being used colloquially, but not strictly accurately. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike in England, in Scotland there are NO rights of way across private land. In both jurisdictions the law is the same defining what a right of way is, the difference is that in Scotland the courts have never definitively established where the rights of way actually go ... so all you have is the potential to have a right of way.

So to try and bring this back to the COLREGS ...

If you met your farmer in Scotland, then neither of you know whether a court would assign a right of way or not, so you are both the give-way vessel, and a turn to starboard would be appropriate ... unless the nature of the farmer's work makes him restricted in his ability to maneuver, in which case you should give way unless you want to hear five blasts from his highland vernacular. However in England, the hiker is confined to the narrow channel of the right of way, and the farmer shall not impede him ... and there are hiking activists who will stand-on to the oncoming tractor until the last second when action by the give-way vessel alone won't prevent a collision.

[El Pinguino]

Oh yes there are.. https://www.scotways.com/faq/rights-...st-in-scotland

Interesting organisation dating from 1845 .....

Back on track I did a quick google using 'right of way' and 'collision' and other associated words.....

Hmmmm.... .... scads of USCG and americentric sites using it.... State boating organisations in W Australia and Queensland... the (Australian ) National Maritime College.... the list goes on... and that was just a few minutes work so good luck to anyone trying to stop its use.

I still await a link to the IMO notes.

and also..

How come no-one has picked up on 'port tack' and 'starboard tack' which vanished from the rules sometime between 1900 and 1960?

They still seem to be in common usage.

[El Pinguino]

England v Scotland.... Rights of Way in England are designated ... in Scotland you can go wherever you like although wandering through someone's living room is not encouraged..

https://www.scotways.com/faq/law-on-...land-and-wales

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

How come no-one has picked up on 'port tack' and 'starboard tack' which vanished from the rules sometime between 1900 and 1960?

They still seem to be in common usage.

Possibly because "port tack" and ". "the vessel which has the wind on the port side" are synonymous? There is no potential discrepancy in meaning between the two terms.

[El Pinguino]

And stand on doesn't have different interpretations?

Tell me Stu, where do you stand on ants?

[El Pinguino]

And also... many commercial navigators would not have a clue what (port or starboard) 'tack' means.... so therefore it should not be used.

Doesn't translate well into Urdu and can be confused with other uses of the word such as 'hard tack'.

Any sign of the IMO notes on the 1970 convention - saying not to use 'right of way' - that is the foundation of this thread? Well half the foundation.... the other half failed the veracity test some time ago.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

In the pub, after a race, when a sailor says, "I was on starboard tack so had right of way over the port tack boats at the start line", everyone knows full well they are referring to their "stand on" position

For anyone interested, a good analysis of some of the differences between COLREGs and RROS,

There's No Escaping the Rules | Sailing World

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And stand on doesn't have different interpretations?

Tell me Stu, where do you stand on ants?

Not in Rule 17

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And also... many commercial navigators would not have a clue what (port or starboard) 'tack' means.... so therefore it should not be used.

Doesn't translate well into Urdu and can be confused with other uses of the word such as 'hard tack'.

Which is possibly why they avoided the terminology in COLREGs.

If there is anyone on CF who says they don't know what a port tack is, I will stop using the term. Until then I will assume that the "shorthand" version of "vessel with the wind on its port side" is understood by all here and will continue to use the short form where appropriate - since there is no substantive difference in meaning between these two expressions.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I think you are making way too much out of it, and should give people more credit for not being totally stupid.

In the pub, after a race, when a sailor says, "I was on starboard tack so had right of way over the port tack boats at the start line", everyone knows full well they are referring to their "stand on" position, and would not bother to scold them or try to "teach" them on the proper terminology, because everyone knows they already know it, and to stop them for this frivolity, would interfere with, and take away from, their telling of the story.

To do so, would absolutely be just a matter of "terminology and semantics".

If some dense land lubber 3 booths over thought that meant the guy could crash into them if the port tack boats didn't move, it would not make one IOTA difference.

I've said several times that I regret that such a big deal has been made out of terminology. Right terminology is important, but it's not interesting or complex enough to be worth derailing the thread over it. There are much more complex and interesting issues here.

FWIW, racing rules DO speak of right of way, so the racers you talk about were using correct terminology.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ramblin Rod beat you to point this out . I promised to get to the bottom of this, but I've been busy struggling with a broken generator.

Here is what the U.S. Naval Institute says about it:

"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 is 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. "

http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.c...EGs-part-1.pdf

That's just a secondary source, but similar statements are found in a multitude of sources. It is what I was taught in the '70's.

Nevertheless, Ping and Ramblinrod seem to be right -- I also can't find the terms in the Rules themselves.

I'll do some more research as I have time, and report what I find.

But the HISTORY of the terminology is not the important thing in this thread. The important thing is the difference in CONCEPTS between right of way and standing on/giving way. And the thread was for discussing other basic questions which arose in other threads, like whether or not commercial vessels are "stand-on, always, because they are constrained by their maneuverability and or draft."