Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[Matt Johnson]

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. "


So, the question should be "Did changing the term reduce collisions or did it just reduce captains using the term as an excuse in court?"

Matt

[weavis]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

I asked 10 people last night what they would do in a scenario using the term "right of way"..... Everyone single person said they would move to avoid a collision. Not one of these people had been outside of a harbor in any boat and 90% were drunk (one sober women).

Now, where is the issue really? The other more nuanced parts of stand on are important to safe passage for everyone, but the main discussion seems to be that some think by saying "right of way" instead of "stand on" people will instantly start playing chicken and never blink.


Matt

Matt. If a person thinks they have right of way, they will never move. I also state for the record that SAILORS are not landlubbers and should not be in a position to navigate without knowing the basic terminology. Same with driving a car or flying a plane.

The term is 'Stand on'. Its official.

I watch it all the time... currently working on a broken arm of a vacation sailor here in Andulusia. Vague description because it will go to court. Interestingly he used the phrase "I had right of way!" and had about 30 hours of actual motor boat experience. I know where the incident occurred and he should not have been there with his level of experience. He is going to find out the hard way about big boats and right of way.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I personally think that it's a very unfortunate term to use as it feeds some fundamental misunderstandings which a whole lot of recreational sailors have about collision avoidance

Perhaps this is the underlying issue. Please cite your support for this position.

In my opinion, anyone sailor with any competence whatsoever, understands "right-of-way" to mean exactly the same thing as "stand-on", when referring to collision avoidance.

Sailors without any competence at all, will not know what to do, despite what terminology is used.

In other words, this is merely an issue of terminology and semantics, in my opinion.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by StuM

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 )" .

*
As a lawyer with an undergraduate major in mathematics I have tended to practice both disciplines fairly often (I once took down an expert witness by showing that he had used the 1st derivative, when he should've used the 2nd derivative). Nonetheless I have never heard anything like that--neither in my English studies nor my math studies. So kindly teacher, would you cite me to a source from which I could become educated? (Other than yourself--I'm sure you understand)

And, you don't like Mirriam-Webster, and prefer to cite a dictionary that is not available on the Internet without a subscription.

It's time someone updated Chapman's to reflect events since 1980 ( or to be less US-centric)
***
They still use obsolete terminology and I gurantee that Boat US will use COLREGs or Inland Rules as appropriate in any decisions they make, not some 30 year superceded concept

.

So you don't like Chapman either. According to you, the piloting and seamanship bible used by generations of sailors is not merely wrong, or somewhat wrong, but fundamentally wrong! Are there any other Bibles that you think should have their terminology updated?

Like Chapman, Boat US uses that terminology because, although the words may have been superseded, the concepts have not been. And I can assure you that that inasmuch as there is no substantive difference between the words I used to start this thread and the current Colreg terms, the concepts and the meaning have not been superseded.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

... in Scotland you can go wherever you like although wandering through someone's living room is not encouraged..

I'm sure the link you attached will clarify, but just in case anyone takes the above literally, I believe the (relatively recent) change to Scottish law introduced a right to roam over "uncultivated land" only, and not through anyone's garden. Similar, I believe, to the law that has prevailed in Norway, since forever? Not relevant to this discussion but wouldn't want anyone to get totally the wrong idea about those heathen Scots.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by bmz

Wow, I go sailing for one day and you all write three pages of comments.

Out of necessity, this post has to be about semantics: the meaning of words.

I seldom use the word semantics, because most people use it improperly. You think semantics means mere words, without a difference in meaning.

Strawman (q.v.)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

I asked 10 people last night what they would do in a scenario using the term "right of way"..... Everyone single person said they would move to avoid a collision. Not one of these people had been outside of a harbor in any boat and 90% were drunk (one sober women).

Now, where is the issue really? The other more nuanced parts of stand on are important to safe passage for everyone, but the main discussion seems to be that some think by saying "right of way" instead of "stand on" people will instantly start playing chicken and never blink.

The issue that those people who "would move to avoid a collision" may well move when they are obliged to stand on (because they think that if they have "right of way", they are free to do what they want). And they are just as likely to make the situation worse by moving into the new path of the give way vessel.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is an argument that a sailing vessel tacking upwind, making regular and predictable tacks, is standing on and not violating its obligations to hold course and speed.
.

Please, you'll confuse poor old Ping. Allow me to translate for him:

There is an argument that a sailing vessel changing direction upwind so that the wind is coming from its opposite side, making regular and predictable changes of direction so that the wind is coming from alternate sides, is standing on and not violating its obligations to hold course and speed.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by weavis

Surely it behoves all sailors to LEARN the correct COLREGS terminology and pass it on via USAGE rather than sit and argue about it..

Theres $10 worth.

+1

[StuM]

Originally Posted by bmz

*
And I can assure you that that inasmuch as there is no substantive difference between the words I used to start this thread and the current Colreg terms, the concepts and the meaning have not been superseded.

For substantive difference between COLRGEs "Stand on" and the term "Right of Way", you may care to read this (posted earlier in a similar thread):

There's No Escaping the Rules | Sailing World

The third example is a clear substantive difference between "right of way" and "stand on".

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by StuM

Please, you'll confuse poor old Ping. Allow me to translate for him:

There is an argument that a sailing vessel changing direction upwind so that the wind is coming from its opposite side, making regular and predictable changes of direction so that the wind is coming from alternate sides, is standing on and not violating its obligations to hold course and speed.

Thank you... but 'its opposite side'? ......when did vessels ( musn't say yachts or ships... thats not in the rules.. ) lose their gender?

So how would you re-write this to get rid of the dreaded 'right of way'?

'DO SAILING VESSELS ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY OVER WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES?
By: Mark E. Ashley
Director Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound, U. S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound'

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

So how would you re-write this to get rid of the dreaded 'right of way'?

'DO SAILING VESSELS ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY OVER WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES?
By: Mark E. Ashley
Director Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound, U. S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound'

I wouldn't.

The document in question starts with:
"This question was recently received by Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Puget Sound (alsoknown as “Seattle Traffic") from a local sailing vessel operator who was inquisitive. " so the heading is an accurate reflection of a question asked - not an example of bad phrasing by the author. As such it is quite acceptable.

http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

The author doesn't use the words "right of way" at all in the document.
He simply says:
"The short answer to this question is “no,” but read on for a further understanding"

He then goes into further explanation using correct terminology.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Thank you... but 'its opposite side'? ......when did vessels ( musn't say yachts or ships... thats not in the rules.. ) lose their gender?

In today's environment, I wouldn't presume to assign a specific gender to any vessel. It's all about how it self-identifies. To make any such assumption based on traditional roles is sexist and offensive to many segments of the community.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by StuM

I wouldn't.

The document in question starts with:
"This question was recently received by Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Puget Sound (alsoknown as “Seattle Traffic") from a local sailing vessel operator who was inquisitive. " so the heading is an accurate reflection of a question asked - not an example of bad phrasing by the author. As such it is quite acceptable.

http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

The author doesn't use the words "right of way" at all in the document.
He simply says:
"The short answer to this question is “no,” but read on for a further understanding"

He then goes into further explanation using correct terminology.

So it is OK for your crew to use the expression 'right of way' and when you answer them you do not think it necessary to tell them that use of that expression is not permitted on your yacht sailing vessel and it is incorrect, that they are ignorant, and then bang on for several days about why they are wrong and that they should never ever try and play the 'semantics' card with you and that if they ever find themselves saying 'right of way' at the doctors he will amputate both their legs unless they recant and that you have a copy of the 'notes to the Hackney Carriage Act 1847' under your pillow to back up your arguments -even though you haven't?

Then I must assume that its OK to say 'right of way' .

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

So it is OK for your crew to use the expression 'right of way' and when you answer them you do not think it necessary to tell them that use of that expression is not permitted on your yacht sailing vessel and it is incorrect, that they are ignorant, and then bang on for several days about why they are wrong and that they should never ever try and play the 'semantics' card with you and that if they ever find themselves saying 'right of way' at the doctors he will amputate both their legs unless they recant and that you have a copy of the 'notes to the Hackney Carriage Act 1847' under your pillow to back up your arguments -even though you haven't?

Then I must assume that its OK to say 'right of way' .

Stop right there! Put that bottle down and back away from it!