Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[StuM]

Originally Posted by rramsey

It seems the squabbling killed this thread.

Wanna bet?

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It will take me some time to go through all these materials, but I've just gotten through the first part of the Protocols of the first Convention in 1889.

It makes for really interesting reading! The term "right of way" is used quite a lot. But also a lot of other curious terminology -- the stand-on vessel is sometimes referred to as the "holding-on vessel" , and the give-way vessel is sometimes called the "keeping-out-of-the-way vessel". "Burden" and "privilege" also appear.

A typical sentence:

"One of these ships is called the holding-on ship, and has the right of way. The other of the two ships is the giving-way ship, and has to give way to the holding-on ship."

Page 531

So whether or not the terms appear in the Rules themselves, they were certainly used in connection with the Rules. At least they were in 1889.

I will keep reading (I need to do it anyway) and will post anything else interesting I find.

So the people who wrote the rules had no problems using the term 'right of way' when talking about the rules....
OK - problem solved - good enough for them good enough for us.

Got a link?

Nothing in here saying the expression has been removed from the rules or should be avoided when talking about the rules... A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules (Seventh Edition)
Author(s):
A.N. Cockcroft and J.N.F. Lameijer
ISBN: 978-0-08-097170-4

It can be found in PDF form btw.

[Catapault]

Semantics and terminology matters a great deal. Specific language is used to increase precision, gain clarity and avoid confusion in many fields of endeavour.

Mixing terms, using alternate terminology INCREASES confusion and reduces clarity in my opinion.

I'm ex Navy, and the correct use of specific terminology was drummed into us over and over, especially in life threatening situations, over radio circuits or with written procedures.

Also, it got expensive. Calling a valve or hatch closed, rather than shut on a submarine cost you a case of beer....

I personally believe there is no rational excuse for not using the correct terminology when it is known and understood. It is also far easier to just use it than it is to argue why it should not be used. Any such argument against use of proper terminology is, in my opinion, at minimum lazy, and at worst, used as an attempt to cover up a mistake in understanding with 'noise'.

In the case of COLREGS, proper terminology would be those terms spelled out in the CURRENT version of the regulations themselves. Not some alternate source or some version in history. (Things change and are updated, often for a good reason).

I honestly fail to see why this is even open to debate by rational people with a clue.


Regards

Mark.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

So the people who wrote the rules had no problems using the term 'right of way' when talking about the rules....
OK - problem solved - good enough for them good enough for us.

Got a link?

Nothing in here saying the expression has been removed from the rules or should be avoided when talking about the rules... A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules (Seventh Edition)
Author(s):
A.N. Cockcroft and J.N.F. Lameijer
ISBN: 978-0-08-097170-4

It can be found in PDF form btw.

So, what's your point, Ping?

At first it seems you objected that these words were never in the Rules, so how could they have been changed?

And now you object that the words were used after all (maybe not in the Rules themselves), so what's wrong with using them now (even though they are not indeed used in any serious, professional materials)?

Well, there's no law against it -- by all means, use whatever terms you want. Maybe you misunderstood the point people were making -- no one is trying to prevent you from expressing yourself the way you like. They are merely expressing reasons why one term may be preferable to another. You can call it "ooga booga" if you like -- it's a free country.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Catapault

. . .I honestly fail to see why this is even open to debate by rational people with a clue. ..

Well, some people don't care. And that's fine so long as we're not serving on the same submarine with them. . . .

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

So the people who wrote the rules had no problems using the term 'right of way' when talking about the rules....
OK - problem solved - good enough for them good enough for us.

In 1889. They probably had no problems with the concept that women couldn't vote either. Still good enough for us?

Nothing in here saying the expression has been removed from the rules or should be avoided when talking about the rules... A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules (Seventh Edition)
Author(s):
A.N. Cockcroft and J.N.F. Lameijer
ISBN: 978-0-08-097170-4

Nothing in there says that "pink elephants" has been removed from the rules or should be avoided when talking about the rules either. Does that mean the we should use the expression?

There are only two references to "right of way" in Cockcroft.. Neither of them the authors' own words In both cases they are quoting others and both are used in a negative sense, clarifying that there is no "right of way" in either instance.:

"It does not appear to me that the vessel in the channel has a complete right of way, and she must not hog the river regardless of the reasonable aspirations of other vessels. (Mr Justice Hewson, 1962)"
and

"The following principles on the use of routeing systems are laid down in the IMO General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing:
...
5. At junction points where traffic from various directions meets, a true separation of traffic is not really possible, as ships may need to cross routes or change to another route. Ships should therefore navigate with great caution in such areas and be aware that the mere fact that a ship is proceeding along a through-going route gives that ship no special privilege or right of way."

IOW, the concept of "right of way" with regard to "when vessels meet" is just not discussed by the authors. An obvious and entirely logical explanation of this absence in such a comprehensive and respected guide would be that it is not discussed because no such concept exists.

In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

The phrase "stand-on vessel" is, however used repeatedly.

I would point out the following:
"A stand-on vessel which takes avoiding action before it can reasonably be assumed that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action is likely to be held mainly to blame if practically simultaneous action by the give-way vessel causes a confused situation which results in collision." - Sure doesn't sound to me as though there is any "right of way" there.
As an aside Cockcroft does say:
"There were also regulations for vessels under sail including a rule, established in the eighteenth century, requiring a sailing vessel on the port tack to give way to a sailing vessel on the starboard tack."

If it's good enough for them, I'll go back to using the word "tack".

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So, what's your point, Ping?

At first it seems you objected that these words were never in the Rules, so how could they have been changed?

And now you object that the words were used after all (maybe not in the Rules themselves), so what's wrong with using them now (even though they are not indeed used in any serious, professional materials)?

Well, there's no law against it -- by all means, use whatever terms you want. Maybe you misunderstood the point people were making -- no one is trying to prevent you from expressing yourself the way you like. They are merely expressing reasons why one term may be preferable to another. You can call it "ooga booga" if you like -- it's a free country.

My point was in the very origins of this thread where you stated...

'The terms "privileged" and "burdened" were banished from the Rules with the 1972 revisions, for the specific purpose of being very clear about all of the above, and to try to stamp out all of the misconceptions which come from this "right of way", "privilege", and "burden" thinking. There are notes to the 1972 IMO Convention available online if you want to read more.'

I asked you to back this statement up... you still haven't.

That's it... I'm done.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I've just reviewed excerpts from the Colregs of 1960 and see absolutely no distinctive change other than terminology and semantics, the obligations of vessels did not change appreciably. The rules of Colregs have not really changed ever. (Before Colregs there were conflicting rules established by various countries.)

I think you just made DH's point....

Terminology and Semantics were meant to emphasize "grey areas" of responsibility and better support the Seamanship factor of Rule 2 and the dynamics of multilateral considerations

The various books explaining COLREGS discuss ad nauseum IMO changes in Terminology and Semantics to avoid black and white interpretation

One thing I differ with DH on his first post is that the Stand on Vessel is obligated to stand on.

It was never intended to be that rigid as it is entirely permissible to change course for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the other vessel.

[weavis]

And at 2:30pm today in mi casa, I will be serving Paella with a cheeky red from
Ribera del Duero...



I will be the Stand on host.

Well.. until I can stand no more.. I do have about 20 bottles....

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by weavis

And at 2:30pm today in mi casa, I will be serving Paella with a cheeky red from
Ribera del Duero...



I will be the Stand on host.

Well.. until I can stand no more.. I do have about 20 bottles....

That the problem with those cheeky Reds when you stack them on top of each other......

Pretty soon your NUC![emoji1]

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

My point was in the very origins of this thread where you stated...

'The terms "privileged" and "burdened" were banished from the Rules with the 1972 revisions, for the specific purpose of being very clear about all of the above, and to try to stamp out all of the misconceptions which come from this "right of way", "privilege", and "burden" thinking. There are notes to the 1972 IMO Convention available online if you want to read more.'

I asked you to back this statement up... you still haven't.

That's it... I'm done.

You weren't even the first person to point out that that statement was wrong! We settled that long ago. You must have enjoyed it a lot, to want to drag it out so long!

[bmz]

Originally Posted by StuM

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".

In a post before your post above, you suggested that I engaged in a strawman argument; but you didn't show that argument.

Everyone has their own debate style; but if I am going to accuse someone of an improper tactic, I prove my accusation.

Here is how YOU engage in a strawman argument in your post here:

The following is my post that you were responding to above:*

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

Now here are the words I used to start of this thread, referenced above:

"The class B targets are all small and maneuverable, and if you are a sailing vessel most of them will have to yield to you. In any event, when you get close enough you will both see each other easily and the burden vessel should yield"

The Colreg term for "yield to" and "burden" is "give way". What you did above, as just about everyone else who has attacked my position, is to attack the use of words instead of "stand on"--which I DID NOT DO in the referenced quote . That is a strawman argument!

I will repeat: 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

[Badsanta]

I'm still interested in why from the original example, that the ship was doing 17 knots in a thick fog sounding his signal and blames the guy with the NC visual signals.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by StuM

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.

Stu, thank you for helping me make my point exactly.

The fact is, everyone who knows racing, knows exactly what is meant when a competent racer uses "stand on", and every competent cruiser, knows exactly what is meant when another cruiser uses "right of way".

Some may call this loose use of terms "sloppy". And I s'pose they would be correct. Do we really want to make the terminology used on a sailing forum this "tight", and spend all of our time "schooling" each other on proper terms.

I for one would tire of this very quickly, and go out sailing.

However, others can't even allow a single use of "Amps", when referring to "A-hrs", despite everyone knowing exactly what was meant. ;-)

So here's another example. "Took 'em downtown." Please show me this term in RRS (any year). Can't? Then how can any competent racer know what this means? Yet the term is used frequently and those who race know exactly what it means.

If someone states, "That (blank) hopped all around outside the cabin, before I blasted it with my shotgun, and cooked it up in a stew.", they could use the term, rabbit, bunny, varmint, critter, fluffball, or any host of other names, and anyone who knows what may "hop" in this context, understands exactly what the person was talking about.

BTW, the correct scientific term is "Oryctolagus cuniculus". If I heard a scientist use this term without context, I wouldn't have a clew what he was talking about, whereas, in the context above, I would know exactly, despite never, ever, hearing or having an understanding of the word before.

(PS "clew" was used purposefully above. Did you understand what was meant? Would your understanding have changed if I used "clue"?)

All words are merely symbols (more or less arbitrarily selected by someone, some time, long ago) used to represent something.

In understandable context, it really doesn't matter what word is used. It can lead to confusion, when one doesn't know what one is talking about, but this is what makes schooling in "terminology and semantics" so fun for some.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by StuM

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.

Gads.... I can't find anything to argue with there.