Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Because it is in his financial interest to shift away as much blame.

Really they were both at fault legally, the question that was/will be answered in Admiralty court is the percentage blame of each and what damages each has to pay the other.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by 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.

Mark,

I agree with you. But speaking as a founding member of this thread (it was my "misuse" of terminology which started this thread), for me this thread was never about terminology; it was about using terminology as an excuse to make an ad hominem argument:

Yes, terminology can be important; and we should all strive to use the correct terminology, just like we should strive to use correct punctuation and spelling. But where you are having a substantive debate/discussion and the terminology employed does not alter the substance, responding by attacking the other party's terminology, simply shows that you do not have any substantive response.

(Message number 31)

[rramsey]

Here in the Netherlands we are currently having this gender discussion. No more "Ladies and Gentlemen" but something like "Travellers" or maybe even "y'all".

So no more "Man over board" but "Mariner overboard" or something like it?

Ships probably may no longer have gender either. After all, some ships may feel they are male, some female. But some feel they are neither, some both, some something else.

"it" may be insulting to ships. So what is it to be?

My yacht is female though. I am in my yacht and I would much rather she's a she and not a he.

No offense meant to anyone!

[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.

OMG!

Stu, According to Acronym Finder, "RROS" stands for either "Redwood Region Ornithological Society (California; est. 1962)" or "Repeated Recurrence of Osteosarcoma".

Somehow, I understood you to mean Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS).

Isn't that amazing?!?!?!?!!

Even though you clearly used a term (acronym) that was incorrect (according to some authority), I knew exactly what you were referring to, (unless of course you WERE actually referring to birds or cancer) in which case your whole statement was completely incorrect (RROS does not have the rules stated, you obviously have absolutely no idea about the racing rules).

How can it be that I understood what you were talking about (of course you weren't literally talking but I'm sure that you to are psychic and will know what I mean)? (Whoops, I used "to" instead of "too", I hope you still understand and aren't totally lost because of it).

I must be psychic!

Surely anyone who knows racing who isn't psychic would have totally misunderstood what you were referring to. ;-) (Meant to be facetious.)

Is terminology really that important?

For a rule book - absolutely, in that a defined term must be used consistently to assure clarity of definiton.

For a protest committee ruling - referencing that rule book, sorta, but really no big deal if someone slips in a term that is not 100% correct, as long as context is not changed.

For general conversation among friends who know the rules, not really at all.

For someone who doesn't know the rules at all to begin with, it doesn't matter either way, one flying #$%%$^, because they are ignorant to the whole concept.

[rramsey]

I'm out.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

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.

Sorry, I've been a competitive racer for many years butI've never heard that expression and have no idea what it means. Please explain? ( Yes, I'm serious).

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.

Are they offering rabbit or cane toad stew? I'd certainly like to know which it is before I accept an invitation to dinner.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by bmz

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

Quote:
"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

You may care to look at the first post in this thread again.

You did not start this thread. Dockhead did, as a result of your words in another thread:

Originally Posted by bmz
. . . "1)You attack my use of the terms "right-of-way" and "burdened." Others on this thread used those terms for good reason--they are commonly used and everyone here fully understands them. So what's your point--to get a gold star in terminology? ...

In the original post, he identified the problem words clearly. He asked quite specifically:

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

Your diverting the discussion to the words "yield" and "burdened" are an unnecessary distraction from the whole point of this discussion.

It was, and remains, a debate as to whether there is a substantive difference between "right of way" and "stand on". And it has been illustrated repeatedly to date that their is a substantive and indeed critical difference between the two concepts.

[bmz]

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....

In October we will be in northern Spain--nine days starting in Barcelona going West to Bilbao then south to Madrid, stopping in both Rioja and Ribero del Duero. Unfortunately I'm limited to 4 litres plus all I can drink. I don't think I'll be doing much standing on either.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

You may care to look at the first post in this thread again.

You did not start this thread. Dockhead did, as a result of your words in another thread:

[/I]

In the original post, he identified the problem words clearly. He asked quite specifically:

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

Your diverting the discussion to the words "yield" and "burdened" are an unnecessary distraction from the whole point of this discussion.

It was, and remains, a debate as to whether there is a substantive difference between "right of way" and "stand on". And it has been illustrated repeatedly to date that their is a substantive and indeed critical difference between the two concepts.

Indeed. And could we carry on this discussion in a collegial way, and stop attacking and accusing each other of attacking? Without accusations of ignorance or arrogance? Some of these topics are really important and worth discussing.

The yield=give way was certainly a diversion from the discussion of right of way vs. standing on. No one ever objected to the term "yield" -- there's nothing wrong the term "yield" other than being a little unfamiliar in the maritime context.

I think we've beaten "right of way" to death already. Maybe the key to the question is the word "right", which completely contradicts the idea of standing-on. But hey -- it's "just terminology" according to some people, and it's a free country. Not everyone agrees that "terminology is important" -- and that's ok.


Maybe it's worth turning to the much more important question of real substance -- and that's the question of whether anyone is really actually obligated to stand on or whether it's optional. We've discussed this many times over the years, but I think we might still not be done with it. There will always be a certain number of sailors who don't think Rule 17 applies to us, and probably nothing we can say will persuade them otherwise.

HOWEVER, I think the question is really interesting, BECAUSE I don't think it's actually a matter of some people being stupid and some not, but rather, both groups do actually grasp their own bit of truth, but don't really understand the whole elephant, so to speak. And I think the key is in understanding the time and distance horizons and phases of collision avoidance. The "rule of tonnage" brigade is actually correct, if we're talking about distances of a mile or less -- what they don't realize is that collision avoidance starts far earlier than that, and that a mile (in open water) is already an in extremis situation where someone screwed the pooch long before.

One of the clearest expressions of this point of view was in another thread recently, this:

"Large commercial vessels are constrained by their lack of maneuverability and are therefore always the stand on vessel, even in blue water."

Why don't we -- respectfully and collegially -- drill into this?

[Snore]

To the topic of "constrained" the proper term is "constrained by draft" the rule speaks solely to draft and makes no mention of tonnage. Please see https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=def3h_CBD

Logically, the priority of CBD disappears at the more seaward of the ColRegs line or the red/white clear water bouy. Therefore, any vessel under sail power alone is stand-on over any vessel under power that is 1)Under Command, 2) not fishing or 3) not restricted by operations (laying cable or launching/landing aircraft).

While there may be a plethora of anecdotal information those are the rules.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Maybe it's worth turning to the much more important question of real substance -- and that's the question of whether anyone is really actually obligated to stand on or whether it's optional.

Yes, they are obligated to "stand on" at certain stages i.e.until 17(a)(ii) and 17(b) come into effect.

But are they obligated to "maintain their current heading and current speed" ? Is that the same as "keep her course and speed".

Perhaps we need to look a little further at what "stand on" has been determined to actually mean.

Pelagic made a valid point earlier that no one has picked up on:

"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. ":

Indeed, "stand on" does not always mean "maintain current heading and speed".

So possibly Pegalic's point could be more appropriately phrased as:
" I differ with DH on his first post is that the Stand on Vessel is obligated to maintain its current heading and current speed.".


Cockcroft:
"Keep course and speed
A vessel which is required to keep her course and speed does not necessarily have to remain on the same compass course and maintain the same engine revolutions .
In the Windsor-Roanoke, 1908, both vessels were bearing down on the Rotterdam pilot boat, on crossing courses, when the Roanoke, while signalling for a pilot, stopped her engines to take the pilot on board. Although the Roanoke was the stand-on vessel, she was held to be justified in her manoeuvre, as the other vessel should have known what she was doing. Lord Alberstone said: In my judgment, ‘course and speed’ mean course and speed in following the nautical manoeuvre in which, to the knowledge of the other vessel, the vessel is at the time engaged. It is not difficult to give many instances which support this view. The ‘course’ certainly does not mean the actual compass direction of the heading of the vessel at the time the other is sighted. .. . A vessel bound to keep her course and speed may be obliged to reduce her speed to avoid some danger of navigation, and the question must be in each case, ‘is the manoeuvre in which the vessel is engaged an ordinary and proper manoeuvre in the course of navigation which will require an alteration of course and speed; ought the other vessel to be aware of the manoeuvre which is being attempted to be carried out?’. "

[bmz]

Originally Posted by StuM

You may care to look at the first post in this thread again.

You did not start this thread. Dockhead did, as a result of your words in another thread:

Originally Posted by bmz
. . .

In the original post, he identified the problem words clearly. He asked quite specifically:

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

Your diverting the discussion to the words "yield" and "burdened" are an unnecessary distraction from the whole point of this discussion.

It was, and remains, a debate as to whether there is a substantive difference between "right of way" and "stand on". And it has been illustrated repeatedly to date that their is a substantive and indeed critical difference between the two concepts.

Stu--have you ever thought of writing a book called "20 ways to avoid responding to your opponents arguments"?

However, I'm not going to allow you to get away with this one either.

I might have considered it, if you had limited your involvement in this thread to Dockhead's terminology only. But not only did you not do that, you joined this issue primarily to attack MY position on MY terminology.

Your very first entry into my debate with Dockhead was with an attack on my terminology:

Originally Posted by StuM

Clearly, "substantive" lies in the eye of the beholder.
If it doesn't fit with your own view of reality, it must be inconsequential.

(Post # 134)

Here is the post(Where I was responding to Dockhead) you were attacking(The quoted material was from my post to which Dockhead was responding):

Inasmuch as we have been engaged in so much debate about terminology, let me start out by saying that what you said above is a typical "straw man argument" (I am being descriptive not pejorative). You did not respond AT ALL to what I said (I apologize for shouting, but I am exhausted and having to deal with this). Please let me reiterate:

"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)."

But rather than respond to what I actually said, you commenced an attack on the terminology I DID NOT USE. Let's look at my actual statement that you quoted at the start of this thread:

"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 More importantly you can't get into "as much trouble" crashing into a class B vessel as a class A vessel;[Crash into a class B vessel and you will scratch your fiberglass] crash into a class A vessel, and you will die."
(challenged terminology in red)

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.

In defending Dockhead, you could have done what you are now doing--claim that I was going outside the parameters of this thread. But you didn't; you entered this thread for the purpose of attacking my statement that there was no substantive difference between the terms I used and the Colreg terms.

In legal terminology, you are estopped from denying that that is the issue here-- and I don't even think that I have to translate that for you.

[Snore]

FFS you guys could argue about anything.

This thread has the potential to clear up the many misstatements made on CF. or it can become one person's grinding stone. From a legal perspective there are no "shoulds" in ColRegs or the Fed Register, so yes there appears to have been a misstatement.

Since you guys are hell bent on dragging up old sludge; like the correct terminology of bow, stern, port, starboard, etc.; there is "stand-on" and "give way".

I teach first time boaters in ASA 101 that when under power, vessels approaching on the perpendicular off the starboard bow have the right of way, and then quickly explain how the proper term is stand-on. I also explain how right of way implies carte blanche- whereas stand on vessels have an obligation to -- stand on. I chastise students who fail to transition to using stand-on and give-way the same as those who confuse the reference of "forward" and "a head". Terminology matters be it construction or sailing one needs to know the language.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by bmz

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.

People keep ignoring this "begging and pleading" because no one, ever, objected to the use of the term "yield". As I wrote above, there is nothing wrong with this term. The discussion was not about "yield"; it was about "right of way", and I think we finished that discussion.


This will be a more interesting and worthwhile discussion if everyone would take the emotion level down a few notches, and leave off expressions like "schoolmarm" and so forth. Disagreeing with something is not automatically equivalent to a personal attack. Let's talk reasonably, about ideas and principles. There is no shame in being wrong -- in fact, whoever turns out to be wrong in something in these discussions is always the one who benefits the most from them. I'm wrong every day about one thing or another, and I'm always grateful for the learning to those who point it out to me. Sometimes everyone is right to some extent and wrong to some extent and everyone benefits. The more polite and collegial we can be, the more pleasant the whole process will be.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Snore

. . . I teach first time boaters in ASA 101 that when under power, vessels approaching on the perpendicular off the starboard bow have the right of way, and then quickly explain how the proper term is stand-on. I also explain how right of way implies carte blanche- whereas stand on vessels have an obligation to -- stand on. I chastise students who fail to transition to using stand-on and give-way the same as those who confuse the reference of "forward" and "a head". Terminology matters be it construction or sailing one needs to know the language.

We're sort of done with "right of way", but for whatever it may be worth -- what Snore has written here is exactly the usual approach to the subject taken by real pros, in my experience.

Probably the best sailing qualifications are the RYA yachtmaster ones -- and here students are taught the same thing. Use of the term "right of way" is an instant flunk with many examiners -- not because anyone is concerned with "gold stars in teminology", but because use this term is thought to indicate a lack of understanding of the ESSENCE of the principles of collision avoidance. Of course no one will think that about old salts like Ping -- who forgot yesterday more about sailing than any of us will ever know, and who could care less about yachtmaster papers, but for the rest of us -- this might be something worth thinking about.

Once again, this is all about "right of way". "Yield" is harmless, and no one objected to it.