Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

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?’. "

Yes, what you write is all true, and you've taken the discussion to a more advanced level.

I doubt if I have any serious differences with Pelagic -- and I certainly never meant to say that the obligation to stand-on means holding course and speed come hell or high water. There are many qualifications and limitations to this obligation.

But let's talk about the essence of it -- WHY are we obligated to stand on, ever? It's hard for many people to understand precisely because it's different from how we behave on the road. If we have the right of way on the road (or when racing!!), we have the RIGHT to hold course and speed, but we also have the right to maneuver however we want to. When you are obligated to stand on, you don't have this (or any other) right. Why?

Well, put yourself in the shoes of the guy on the bridge of that ship 5 miles away. You are under sail and he knows -- because he's a professional, and risks his career if he violates the Rules -- that he is supposed to give way. So what does he do? He projects your course and speed out to the crossing point, and then calculates what maneuver is required on his part to get clear of you and eliminate the risk that you will end up under his bows, considering the cone of uncertainty about his and your position.

Then he executes that maneuver. Meanwhile, if you are a true WAFI and think that 5 miles off, when he's still hull-down on the horizon, is too early to worry about it, and you wake up at 3 miles and suddenly stop or turn around, you mess up everything he did, and create danger out of what was going to be a safe pass.

What this means is that he really needs for you to hold your course and speed -- IF he has or is about to maneuver himself. And that's why you are OBLIGATED to hold your course and speed or otherwise fulfill the idea of standing on (you can pick up a pilot, or maybe even tack). So that you don't mess up his maneuver -- so that he has a decent chance of dealing with the crossing himself. Giving-way is actually much less a burden, than it is a PRIVILEGE -- and this is one reason why the terms "burdened" and "privileged" cause problems. The give-way vessel has the right -- one of the very few and maybe the only right which anyone gets under the Rules -- to determine how the two vessels will cross. If you are the stand-on vessel, you simply have no right to take matters into your own hands, before you have given the give-way vessel a decent chance to deal with the crossing himself.

If you understand WHY the obligation to stand on exists, then it becomes easy to understand the limits of it. The obligation to stand on goes only so far as to give him a decent chance to take control of the crossing.
If he does not take up that chance, for any reason, then the Rules allow you to maneuver yourself, and in a slow moving sailing vessel, that needs to be done quite early to have a chance of being effective.

I know that the U.S. Navy's ability to do collision avoidance is under a serious cloud at the moment, so I hesitate somewhat to bring this up, but note that it has long been U.S. Navy doctrine (contrary to the old jokes about crossings with lighthouses) for U.S. Navy vessels to maneuver in such a way as to be the give-way vessel whenever possible. This is a very telling point, and gives a hint about how being the give-way vessel is actually more like a privilege than a burden. The Navy wants its vessels to control crossings with other vessels -- to always have the active role when possible. The Navy does not want to be at the mercy of another vessel's maneuvers.

I confessed in another thread to having falsely raised a motoring cone once. I'm not proud of this and do not condone it, but I needed to do it once when going through a swarm of ships coming from all directions. Someone in the thread questioned why in the world I would do that -- my answer is that I needed to avoid three or four ships at once, and I really needed for all of them to hold their courses and speeds so that I could dodge them. It would have been a real problem for me if one of them had started maneuvering, thinking that I was going to stand on. It would have been more legal and correct for me to have called them and made explicit passing arrangements, but I didn't have time for four or give calls in a row! So I put up the motoring cone.

[Sun and Moon]

Docky, thanks for starting this thread and for your insight into the meaning of the rules. Ignore the troll.

I'd like to add an anecdote to illustrate the difference between "stand-on" and "right-of-way". We were leaving the harbor with the intention of turning to port (southward) after clearing the final buoy. Keeping to the starboard side of the channel, as required by rule 9, as we neared the mouth of the harbor a power boat was slowly a overtaking us. We were sailing. If we had "right of way" over the power boat, we could have blithely turned in front of them to follow our desired course. But if we were the "stand on" vessel, we were obligated to keep our course and speed and wait for them to pass us before turning. We chose the latter action.

As you point out, the motor boat in fact had far more options. If they planned on continuing strait out to sea they could do so. If they planned on turning to port, they could do so at any time do so without regard to us. If they planned on turning to starboard they could turn and cut behind us at any time, or continue on, overtake us, and then turn. It's not hard to imagine a few other boats in the picture, perhaps a power boat approaching the harbor from the north or another vessel behind us, which would force us to continue our course long past where we desired to turn.

[Dockhead]

I was challenged some ways back in this thread, to back up the old thing I was taught long ago, about how the Rules were changed to remove references to privilege, burden, and right of way, and could not find any such references in old versions of the Rules. I promised to read the notes from the various Conventions to see if I could find out where this old idea came from.

And so I am slowly reading my way through this mass of material (which I had intended to read anyway).

Today I came across something relevant to the latest topic, about why standing on is important. It's in the Protocols of the very first Convention, which created the first set of COLREGS in 1889:

“Now, most of the cases of collision on the sea come in consequence of both ships endeavoring to maneuver at the same time. That was the case in a collision which lately occurred between two French steamers. One collided with the other because she tried to maneuver when she ought to have kept on her course.. . .
When we know the intention of the other vessel, the course to be followed is easily seen. Let us impose upon one the obligation to maneuver, and impose upon the other the obligation at that moment to change neither her course nor her speed.”

Page 536

Another delegate goes on, discussing the proposal which would ultimately become Rule 17:

“I think that this rule would be a good thing for the timid people . . . I know that on a number of occasions I have come very near having collisions with vessels from this very thing. In narrow waters, where I was not able to give a man plenty of room, when I would get close up to him he would apparently think that I did not see him and lose his head, and do the very thing which he ought not to do, that is, to stop of slow his vessel when he ought to keep his way.. . “
Page 539

The new Rule requiring the “holding-on vessel” to hold course and speed was passed unanimously. I hope this sheds some light on the origins of Rule 17, and why standing on is an OBLIGATION.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

standing on is an OBLIGATION

Was almost In agreement with you. A better statement would be "Assuming there are no unusual circumstances the stand-on vessel is obligated to stand-on. Should there be unusual circumstances the safety of the stand-on vessel, her passengers and her crew are priority. Should the stand-on vessel vacate the obligation to stand-on, they lose all rights and should make contact with the give-way vessel via the most effective means."

Docky- you are trying to codify something that has few rigid, inflexible rules. Dare I say - you are dumpster-diving into Pandora's Box?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I was challenged some ways back in this thread, to back up the old thing I was taught long ago, about how the Rules were changed to remove references to privilege, burden, and right of way, and could not find any such references in old versions of the Rules. I promised to read the notes from the various Conventions to see if I could find out where this old idea came from.

And so I am slowly reading my way through this mass of material (which I had intended to read anyway).

Today I came across something relevant to the latest topic, about why standing on is important. It's in the Protocols of the very first Convention, which created the first set of COLREGS in 1889:

“Now, most of the cases of collision on the sea come in consequence of both ships endeavoring to maneuver at the same time. That was the case in a collision which lately occurred between two French steamers. One collided with the other because she tried to maneuver when she ought to have kept on her course.. . .
When we know the intention of the other vessel, the course to be followed is easily seen. Let us impose upon one the obligation to maneuver, and impose upon the other the obligation at that moment to change neither her course nor her speed.”

Page 536

Another delegate goes on, discussing the proposal which would ultimately become Rule 17:

“I think that this rule would be a good thing for the timid people . . . I know that on a number of occasions I have come very near having collisions with vessels from this very thing. In narrow waters, where I was not able to give a man plenty of room, when I would get close up to him he would apparently think that I did not see him and lose his head, and do the very thing which he ought not to do, that is, to stop of slow his vessel when he ought to keep his way.. . “
Page 539

The new Rule requiring the “holding-on vessel” to hold course and speed was passed unanimously. I hope this sheds some light on the origins of Rule 17, and why standing on is an OBLIGATION.

I would think this passage would be most helpful for those who may still have misconceptions. I also wanted to say many thanks for all your patience (remarkable!) & civility in trying to insure this thread stays on track.

If my own experience is any judge, then a primary source of confusion for small boat sailors -- even those with a good comprehension of the Rules -- is judging the distances where Rule 17 requires the stand on vessel to either (i) freely maneuver when there's NO risk of collision, (ii) have the option to maneuver when there's a POTENTIAL risk of collision, or (iii) be required to maneuver when there's an ACTUAL risk of collision. You've explained this a zillion times in many helpful ways, but it goes to what you're trying to focus the thread on now, namely what does "standing on" mean and how far does the obligation go. It seems to me that understanding the basic obligation is a precursor to then making the needed but often nuanced judgment calls on when these obligations actually kick in.

As for misapprehensions about the Colregs applying to recreational sailors, the Rules themselves could not be more clear, starting with Rule 1(a):

"These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. (Emphasis mine).

Rule 3(a) then expressly defines "vessel" as "every description of watercraft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft, and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, there are no distinctions or exceptions based on whether the "vessel" is recreational or commercial, small or large, powered or sail.

The only thing I'd add to the use of "right of way" is that, speaking from my own experience (along with many others who have already commented), this terminology can too easily encourage the making of assumptions about the intentions of another vessel, whereas the Rules were established to encourage mariners to do just the opposite. If anything, I view the Rules as at most creating presumptions of what you & another vessel are required to do so as to avoid making confusing & potentially dangerous assumptions about another vessel's intent, but at the same time making it clear that the presumption is entirely rebuttable as circumstances warrant. In other words, the presumptions (if you will) exist only to promote predictability and so bear little resemblance to the "right of way" rules most of us learn on the road.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very well summarized Snore.

As to Stu's mention of my comments on Stand on obligations, and the legal example from Cockroft....... what is to be learned from this?

1....Try to avoid the mindset that COLREGS is a weapon to be used against other vessel, or in a court room... (A common failure amongst racing sailors)

2... Consider WHEN it is wise to call the other vessel (be it stand on or give way) to clarify their intenions/ preference?

I do this when i see the possibility that the other vessel may wish to make a course change for practical purposes. (Confined waters, strong currents, many channels)

I simply ask them what thier preference is ....Red to Red or Green to Green??

In the many court cases I have plied thru, one common Rule keeps rising to the surface
....Rule 2
That means putting yourself in the other persons bridge, be it a small yacht struggling against headwinds and square seas....or a large ship in ballast rounding a point with strong winds blasting off the land.

What should the priority be then?
Try to help your fellow mariner or blindly follow stand on obligations??

It is not about winning the race, but about everyone finishing the journey!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Snore

Was almost In agreement with you. A better statement would be "Assuming there are no unusual circumstances the stand-on vessel is obligated to stand-on. Should there be unusual circumstances the safety of the stand-on vessel, her passengers and her crew are priority. Should the stand-on vessel vacate the obligation to stand-on, they lose all rights and should make contact with the give-way vessel via the most effective means."

Docky- you are trying to codify something that has few rigid, inflexible rules. Dare I say - you are dumpster-diving into Pandora's Box?

Not at all --

I agree with you completely.

In fact I specifically stated that it's an obligation with limits and qualifications. Namely:

1. The Rule 17 obligation comes into effect ONLY after vessels are in sight of one another AND risk of collision exists. Prior to that, you are free to maneuver.

2. The Rule 17 obligation ENDS when you have a reasonable doubt that the give-way vessel is taking adequate measures.

3. Rule 2 allows you to deviate from the other Rules when safety, good seamanship, ordinary practice of seamen require.


Is that clear enough?

Because there are limits and qualifiations, however, does not mean that Rule 17 is not an OBLIGATION. You must stand on when required unless you have a good reason not to -- a good reason recognized by the Rules. Not just when you feel like it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

. . . .

If my own experience is any judge, then a primary source of confusion for small boat sailors -- even those with a good comprehension of the Rules -- is judging the distances where Rule 17 requires the stand on vessel to either (i) freely maneuver when there's NO risk of collision, (ii) have the option to maneuver when there's a POTENTIAL risk of collision, or (iii) be required to maneuver when there's an ACTUAL risk of collision. . . . .

Yes, yes, yes. I also believe that this is the primary source of misunderstandings about Rule 17.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Very well summarized Snore.

As to Stu's mention of my comments on Stand on obligations, and the legal example from Cockroft....... what is to be learned from this?

1....Try to avoid the mindset that COLREGS is a weapon to be used against other vessel, or in a court room... (A common failure amongst racing sailors)

2... Consider WHEN it is wise to call the other vessel (be it stand on or give way) to clarify their intenions/ preference?

I do this when i see the possibility that the other vessel may wish to make a course change for practical purposes. (Confined waters, strong currents, many channels)

I simply ask them what thier preference is ....Red to Red or Green to Green??

In the many court cases I have plied thru, one common Rule keeps rising to the surface
....Rule 2
That means putting yourself in the other persons bridge, be it a small yacht struggling against headwinds and square seas....or a large ship in ballast rounding a point with strong winds blasting off the land.

What should the priority be then?
Try to help your fellow mariner or blindly follow stand on obligations??

It is not about winning the race, but about everyone finishing the journey!

Agree completely, especially the bolded passage.

If you think that "COLREGS is a weapon to be used against the other vessel" then you fundamentally misunderstand what they are about and how they work.

If you think that COLREGS give you some "rights" -- then ditto.

If you think that standing-on is any kind of privilege -- then ditto.


The sole purpose of standing-on according to Rule 17 is to allow the give-way vessel to take control of the crossing -- to take the active role. If the give-way vessel does not take up this active role, for whatever reason, then you must make your own move.

Far from being some kind of privilege, being the stand-on vessel is really rather nerve-wracking.

[bmz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

When we use the term "yield" we mean "yield the right-of-way;" that's the way I used it, that's the way we all use it here. There are at least a dozen other definitions of the word "yield:" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yield;, but the only way it is ever used here regarding sailing is to "yield the right-of-way." So I was talking about "right-of-way."

I previously defined my use of the word "schoolmarm" to where you are criticizing someone's terminology when there is no substantive difference between the words that person used and the alleged correct words. I used and continue to use it as a shorthand; but I also said I would stop using it whenever someone showed me that my words were substantively wrong.

I agree that disagreeing with someone is not automatically equivalent to a personal attack. However, I submit to you that wherever I alleged that someone had attacked me ad hominem, they did in fact attack me ad hominem.

A good example is in my response to StuM above (post #252) that you were responding to here. Before I ever said word one to StuM this was his first post regarding me:

Quote: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.

I will admit, that I do not suffer fools nor insults gladly. But there have been many insults and pejorative innuendos that I simply let slide, like the one of StuM cited above.

Moreover, I most certainly agree that we should "talk reasonably, about ideas and principles." That's what I have been trying to do throughout this thread--getting people to stop attacking others terminology for no substantive reason.

this entire thread was generated because I said that it was inappropriate to attack someone here simply because they didn't use the Colreg terminology when there was no substantive difference between the terms used and the Colreg terminology.

My position is that no one should attack anyone simply because he wants to attack. Hence, I most certainly agree with you that "The 'I'm right, you're wrong' crowd does get tiresome." My biggest problem here is getting people to practice what they preach
*

(Post #148)

In this regard, I did make the mistake of crossing swords with you before I discovered how popular you were--that pretty well guaranteed me a plethora of pejorative innuendos--a learning experience, I guess.


.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by StuM

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 ..."

Dunno how you find these quotes but they sure are helpful. The most common/obvious examples are of course holding course up a river (I hope no one expects you to follow your compass straight onto a sandbank because you happen to be stand-on vessel) and sailing to windward, where course to windward will vary with wind changes. This should have been obvious to everyone from earlier posts but thanks again for digging out the legal basis.

[NevisDog]

And one more point that I'm thrown into total confusion over (since reading this thread): each day as I row my dink ashore,
1. must I give way to someone under sail (my dink is pretty darned slow);
2. must those dinks and small fishing vessels proceeding under power give way to me?
I had always assumed rowing was 'under power' (so that rules for power driven vessels crossing should be followed) but it seems the lights to be displayed tell a different story, and sometimes it gets dark!

[Snore]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

And one more point that I'm thrown into total confusion over (since reading this thread): each day as I row my dink ashore,
1. must I give way to someone under sail (my dink is pretty darned slow);
2. must those dinks and small fishing vessels proceeding under power give way to me?
I had always assumed rowing was 'under power' (so that rules for power driven vessels crossing should be followed) but it seems the lights to be displayed tell a different story, and sometimes it gets dark!

Assuming this was NOT an attempt at humor.

Yes if your dink has an engine it is under power and give-way. Unless being passed by a sailboat under sail, then the sailboat is give-way.

If your dink is under oars then, as previously stated in this thread, it is stand-on vs power or sail. Your assumption regarding a vessel under oars being equal to a vessel under power is wrong.

There are numerous websites that discuss vessel hierarchy and lighting.

While recreational boaters need not know the light difference between a tug pushing barges inland versus in open water, they should know power vs. sail vs. small vessels under oar or sail. Someone's life could depend on you knowing!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Snore

From a legal perspective there are no "shoulds" in ColRegs or the Fed Register, so yes there appears to have been a misstatement.

Rule 8 (b).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Rule 8 (b).

"Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided."