Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

A collision at sea is a serious matter. Avoiding them is necessary to enjoying life on the water.

I agree with those who argue that semantics matter. The common understanding of "right of way" is so at odds with the obligations defined in the Colregs that the IMO got rid of the phrase entirely. They did not do that on a whim. They did it precisely because too many people applied their own definition to it and not the one intended by the Colregs.

My old man (who was a professional master mariner) was very happy with the change. One of the many reasons why he considered the change to be important was the increasing number of Captains / watch keeper who did not have English as a first language. Anyone who sails outside their own puddle will soon learn that they are technical terms that are globally understood by professional seamen.

Anyone that wants to learn the Colregs may find this link very useful. COLREGs course - Home

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

A collision at sea is a serious matter. Avoiding them is necessary to enjoying life on the water.

I agree with those who argue that semantics matter. The common understanding of "right of way" is so at odds with the obligations defined in the Colregs that the IMO got rid of the phrase entirely. They did not do that on a whim. They did it precisely because too many people applied their own definition to it and not the one intended by the Colregs.

Simply a matter of terminology and semantics.

It is totally fascinating that some believe the distinction is so important, and elsewhere, others are stating that they don't believe most boaters know the colregs.

So how does the terminology matter?

It doesn't; not one bit.

If someone is going to make up their own definition, it doesn't matter what term is used, the result is the same. If someone uses the definition prescribed, any term could have been used to represent that definition, with equal effect.

What would be the net difference if the authors of colregs chose "continue-as-was" instead of "stand-on" or "right-of-way"? Zero, nada, zilch, nil, or whatever other term one wishes to use to represent "absolutely nothing".

Without definition, the terms used in a regulation mean "dick"; they are open to interpretation by whosoever wishes to interpret them. As soon as they are defined in the regulation, that is what they mean, no other definition is valid.

[Jim Cate]

It is totally fascinating that some believe the distinction is so important, and elsewhere, others are stating that they don't believe most boaters know the colregs.

So how does the terminology matter?

It doesn't; not one bit.

The issue is, Rod, that the term "right of way" does have a meaning to many land lubbers, and that meaning is wrong in the universe of COLREGS.

And this belief on the LL's part leads to things like the oh-so-common statement heard around newbies: "Power boats must get out of our way because sail has right of way over steam."

You can say that terminology means nothing all you want, the folks who wrote the COLREGS seem to have felt differently.

Jim

[Paul Elliott]

Can we agree that at least some of us who learned at least the basic COLREGS many years ago (when "right of way" was the official terminology) *do* understand the regulations, and harbor no illusions that "right of way" confers any special privileges? These days I say "stand on", but as far as I am concerned either term means exactly the same thing. It means what the rules say it means, not anything else.

I'm not arguing that the new terminology isn't better, just that using the old terms doesn't necessarily indicate that you don't understand the rules.

[David M]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
And that would be your error, if you are the stand on vessel. Other vessels in close proximity are expecting you to follow the rules, and not doing so may be a factor in causing a collision that you will be found at partial fault in.

If you take "early and apparent action" as the rules say, then you won't have frequent close call situations.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

And this belief on the LL's part leads to things like the oh-so-common statement heard around newbies: "Power boats must get out of our way because sail has right of way over steam."

Jim

For newbies and oldies alike, that statement is absolutely correct, with exceptions, as spelled out in the regs, whether one refers to it as "right-of-way" or "stand-on".

If someone uses the term "right-of-way" in the same context as "stand-on" or for that matter, "keep going" why get all out of joint about it, it means exactly the same thing!

What's the issue?

The term "lead" has different meanings, but as soon as I add context or define that I define that I am referring to the metal, there should be no confusion.

In the English language, we have many words that have multiple meanings, and many words that have the exact same meaning.

If "right-of-way" vs "stand-on" is confusing to anyone because they will try to associate it with the meaning of an easement over land, they should not be able to operate a vessel and no amount of nomenclature diddling is going to change that.

I think we need to credit the average boater with just a little more intelligence.

Perhaps every boater should be required to pass an exam to prove they understand the colregs. ;-)

[Juho]

Originally Posted by roland stockham

I suspect that in drafting the rules nobody considered boats driven by oars other than small rowboats and canoes. Should we propose the IMO takes a look at this and gives a ruling?

Times have changed a bit. I can imagine situations where a slow motorboat has no way of getting out of the way of a much faster sailboat. If there is a need to adjust the colregs, maybe one should write them more generally so that one should always give way to a clearly less manoeuvrable boat. Being a sailboat is just one example of a case where one typically is less manoeuvrable than a motorboat. Same with rowboats and canoes.

The colregs could however be seen to cover most of that already now. Rule 18 includes references to vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre. That could be seen to refer to all vessels that are clearly less manoeuvrable than one's own vessel.

On the other hand the definition of "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" in 3(g) seems to refer only to "vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre", not to vessels that are just slow when compared to us. That definition could be made more general. Or maybe (with current rules) we should just fall back to rule 2 that tells us to always avoid collisions and even violate the other rules when necessary (although that section refers only to "immediate danger").

I'm not an expert on this, so maybe I should read the rules once more and give them some time to sink in before commenting on what really should or should not be done .

[Juho]

Term stand-on could be made even harder to misinterpret by changing it to must-stand-on or something similar that clearly indicates that it is not a right but a responsibility.

[transmitterdan]

No one is saying that those who learned "right of way" 50 years ago do not understand what it means. But we are simply asking (begging?) that you stop using the term and use the term that has been assigned by the IMO. The common meaning of the phrase is too confusing to the general public. If you use the term "right of way" then you have to go into a long diatribe explaining that it doesn't mean "right of way" and it means something almost exactly opposite of the common definition of the term. How can it be helpful to confuse people with a bad phrase like that?

[Quebramar]

Indeed. Terminology does matter and should avoid confusing people and allowing for (individual) interpretation.

Seen lately in an article on proper business writing:
"Correct punctuation can save a person's life...
"Let's eat grandpa... vs
"Let's eat, grandpa"
[emoji4]

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Juho

Term stand-on could be made even harder to misinterpret by changing it to must-stand-on or something similar that clearly indicates that it is not a right but a responsibility.

The words of the Colregs are clear. Read the section about actions by stand-on vessel. The word "shall" is used to make the mandatory action to hold her course and speed clear.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So what if you're the stand on vessel, sailing close hauled to windward, required to maintain course and speed and you get headed?

Yes its always peeved me when one is hard on the wind beating south down the reef from the Torres Strait and some highly qualified clown driving a commercial vessel heading North decides to alter course and pass close to your lee for a butchers hook. Ultimately they simply don't understand that when you get headed you have to drop down a little and they have now given you no room to do that, so you have to tack away, because falling off even further and passing to their lee is just losing you hard won ground, not to mention the problems associated with the increased speed whilst sailing low.

Can't believe how little is understood about sailing boats by commercial skippers.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

Can't believe how little is understood about sailing boats by commercial skippers.

Dont worry, I understand

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The words of the Colregs are clear. Read the section about actions by stand-on vessel. The word "shall" is used to make the mandatory action to hold her course and speed clear.

And again, what if you're sailing, hard on the breeze and you get headed?

[Juho]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The words of the Colregs are clear. Read the section about actions by stand-on vessel. The word "shall" is used to make the mandatory action to hold her course and speed clear.

Yes, Colregs are very clear, including the definitions and use of the discussed terms.

The assumed problems may typically emerge when sailors who have not read Colregs fully or carefully use these terms only in shorter "rules of thumb", and these terms may be linked to more common uses of the terms, like "right of way" and its use in road traffic. Most people learn the rules of sea this way. In such situations also "stand-on" (although well defined in Colregs) might sometimes (or even often, who knows) be interpreted as (road traffic) "right of way".