Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[robbievardon]

Sorry hit wrong button. To continue, after monitoring the progress of merchant vessel for nearly an hour I concluded that it could be a close crossing so chose to act as if under power not sail and give way as sad to say there is never a gurantee that the watchkeeper has seen me (rough sea force 5 ish confused sea reduced sail area) assuming there is a watchkeeper so for me it was a simple choice and in fact gave me a rest and calmer run for a while before reverting to my former course. Maybe I made 1 Captain more friendly towards sailboats!!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by nigel1

The Colregs might be beautifully constructed, but your question is one of the biggest stumbling blocks of all the Rules.
First point, Rules 9 and 10 apply to fairly constricted stretches of water. A TSS lane might be typically 2 to 3 miles wide, and a narrow channel a lot less. These are distances which if applied to two vessels in open waters would have the stand on vessel taking action if the give way vessel had failed to do so.

So we not only need to look at Rules 9, 10 and 17, we need to look at Rule 8, specifically 8f, which outlines the actions required.

Look at a narrow channel situation, if risk of collision exists, there is not a great deal of time between establishing the risk and actual collision.
This is why it is imperative that the vessel required not to impeded the passage, or safe passage of another vessel, must take action as soon as possible, and give the other vessel sufficient room. But, in doing so, the action of the vessel required to not impede, must take into account any action that the other vessel may make, as that vessel may have decided that risk of collision does exist and takes action.
So for example, if a small boat is crossing a channel and has a constrained vessel following the channel, on a steady bearing port bow, prudent action might be to stop, slow down, reverse course, or parallel course of the other vessel. A turn to port to cross astern may end in tears, the danger being that the constrained vessel has decided that risk of collision is imminent and makes a turn to starboard (which is correct)

The not to impede bit means don't get into a position which sets up a risk of collision scenario, and taking early action complies with 17(a)(ii)

I was hoping that the professionals like Nigel would give the others a chance before answering!

But anyway, here it is.

The short answer is that even if you are obliged to "not impede", that does not make you the stand-on vessel and does not relieve you of the obligation to stand on once a risk of collision arises. I know that sounds paradoxical, but that's the correct answer. "Not impeding" takes place prior to a risk of collision arising -- that's the key to understanding it.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

Is it really so time critical to a sailboat compared with a mechantman who may be racing to catch a tide to get into dock. I faced this decision recently

Out on open waters where I would expect a power driven vessel to give way to sail, then no, that merchant ship taking action to avoid a sail boat is at the most going to add 1/2 a mile to the passage.
Now if you have established at say 7 miles out that there will be a close quarters situation, and alter course to give a safe CPA, then, well done, I certainly would appreciate that. On the other hand, if I was obligated to give way to you, then no problem either. If on the other hand, you decided to alter course at about 2 miles away, then I would be resorting to proper seaman like language

[ramblinrod]

OK, so I just reviewed excerpts from
Colregs 1960.

I saw no reference to "Right of way", "burdened", or "privileged". Many have suggested Colregs changed to eliminate these terms in 1972. So what is going on? Did Colregs ever use the term "Right of Way". Again I consider "right of way" and "stand on" to mean exactly the same thing with respect to Colregs, But I'm a bit surprised a quick search did not find a past version of Colregs that uses the "right of way" term. Can anyone elucidate?

[bmz]

"I've been at sea and am only just catching up on this thread. Seems to have grown legs!"

I envy you, the Baltimore area has been in horrible August doldrums for the last two weeks.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As to showing the substance of the difference in the concept of "standing on" versus the concept of "right of way" -- contrary to this, the question has been answered in an extremely detailed way by various people. Try Post #1 in this thread just for one example. If anyone still thinks they are "sort of the same" and just "semantically" different -- then there's probably nothing else which can be said about it.

As to "burdened and privileged" -- the difference between the plain meaning of these terms, and terms used in the COLREGs is even greater. Far from being "privileged", if you are the stand-on vessel, you are actually more burdened than the give-way vessel. You are burdened with the obligation to hold your course and speed while the give-way vessel has something more like a privilege -- the privilege of initially determining how the vessels will cross.

And if the same person who insists that it is OK to use such terms, also advises sailors to ignore their legal obligation to stand on at certain times in certain crossings -- then it is quite clear that the problem is much greater than mere semantics.

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.

BTW, While you and a half a dozen others have been ignoring my pleas to stop with the attacks on substantiveless differences in terminology, you all have been misusing the word "semantic." You have been using the word semantic to mean merely verbal or rhetorical without any substantive impact. However, that is almost the opposite of its actual meaning.https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-...-means-meaning

If I just wanted to put you down, I could belittle your ignorance; but as I've noted before that would just be an admission that I am unable to respond to the substance of your position.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by bmz

"I've been at sea and am only just catching up on this thread. Seems to have grown legs!"

I envy you, the Baltimore area has been in horrible August doldrums for the last two weeks.




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:



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:

(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.

BTW, While you and a half a dozen others have been ignoring my pleas to stop with the attacks on substantiveless differences in terminology, you all have been misusing the word "semantic." You have been using the word semantic to mean merely verbal or rhetorical without any substantive impact. However, that is almost the opposite of its actual meaning.https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-...-means-meaning

If I just wanted to put you down, I could belittle your ignorance; but as I've noted before that would just be an admission that I am unable to respond to the substance of your position.

Actually, attempting to more clearly define the term "semantics" with respect to this thread, is just "semantics". ;-)

[Quebramar]

To me, rather newbie hence not familiar with Colregs 4 years ago, right of way suggests options to choose my way, not the obligation to keep my course.
I may be biased by my business school education, in which one law course was called "rights and obligations"... right of way sitting in the "rights'" category whilst stand-on sitting in the "obligation" one.
I may be oversimplifying but that is what these words suggest, in the absence of clear definition of course.
Assuming that everyone understands one for the other is perhaps a bigger bias I would say, a case of ass-u-me maybe, particularly risky when at sea.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Quebramar

To me, rather newbie hence not familiar with Colregs 4 years ago, right of way suggests options to choose my way, not the obligation to keep my course.
I may be biased by my business school education, in which one law course was called "rights and obligations"... right of way sitting in the "rights'" category whilst stand-on sitting in the "obligation" one.
I may be oversimplifying but that is what these words suggest, in the absence of clear definition of course.
Assuming that everyone understands one for the other is perhaps a bigger bias I would say, a case of ass-u-me maybe, particularly risky when at sea.

Exactly right, and very well said. Not oversimplified in the least. You have a gift for succinctness which I envy.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Exactly right, and very well said. Not oversimplified in the least. You have a gift for succinctness which I envy.

To me, the word to represent "obligation to hold course and speed with the following exceptions...", could be represented by any word, symbol, sound, texture, etc.

Think about it, a deaf and blind person since birth, would aasociate a series of Braille bumps to the term and definitions.

(And they'd prolly have a better understanding and make a better skipper than half ya scurvy dogs.) ;-)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by bmz

. . .
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:



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:

(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.

BTW, While you and a half a dozen others have been ignoring my pleas to stop with the attacks on substantiveless differences in terminology, you all have been misusing the word "semantic." You have been using the word semantic to mean merely verbal or rhetorical without any substantive impact. However, that is almost the opposite of its actual meaning.https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-...-means-meaning

If I just wanted to put you down, I could belittle your ignorance; but as I've noted before that would just be an admission that I am unable to respond to the substance of your position.

My "ignorance"? Hmmm.

I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake -- I'm a lawyer, and spent many years doing it for money. "Scoring points" among strangers holds no interest for me. I engage in these discussions in order to learn from those who know more than I do, and to help others with things I know more about, and maybe most importantly, to hone my ideas, finding flaws in them, with challenges from smart people who disagree with me.

Therefore, I sense that there is not much in it for me, in responding to this post. But briefly:

1. I am not much interested in terminology -- I am interested in principles of collision avoidance. It was you who tried to turn it into a "debate" over "mere semantics", but it was never that.

2. The full quote was this:

Originally Posted by bmz

I know from the facts in your question your main concern is for when you are in a heavily trafficked commercial area where the majority of the targets are class A, to whom you must give way (although I noticed here, as I have in other threads, that many sailors erroneously think that they have the right-of-way over large commercial vessels).

However, for the majority here whose multiple target situations occur where they are many class B targets and very few class A targets, I have a recommendation: focus on the class A target and ignore the class B targets (especially where the class A targets are large freighters who are not maneuverable, but can be quite fast). Where you have only one or two class A targets it is usually quite easy to avoid them.

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( :-) ).

What was objected to in this post was not terminology at all, but a large number of errors of substance:

a. Class B targets are "all small and maneuverable"
b. Class A targets are "not maneuverable"
c. You must give way to "all Class A targets"

I have shown with facts and math about maneuverability of different kinds of vessels in open water.

Other posters have pointed out that you can't make such assumptions about other vessels based on AIS class.

"c" flatly contradicts the COLREGs

Elsewhere you said that "large commercial vessels, by virtue of their size and/or draft, are stand on vessels," which as almost everyone knows, also contradicts the COLREGs, and is dangerously wrong.


For the record, these are the things which were challenged, and not only be me, and which were rebutted. The question of terminology was an obfuscating distraction.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

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.

But the words we use do matter, it affects our understanding of the world. Cognitive research has shown that subtle differences in the words we use for something can have a significant effect on how we think about something.

So the distinction between right of way and stand on is actually pretty significant.

That's part of why there are special names for different things on a boat. It doesn't just aid in talking about things or directing people in what you want done, it allows you to better think about those things.

Anymore for most folks driving is a key activity in their lives and the phrase right of way comes with all sorts of cognitive implications specific to driving that can't be disregarded just because they've stepped on a boat. In a crunch different terminology helps folks think about the situation they are in in a more appropriate way than using terminology more associated with a different activity.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

OK, so I just reviewed excerpts from
Colregs 1960.

I saw no reference to "Right of way", "burdened", or "privileged". Many have suggested Colregs changed to eliminate these terms in 1972. So what is going on? Did Colregs ever use the term "Right of Way". Again I consider "right of way" and "stand on" to mean exactly the same thing with respect to Colregs, But I'm a bit surprised a quick search did not find a past version of Colregs that uses the "right of way" term. Can anyone elucidate?

I have a hard copy of the 1960 rools ... effective from 1st September 1965.... a small booklet handed out by the MNAOA 'for the information of their members'.

You are correct , no mention of 'right of way', 'burdened', 'privileged', 'give way' or 'stand on' anywhere in the rules.....

The expression 'giving-way vessel' is used in Rule 21 but that's it.

In the rules effective from 1st September 1975 the only use of 'give way' and 'stand on' is in the headers of rules 16 and 17.... while 'giving way vessel' appears twice , and 'give way' vessel' once , within rule 17... the **new** rule 21.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by bmz

I have been asking, begging, pleading, ad nausea for anyone to show me the substantive difference...

Yes you have. And you keep getting answers. And you keep insisting that you are NOT getting answers, because the answers are not "substantive" in your opinion.

You don't like the answers that you are getting, so you insist that they are not really answers.

[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.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I have a hard copy of the 1960 rools ... effective from 1st September 1965.... a small booklet handed out by the MNAOA 'for the information of their members'.

You are correct , no mention of 'right of way', 'burdened', 'privileged', 'give way' or 'stand on' anywhere in the rules.....

The expression 'giving-way vessel' is used in Rule 21 but that's it.

In the rules effective from 1st September 1975 the only use of 'give way' and 'stand on' is in the headers of rules 16 and 17.... while 'giving way vessel' appears twice , and 'give way' vessel' once , within rule 17... the **new** rule 21.

I think you may find that the concept of "right of way", "burdened" and "privileged" come from pre-1980 US Inland Rules, not COLREGs.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...and-rules-road