Which colregs should we ignore?

[AndrewF]

Why not ignore all of the rules, because from some of the confusing and convolted threads that have been on here in the past. I suspect that a large number of people do not understand the rules in the first place.

[mortehoe]

It has two pictures:

1st picture is of a gin palace with an enormous bowwave bearing down on a man in a smock helming a clinker laid gaffer. The bearded man in the smock is pointing to his tan sail and is shouting towards the gin palace "Sail"

The 2nd picture is the skipper of the mobo on the topmost deck with a bullhorn at his mouth tapping his bridge parapet shouting towards the slowly sailing gaffer, "STEEL !!!!'

IMO, Colregs are there for a single simple purpose.

Many of us here ride motorbikes. We all appreciate that regardless of the Highway Code that if somebody ahead of us makes a significant shift to the left and maintains it then that is a signal that we have been spotted and are cleared to overtake etc.

I think that the same applies to Colregs. If a stand-on sailboat sailing with AIS and a critical CPA makes a significant change to his course and maintains it then it is a signal to any other boat within eyeballing distance or beyond the visible horizon (or murk) with radar or with AIS that the situation may have changed.

If we all follow the same rules then assuming that we know them and have them at our fingertips then there should be no problems. How many 'Ouzo's have there been in say the last 10 years --- There was the yacht crossing the North Sea .... I can't offhand think of any more apart from the Bramble Bush chain ferry running down a racing boat - but that was a completely different set of circumstances.

I think that prior to dashing off one liners and damming Colregs outright, we ought to think about what is happening on the commercial vessels that are detecting and monitoring us - They (assumed) are professional seamen who will be assessing our radar reflection (assuming 1: that we have an effective radar reflector and 2: are not broadcasting AIS info) and are hoping that we will be complying with Colregs ..... It's when we make up the rules as we go along that causes commercial seamen to throw their arms in the air and curse bloody stoopid yotties!

IMO, It doesn't take much nouce to learn and apply Colregs .... Yes, AIS_over_the_horizon CPA's of 0.01nm are close encouters of the 4th kind!

[timbartlett]

Many of us here ride motorbikes. We all appreciate that regardless of the Highway Code that if somebody ahead of us makes a significant shift to the left and maintains it then that is a signal that we have been spotted and are cleared to overtake etc.

I am one of those who does (a battered old Pan European). But if somebody ahead of me makes a significant shift to the left and maintains it then I tend to be wary of the possibility that it is a signal that his/her mobile phone has just gone off, and (s)he is rummaging through her handbag/his briefcase on the passenger seat in order to answer it!

But in all other respects, well said!

[timbartlett]

.

[Woodlouse]

Now provided that you don't actually collide with anyone then you are free as a bird to ignore as many of the rules as you see fit.

Once the collision has taken place then you refer to the rules to see who was wrong. Which in every case will be both parties. Simples.

[Cornishman]

There seems to be a body of opinion that the world would be a safer place if small craft ignored the colregs.
Pick as many as you like!
(PS forum technology only allows ten options, but there are 38 rules and four annexes, so it's not possible to list every rule individually)

I am surprised that such an experienced skipper should even ask such a question, or are you another makee learnee Tim Bartlett I do not know?

[toad_oftoadhall]

Now provided that you don't actually collide with anyone then you are free as a bird to ignore as many of the rules as you see fit.

Once the collision has taken place then you refer to the rules to see who was wrong. Which in every case will be both parties. Simples.

The more I think about this the truer it gets! Good post.

I also wonder how many people carry enough day shapes to go aground? I suspect few so the majority ignore at least one col reg.

I also love bikes. The idea of a sensible reaction to a hazard being to hold course and speed is a joke.

[timbartlett]

I also love bikes. The idea of a sensible reaction to a hazard being to hold course and speed is a joke.

I don't know where this suggestion came from. But if you are implying that the best way to stay out of trouble on a bike is to ignore the highway code, then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
And if you are suggesting that it would be sensible to stop on a roundabout to give way to a lorry that was waiting to enter the roundabout from your left, then I'm afraid I disagree about that one, too.

[toad_oftoadhall]

I don't know where this suggestion came from. But if you are implying that the best way to stay out of trouble on a bike is to ignore the highway code, then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.

As far as I know the highway code has no equivalent of rule 17. Are you saying it does? If it doesn't are you saying it should?

[toad_oftoadhall]

Stop press.

I just saw this:
http://www.timbartlett.co.uk/Colregs%20book.jpg

So as an expert (and I mean that sincerely) can you say exactly what the definition of 'apparent' is in Rule 17, and back it up with some evidence?