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.
View Poll Results: Which Colregs should small craft skippers be encouraged to ignore?
- 108. You may not vote on this poll
Rule2: the ordinary practice of seamen
Rule 5: Lookout
Rule 6: Safe speed
Rule 8: Action to avoid collision
Rules 9 and 10: Narrow channels and separation schemes
Rules 12-16: the everyday steering and sailing rules
Rule 17: Action by stand-on vessel
Rule 18: the pecking order
Part C -- lights and shapes
None of the above: We should obey all of them
Thread: Which colregs should we ignore?
08-10-09, 11:09 #11Registered User
Location : Tollesbury
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
08-10-09, 11:20 #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
There's a Peyton cartoon that was published ~1997
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!
08-10-09, 13:53 #13timbartlett Guest
But in all other respects, well said!
11-10-09, 00:40 #14timbartlett Guest
11-10-09, 01:25 #15
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.
11-10-09, 06:24 #16
11-10-09, 08:24 #17
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.
11-10-09, 16:17 #18timbartlett Guest
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.
11-10-09, 17:43 #19
11-10-09, 17:51 #20
I just saw this:
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?
Last edited by toad_oftoadhall; 11-10-09 at 17:56.