Which colregs should we ignore?

[snowleopard]

The problem with this - and in fact the same is true of almost any action by a stand on sailing vessel, is that if you stop and he takes the action he should do to avoid you (perhaps he has only just realised you are under sail) then you actually make collision more likely (because his action will be to alter course towards you) and, as you have stopped, you are rather limited in your options!

When he's that close he's going to have to put his helm hard over to hit me.

[bedouin]

When he's that close he's going to have to put his helm hard over to hit me.

Err, and just what action would you be expecting him to take in compliance with Colregs?

Let's say that he was doing 20 kts, you 5kts and on present course you would pass 100 yds in front of him, which he thinks is too close. If he alters course 10 degrees then he runs bang into you.

[toad_oftoadhall]

It doesn't involve ignoring colregs

Off the top of my head it ignores at least two.

[toad_oftoadhall]

who's going to know, and who's going to complain?

Well someone might start a pejorative poll thread on YBW mocking the decision to ignore the collregs!

rather than personal insults

I hope I haven't written any personal insults, if I have point them out and I will appologise.

[snowleopard]

Err, and just what action would you be expecting him to take in compliance with Colregs?

Let's say that he was doing 20 kts, you 5kts and on present course you would pass 100 yds in front of him, which he thinks is too close. If he alters course 10 degrees then he runs bang into you.

He's had me on his ARPA for the last 8 miles and hasn't felt the need to take avoiding action. At the last minute and without further reference to ARPA (which now shows him passing clear ahead) he suddenly changes his mind and puts the wheel hard over towards me. I don't see it.

[toad_oftoadhall]

He's had me on his ARPA for the last 8 miles and hasn't felt the need to take avoiding action. At the last minute and without further reference to ARPA (which now shows him passing clear ahead) he suddenly changes his mind and puts the wheel hard over towards me. I don't see it.

I think that's exactly the situation rule 17 tries so badly to address.

The whole point is he hadn't seen you for those 8 miles and now he's mindlessly turning.

I agree it doesn't seem likely but if rule 17 doesn't protect you from that situation what does it protect you from? It's hardly there to protect you from vessels making an early and obvious change of course.

[Observer]

I think that's exactly the situation rule 17 tries so badly to address.

The whole point is he hadn't seen you for those 8 miles and now he's mindlessly turning.

I agree it doesn't seem likely but if rule 17 doesn't protect you from that situation what does it protect you from? It's hardly there to protect you from vessels making an early and obvious change of course.

Excuse me for hammering home what I think is self-evident.

A "rule", however well designed, cannot, will not, never, ever, protect you. How can it?

I refer back to my "golden rule", stated earlier:

Never allow your safety to depend on the actions of others.

It resolves the conflict at a stroke. Take the action that you consider needs to be taken to assure your own safety, having due regard for 'rules' (whatever thay may be) but not permitting blind adherence to 'rules' to over-ride common sense. It's not hard.

[toad_oftoadhall]

Excuse me for hammering home what I think is self-evident.
A "rule", however well designed, cannot, will not, never, ever, protect you. How can it?
I refer back to my "golden rule", stated earlier:
It resolves the conflict at a stroke. Take the action that you consider needs to be taken to assure your own safety, having due regard for 'rules' (whatever thay may be) but not permitting blind adherence to 'rules' to over-ride common sense. It's not hard.

It *is* self evident and I am 100pc in agreement with every word - with the slight quibble that sometimes due regard for a rule is absolutely no regard.

[Observer]

It *is* self evident and I am 100pc in agreement with every word - with the slight quibble that sometimes due regard for a rule is absolutely no regard.

"Due" is the most glorious, majestically resonant and "Humpty Dumpty-esque" word (readers of Lewis Carroll will catch the allusion) in the English language. It is apt for all purposes. It has infinite meanings and a single meaning. If nothing is due, then nothing should be paid. Of course, each of us who chooses to exercise discretion in reliance upon it has to be prepared to defend and justify the meaning we place on it, in any given circumstances, against all comers. Perfect.

[awol]

'Cos there was nought on telly last night I pulled up the latest MAIB digest for a dose of schadenfreude and found this conclusion from a close encounter between a trawling fishing boat and a ferry

He had come to accept that the
ferries normally passed close. Therefore,
being the stand-on vessel and expecting
the ferry to eventually alter course, he
delayed his action until it was almost too
late. The Colregs tell us that action to
avoid collision must be substantial and
made in good time. There is no doubt
that the action taken by the skipper was
substantial, but it could have been taken
sooner. Guard against complacency –
expect the unexpected.