I'm toying with the idea of a bit of a change for February's What Now Skip.
I'd like you to imagine that IMO has invited the members of the ybw forum to rewrite the collision regulations, starting with a blank screen. Our ideas have to be fair and realistic (so you can't ban jetskis or supertankers) and it would help if they were easy to understand and obey.
What ideas would you bring to our first meeting?
Usual WNS guidelines apply as far as practical, so please remember:
* The idea is to offer a nautical puzzle, which experienced skippers will (hopefully) find interesting or entertaining, from which the less experienced may be able to learn something, and from which we can all pick up ideas.
* WNS is not a competition to see who can match some hidden but predetermined solution. Of course I have an answer in mind, but mine may not be the best or only answer.
* If you think I've missed something or given confusing information please ask for clarification.
* Attributed extracts from selected posts may appear in the next issue of MBY (subject to Hugo's decision!).
For what it's worth, here are my ideas. I don't pretend that they are comprehensive, but nor am I asking anyone to replace the entire colregs in one go: if there's just one rule that you'd like changed, let's have it!
1. The rules apply to everyone, everywhere -- no "local" rules, and no cop-outs
2. AIS (or AIS B) and VHF compulsory for all vessels over 1 tonne displacement
3. All vessels fall into one of four classes:
class 0 = normal vessels -- power and auxiliary sail
class 1 = fishing vessels, unpowered sail
class 2 = restricted in ability to manoeuvre (including constrained by draft or tugs with tows)
class 3 = disabled (anchored, aground, mechanical failure)
4. Any vessel must give way to a vessel of a higher class, unless the higher class vessel is overtaking
5. Except in traffic separation schemes, narrow channels, and overtaking situations, when vessels of the same class meet:
(i)Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to starboard, must give way by altering course to starboard. She may also reduce speed.
(ii) Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to port, may give way by altering course to starboard, but must avoid altering course to port or reducing speed.
6. Existing TSS and Narrow channels rules simplified but essentially unchanged
7. Existing side, stern, and steaming light rules amended to a more sensible cut off angle (eg 120 degrees instead of 112.5) but otherwise unchanged. All other lights scrapped in favour of all-round yellow lights:
0 for class 0
1 for class 1
2 for class 2
3 for class 3
Wow, massive question. So much to say on this topic but not enough time to type it. Meantime some quick thoughts:
Much better to amend current rules than start blank sheet of paper. Current rules are 80% ok
You gotta think very carefully before insisting hardware changes. So better not to have your 120 angle lamps, etc. The wasted cost of £zillions, with no matching utility, would be absurd. In any case our parliament will not constiutionally (I know we dont quite have one...) pass a law unless there is an identified problem it is seeking to fix. I like your yellow light system though - see 7below
Just on your suggestions:
1. Agreed
2. Transmit or receive? A receiver needs a screen - you can't really impose on people the need to buy a waterproof colour screen at £1000 min, just to use a boat, sheesh. And a battery. So I disagree
3. You mean boats can flip between classes, depending on what they're doing at any given moment, right?
5i - disagree. Too prescriptive. Speeding up should be allowed, because it's often appropriate eg in a crossing situation
5 i&ii taken together, you are saying BOTH vessels must give way in a crossing situation. No, I think the current position where one of them is stand-on, is better. In current Colregs the only time both give way is head-on meet, and that's fine as an exceptin, but in all other cases I think it is better to define a hierarchy (as you do with class 0,1,2,3) and so define a give way and a stand on vessel
7. I'd like to see lights and shapes simplified so I agree this general concept. But gotta compromise and keep to minimum to save wasted resources. Would need a 10 year transition etc...
There is some great written academic material on improving colregs on the web. Read for example the essays by Iain Stitt (an old partner of mine at Arthur Andersen in the 1990s, VERY clever and nice guy, and experienced boater, ex RN)
Amend colregs so that leisure vessels including sail must give way to commercial shipping vessels in all circumstances.
What defines a commercial shipping vessel? One where the skipper is driving in relation to his/her business? Boats over a certain size? Fishing boats? all the above could also be leisure boats on a different day. How would you know by looking at them?
Obviously I understand where you are coming from when it comes to the kind of boats you meet in the shipping lanes, but elsewhere there would be confusion.
On a point of order - what's wrong with an arc of 112.5 degrees. The reason for the 22.5 degrees aft of the beam bit is originally it was designated as 2 points (there are 11.25 degrees in a point)
And before anyone mentions it, although Points of the compass may be a bit archaic, you can't just change them. It's like saying that having 360 degrees in a circle is silly. Why not make it a nice round 400 degrees?
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
Vessels under 40 feet may fly a burgee (or at night a strobe) which indicates that either a) they do not know or b) will not be following the Colregs.........and are willing to accept the consequences.
Maybe looking something like this:-
With or without the above - another burgee indicating that any vessels approaching within 50 metres will be fired upon.
Maybe looking something like this:-
__________________
Posted by downthecreek:
You are a prolific producer of offensive and gratuitous drivel
5. Except in traffic separation schemes, narrow channels, and overtaking situations, when vessels of the same class meet:
(i)Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to starboard, must give way by altering course to starboard. She may also reduce speed.
(ii) Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to port, may give way by altering course to starboard, but must avoid altering course to port or reducing speed.
The idea was that those with the other vessel ahead or to starboard must give way (i.e. it's compulsory, as at present)
Those with the other vessel to port may give way (i.e. it removes the compulsory stand-on which so many recreational boaters seem to dislike, but prevents the potentially dangerous conflicts that the stand-on rule was intended to prevent).
Amend colregs so that leisure vessels including sail must give way to commercial shipping vessels in all circumstances.
This was proposed by the italian government a few years ago.
Would you like to enlarge on the proposal, please?
(definitions? identification?)
The kind of problem I have in mind is that 6360 of the 8520 people on Oasis of the Seas are there purely for pleasure, and that the three-man crew of a 22 foot yacht might be onboard as part of their compulsory professional training at a nautical college.
(PS I'm not arguing for or against it -- just hoping that you'll put some more flesh on its bones!)
Vessels under 40 feet may fly a burgee (or at night a strobe) which indicates that either a) they do not know or b) will not be following the Colregs.........and are willing to accept the consequences.
I was wondering how to treat racing yachts in my rewrite!
But seriously -- should there be any exemptions from the colregs? And if so, who?
I was wondering how to treat racing yachts in my rewrite!
Bl##dy hell I have reduced the Colregs down to 2 rules, and already someone can't understand them
Racing Yachts - amongst themselves they can set their own rules, but when encountering others I beleive that flag 2 covers the situation
Quote:
But seriously -- should there be any exemptions from the colregs? And if so, who?
My first reaction is to say pleasure gives way to commercial - but if that was made an absolute I can see some Nouveau Chav on a Funseeker getting coded simply for right of way.........
FWIW I think the current Colregs work ok (even though I don't know them well ) - IME the informal rule that small keeps away from VERY big. and rocks. works well enuf.........but, as always, YMMV
__________________
Posted by downthecreek:
You are a prolific producer of offensive and gratuitous drivel
2 Big boys to play in big channel and little boats are guests of that channel and must be curticeouse and keep out the big boys way.
3. Sail boats must mot tack in confined spaces, ie a channel unless there is no other way of propulsion available to them and must fly a disabled by sail flag to inform other river users that they are only able to sail.
4.Strobe lights should be used for vessels under tow or using the services of a tug, Many day shapes are difficult to see.
5.Fish boats trawling must display a large flag and strobe light in the direction of there out lying gear.
6. New to boating peeps must fly a large "L" type flag for the 1st year and a " P " for the second year of boating. there after no flag is required.
How do you define "bigger" (Should a Wightlink ferry that draws about 8 feet be able to claim tonnage rights over a Whitbread 60 that draws about 15 feet?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerskipper
2 Big boys to play in big channel and little boats are guests of that channel and must be curticeouse and keep out the big boys way.
Where does the "big channel" begin and end?
Interesting that several people have come up in favour of a "might is right" rule in some form or another. Anyone like to put some definitions on it that might work? (without leaving very slow vessels desperately trying to escape from very fast ones)
Excuse me for being a bit naive but what is so wrong with the existing ColRegs that they need altering?
The few reports I hear of collisions at sea suggests to me that there can't be much wrong with them.
If people drove their cars with as much attention to the Highway Code as seamen do to the ColRegs, we might see a drastic reduction in the 3,000 or so deaths a year on British roads.
How do you define "bigger" (Should a Wightlink ferry that draws about 8 feet be able to claim tonnage rights over a Whitbread 60 that draws about 15 feet?)
Ok That can be solved with a flag or light or symbol that says over 10m draft, similar to Constrained by draft of today, but more easily identify at a distance.
Where does the "big channel" begin and end?
This is the deep water channel[Big Channel] and in most cases but not all cases smaller draft vessels can skirt just outside the channel with enough depth for them but not for the bigger deeper draft vessels.Where the 2 have to combine, a shape on the buoy could be used, say a Large triangle for a big ship and a smaller one for the smaller draft vessels on a starboard hand mark.
Interesting that several people have come up in favor of a "might is right" rule in some form or another. Anyone like to put some definitions on it that might work? (without leaving very slow vessels desperately trying to escape from very fast ones
I can see that working a treat on the Grand Union or Oxford Canals, or indeed Middle/Upper Thames. And who pays for this unncessary luxury? Joe Blogs with a Norman 20, Fred Smith with his 4hp outboard on a Dawncraft? You'll have to specify that one clearly Tim, Coastal waters, shipping lanes and channels only or the Joes and Freds of this world who potter about the Medway or down the Tideway to the Limehouse reach will want to lynch YOU as well as the current government!
__________________
I used to think wives and boats were a financial drain on one's resources, but that was before the kids became teenagers.
This was proposed by the italian government a few years ago.
Would you like to enlarge on the proposal, please? (definitions? identification?)
Not from the government actually, but it was indeed an Italian proposal.
Probably the most important reason why it was rejected, I reckon.
Anyway, nice to see now that some others agree on that - as anyone with a pinch of experience would.
Re. definitions and identification, well, do you really think it would be a problem? If so, why not apply just the law of the jungle? Surely the crew of that 22 feet yacht know perfectly their chances against a 200k+ GT steel monument, without even bothering about colregs...
Interesting philosophical debate ...... come a bit early in winter though hasn't it?
I have always worked on the principle that being in the right is all very well - but its much better to be alive - and sometimes the two don't coincide. This applies as much on the road as it does on the water. In the same way that, though I may have priority according to the Highway Code, I do not cross junctions as a pedestrian and expect traffic to give way (unless supported by traffic lights!), neither do I expect a large tanker/bulk carrier etc (or even the Woolwich Ferry) to give way to me in my 27ft of boat capable of 30kts or so.
Know the COLREGS, apply them with common sense and, if in any doubt whatsoever (or because its an easier solution) then be prepared to stifle your natural aggression (or need to prove that you're right) and give way early and clearly even if the regs don't force you to. I know the argument which says that not following the regs can cause confusion and, if you leave it to the last minute, this may be true. But act early enough, and the problem doesn't arise.
As for the specifics of the questions - most of all I would want to go for the simplification of the lights. Does anyone actually know the more obscure lighting arrangements from memory? (I confess I carry the 'flashcards' so I can check the more extreme examples). If you do know them all, either you're an instructor or you should get out more. And even if you know them, how many can you actually recognise against a shore glowing with flashing neon, red, yellow and green lights, sodium street lights etc etc etc
Excuse me for being a bit naive but what is so wrong with the existing ColRegs that they need altering?
Nothing parsifal.
However Mr Bartlett has come up with a good Journalistic idea.
Suspect it is rather hard to dream summat up each Month
Couldn't have put it better than either of you, myself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliveshep
AIS and VHF on all pleasure craft over 1 tonne?
I can see that working a treat on the Grand Union or Oxford Canals, or indeed Middle/Upper Thames. And who pays for this unncessary luxury? Joe Blogs with a Norman 20
Are you arguing against AIS, or VHF, or in favour of a size or coverage limit? If so, where would you pitch the size limit or the border for compulsory carriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 62roome
Interesting philosophical debate ...... come a bit early in winter though hasn't it?
Thank you. That's what I was hoping for! Maybe it is a bit early in the winter for the forum ... but if MBY is going to publish it, we need to be having it now, or it will be too late for the February issue, which is where I think it might fit best.
Quote:
I have always worked on the principle that being in the right is all very well - but its much better to be alive - and sometimes the two don't coincide.
It seems that there are quite a few people who agree with this principle, and who regard Rule 17 as some kind of "suicide rule". We've had that argument extensively on this forum and others. I won't deny that those discussions were one of the things that triggered this thread: it is obviously something that many people find interesting.
On one hand, Rule 17 was a fairly early addition to the Rules, and has survived with only one significant change through many revisions, so presumably it is there for a reason.
On the other hand, if we really do have to bend or break Rule 17 in order to stay alive, what's the point of having it? Would it be better to scrap it than to have one rule that brings the others into disrepute? Or maybe we could come up with something better?
But it's an interesting philosophical debate: nothing more. I don't kid myself that anything we say will influence IMO one way or the other.
Couldn't have put it better than either of you, myself
Well, if you are looking for something to write about - maybe an article that addresses the needs of over 70% of the readership and who to date have been conspiculously absent from the boat mags.........
Interesting philosophical debate ...... come a bit early in winter though hasn't it?
Know the COLREGS
Yep!
Does anyone actually know the more obscure lighting arrangements from memory?
P off!
(I confess I carry the 'flashcards' so I can check the more extreme examples).
Well done.
If you do know them all, either you're an instructor or you should get out more.
You takin the P?
And even if you know them, how many can you actually recognise against a shore glowing with flashing neon, red, yellow and green lights, sodium street lights etc etc etc
No!
KISS is the key ..........
I like that.
Good reply That Man
This Col regs thing is a minefield innit
__________________
Jerk of all trades. Expert in none.
Plus Don,t do serious, lifes too short.
"It seems that there are quite a few people who agree with this principle, and who regard Rule 17 as some kind of "suicide rule". We've had that argument extensively on this forum and others. I won't deny that those discussions were one of the things that triggered this thread: it is obviously something that many people find interesting.
On one hand, Rule 17 was a fairly early addition to the Rules, and has survived with only one significant change through many revisions, so presumably it is there for a reason.
On the other hand, if we really do have to bend or break Rule 17 in order to stay alive, what's the point of having it? Would it be better to scrap it than to have one rule that brings the others into disrepute? Or maybe we could come up with something better?"
Sorry Tim, but I would have to totally disagree with you on this.
Rule 17 is not a Suicide Rule, in fact just the opposite.
Para (a (i)) states that a Stand On vessel should maintain her course and speed. This is to give the opportunity to the Give Way vessel to assess the situation and decide on the best course of action. Very hard to do if the other vessel was jinking about all over the ocean but happened to be on you your starboard side.
Para (a (ii) then states that should the Stand On vessel decide that the Give Way vessel is not taking action as soon as it would wish, the Stand On vessel may take action by her manouevre alone to avoid the situation.
Jump to para (c)
This paragraph states that the Stand On vessel when taking action becuase she got a bit "twitched" should AVOID an alterartion of course to Port for a vessel on her own Port side. It does not say she should not alter to Port but you would be an idiot to do so!
Para (b) states that should the Stand On vessel hesitate and now finds that she is so close that action by the Give Way vessel alone will not avoid the collision, then she MUST take whatever action to avoid the collision. In other words, you may now go to Port, Starboard, Speed Up, Slow Down - whatever, just don't have a collision in accordance with Rule 2.
Final para (Para (d)) states that jsut because Rule 17 exists, it does not relieve the Give Way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way. In other words, if the the Stand Vessel either feels she has to take action or must take action, the Give Way vessel has already broken the Rules.
Rule 2 can be quite succinctly summed up as follows:
Para (a) states that you must obey the Rules - no exceptions. Para (b) states that having obeyed the Rules, if for some reason you are still going to have a collsion, you must now disobey the Rules. In other words - you are not allowed to have a collsion - period.
Why try and re-classify vessels. Rule 3 quite clearly and simply classifies vessels by what is propelling them and/or the nature of their work and/or by some special circumstance. Deciding that yachts should be Class 0 (or whatever) raises problems of what is a yacht, when does a dinghy become a yacht, when does a yacht become a vessel etc., as other posters have raised.
Who gives way to whom is clearly stated in Rule 18. Everyone gives way to Fishing Vessels (as defined in Rule 3) and Fishings should, so far as possible, give way to NUC and RAM. All other vessels then give way to NUC and RAM and then Power gives way to Sail. All (with the exception of NUC and RAM) should avoid impeding a vessel CBD (see a much earlier thread when I once tried to explan what "impeding" meant). Therefore, this Rule is simple to understand as well and I would suggest, does not need changing either
If you haven't guessed, I totally agree with other posters asking what's wrong with the current Rules (although there is a bit in Rule 24 that could do with better clarification). Also, it must be remembered that the Rules are International Law and must mean the same when translated into many other languages. Yes I know that English is the language of the sea, but if English is not your first language, you are going to translate the Rules into your own language.
I fails to sse the connection between the what I have just written and your view that there is an implied suicide pact in there somewhere or that further clarification of who gives to whom need further amplification.
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
In every place I look, Rule 17 of IRPCS reads as follows:
(a)
(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.
Which (construction-wise) doesn't make sense. Has anyone seen it written in a way that avoids the construction error? It seems to me that it should read:
Either:
Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
or:
Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other, the other shall keep her course and speed.
I agree, it should read like this. The author had an obvious hatred of commas!!!
That's sometimes a feature of legal drafting. Personally, I think well-placed commas (they are used in Colregs, but relatively infrequently) are essential to avoid awkward construction.
In this rule, it's not just the missing comma but the redundant "of" (or missing repetition of "the other"). I would use "vessel" - a few more words but avoids ambiguity. Thus:
Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other vessel, the other vessel shall keep her course and speed.
Addressing the point that underlies Tim's post (the actions of (in particular) small vessels in relation to rule 17), I would suggest the following additional rule.
Rule 17
(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the point in time at which, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonably to be expected that the vessel that (but for this rule) is or would be obliged to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will have commenced to take such action.
Thus (by way of illustration), if the watch-keeper on a small vessel observes a large vessel on a constant bearing, and the large vessel would be 'give way', the small vessel is not obliged to stand on under rule 17(a)(i) prior to the time at which the large vessel should reasonably be expected to commence avoiding action. This allows the small vessel to take action itself to eliminate the development of the risk of collision that would bring rule 17(a)(i) into play.
I think the above simply codifies and 'legitimises' what (very frequently) happens in practice anyway.
Addressing the point that underlies Tim's post (the actions of (in particular) small vessels in relation to rule 17), I would suggest the following additional rule.
Rule 17
(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the point in time at which, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonably to be expected that the vessel that (but for this rule) is or would be obliged to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will have commenced to take such action.
Thus (by way of illustration), if the watch-keeper on a small vessel observes a large vessel on a constant bearing, and the large vessel would be 'give way', the small vessel is not obliged to stand on under rule 17(a)(i) prior to the time at which the large vessel should reasonably be expected to commence avoiding action. This allows the small vessel to take action itself to eliminate the development of the risk of collision that would bring rule 17(a)(i) into play.
I think the above simply codifies and 'legitimises' what (very frequently) happens in practice anyway.
Observer, you are correct about the redundant "of". It's typical of the drafting of many parts of Colregs however (qv other threads). The standard of drafting really is very poor (different terms used to mean the same thing for example, much confused wording, etc)
I very much like your new rule 17e. It's an excellent way of legitimising a common and sensible action. Excuse my pedantry though, but you need to check your drafting. There's a difference between "shall not be deemed to exist" and "shall be deemed not to exist". (And, just to digress for a minute, and i know I'm in teach-suck-eggs territory with you Observer but the point is worth making, the word "deemed" is often misused. It should only be used where it is specifying a potential fiction - a set of circumstances that might be different from reality. Thus, it would be wrong to say "MBY tested the Azi 58 and Sq58 and deemed the Sq to be the better boat" (despite the excellent taste that would indicate!), but it would be correct to say "If the defendant enters no plea he shall be deemed to have pleaded Not Guilty". /Digression).
Your excellent 17e, which does indeed properly use "deem", might be better as follows (and I've made a few other tweaks, as you'll see):
Rule 17
(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall be deemed not to exist at all times prior to the time at which, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that the vessel which (but for this rule) is or would be obliged to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will commence to take such action.
In fact, there is quite a lot of careful thinking still needed on the drafting. For example
1. Add "latest" prior to "time" ? This eliminates the ambiguity (as to Stand-on's lawfulness) arising from the fact the give way vessel is free to take uber-early avoiding action 10miles before the collision point, if he wishes. But adding the risk that stand-on might turn to port while give-way makes an early turn to starboard, hence a prang. That's a tricky conflict that has to be cracked before enacting your 17e...
2. Tidy up the "is or would be" becuase you don't make it clear in what circs the "would be" applies. Indeed, if stand-on makes a voluntary early manoeuvre away, prior to the trigger time in your 17e, then arguably give-way vessel never becomes the give way vessel, so your rule oxymoronically disappears up its own backside :-) Tricky drafting, sure you get my drift, but all needs to be figured out.
Nevertheless, your concept is an excellent idea imho.
BTW, Iain Stitt would be excellent at working this out. He's retired, so they should hire him to do the re-write. :-)
I appreciate your thoughtful critique of the suggested new rule. I acknowledge the general validity of your comments but it's probably worth checking that we have both covered the same ground before ruling in or out any particular drafting (this discussion is a bit nerdy, for lawyer types, so others please excuse us).
First, with regard to "shall not be deemed to exist" cf "shall be deemed not to exist", I was specifically (I'm not sure whether it should be exclusively?) seeking to counter the effect of rule 7(d)(i):
Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change
because that is the rule that locks a vessel, that would be 'stand on' if the risk of collision (by reason of the not-appreciably-changing compass bearing) is deemed to exist, into holding course and speed when the circumstances would permit (or dictate) taking some pre-emptive action that avoids 17(a)(i) from coming into play. Therefore, I felt "shall not be deemed to exist" was more correct (although I'm open to further discussion and correction).
I did consider adding a clarifying cross-reference "Notwithstanding rule 7(d)(i)", but that legalistic type of expression is not really used in Colregs and, if I had included it, I would have ended up with "For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i) and notwithstanding rule 7(d)(i)", which is a bit unwieldy.
With reference to your 'drafting issues', I did consider "latest time" but ruled it out because of the drawback you identified. It seems to me, if this pre-emptive action is to be legitimised, that it should be taken (considerably) earlier than the latest time at which the give way vessel could take its own action under rule 16. By that (latest) time, the 'risk of collision' is (self-evidently) well established, so it is necessary that rule 17(a)(i) should have effect. That does leave a substantial grey area - at what point does it become reasonable to expect that the give way vessel will have commenced taking action? - but I think there are other, similar grey areas in Colregs (that's one of its strengths).
On the "is or would be", that did need further thought to avoid the contradiction you described. On reflection, it's not "but for this rule" because there is no licence to act accruing to the give way vessel under this rule. The licence to act accrues to the stand on vessel. So, I've redrafted as follows:
Rule 17
(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the time at which it is reasonable to expect that the vessel which, but for action taken in reliance on this rule, would be required to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will commence to take such action.
I'm sure further improvement could be made. What do you think?
(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the time at which it is reasonable to expect that the vessel which, but for action taken in reliance on this rule, would be required to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will commence to take such action.
I'm sure further improvement could be made. What do you think?
NB This is me as me (an individual) rather than me (as journalist-working-for-MBY)
Having seen how you arrived at this, I appreciate what it says. But as a simple sailor, I think if I were coming to it without that background knowledge, I would be struggling.
If you are re-drafting the existing Rule 17, how about:- 17a(i) Where one of two vessels is required to give way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
17a(ii) The latter vessel may, however, manoeuvre so as to prevent the risk of collision from developing, up to the earliest time at which it would be reasonable to expect the other vessel to begin her give-way manaoeuvre.
17a(iii) The vessel that is required to keep her course and speed is relieved of this obligation as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action in compliance with the rules.
FWIW, although I'm inclined to agree that the elasticity of some of the colregs contributes to their strength, I think many people would find it less easy to justify breaking Rule 17 if the point at which the stand-on obligation began and ended were defined rather more precisely.
NB This is me as me (an individual) rather than me (as journalist-working-for-MBY)
Having seen how you arrived at this, I appreciate what it says. But as a simple sailor, I think if I were coming to it without that background knowledge, I would be struggling.
If you are re-drafting the existing Rule 17, how about:- 17a(i) Where one of two vessels is required to give way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
17a(ii) The latter vessel may, however, manoeuvre so as to prevent the risk of collision from developing, up to the earliest time at which it would be reasonable to expect the other vessel to begin her give-way manaoeuvre.
17a(iii) The vessel that is required to keep her course and speed is relieved of this obligation as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action in compliance with the rules.
FWIW, although I'm inclined to agree that the elasticity of some of the colregs contributes to their strength, I think many people would find it less easy to justify breaking Rule 17 if the point at which the stand-on obligation began and ended were defined rather more precisely.
So, you have a large Supertanker on your port side, crossing. It is the Give Way vessel and will be wanting to make a manoeuvre fairly early on due to its limited manouevrability. You, on the Stand on vesel have absolutely no idea when the OOW on the Supertanker will be making his turn, probably do not appreciate his limitatins but are quite happy to jink all over the ocean making his decision making process that much harder, until you decide "OK that's close enough - I'll hold my course and speed now and expect him to give way to me".
Please, think this through form the commercial ships point of view. The ColRegs are not just written for small vessels - and indeed if they were most would probably still not read them anyway!!!
It's fairly straightforward. Risk of Collision is deemed to exist when there is no appreciable change of bearing. The manouevrability of your own vessel will determine when you start thinking about taking action, but as a general rule of thumb, that will be at about 3 to 4 miles. Obviously in congested waters (such as the English Channel) this distance may shrink.
Once risk of collision has been deemed to exist, Rule 8 and Rule 17 come into play. The Give Way vessel should take early and positive action so as the stand vessel, observing either visulaly, or by radar, can clearly see that something has happened. Similarly, the stand on vessel must maintain her course and speed so as the Give Way vessel can decide when and where it will alter course.
A classic MCA Orals question asked of OOWs is "You see a vessel 3 points to port at a distance of 10 miles, crossing. What action will you take?" Most students then go into autopilot and replying that they would "take a series of bearings and/or ranges to determine if a close quaters situation or risk of collsion is developing". The MCA examiner will then state that the bearing is steady and the range is closing and ask "does a risk of collison exist?"
The answer is a resounding "NO". At that range risk of collision dos not exist. However, if things remain the same, then a risk would exist so they would continue to monitor the situation. Once the range gets down to 5 or 6 miles, then the situation changes and a risk of collision may now be deemed to exist and so they would have to now hold their course and speed and start to expect the other vessel to take some action.
Once the range decreases to approx 3 miles and if the Give Way vessel has not altered course, they would be sounding 5 short blasts and calling the Captain and continuing to hol;d their course and speed and contnuing to monitor the situation. When the range decreases to under approx 3 miles they would be taking action in accordance with Rule 17 (a (ii) and 17 (c) - (i.e. taking action by their manoeuvre alone, but avoiding an alteration to Port. Hopefully they would never allow themselves to get into a position of having to obey Rule 17 (b).
With pleasure boaters, are you seriously suggesting that most would follow this sort of scenario? Most would not bother taking any action until perhaps only a few hundred yards away (not even holding their course and speed until they reached this distance).
With what has been written before in this thread I am altering my view. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea should only apply between commercial vessels (including chartered/skippered yachts) and have qualified and certificated OOWs. ALL other vessels should give way to them!!
To indicate that the vessel has a certificated and qualified OOW it should by day, fly a Flag or Shape of some sort and by night exhibit a coloured flashing light (type of flag and colur of light to be discussed but personally I couldn't care less).
At the end of the day, "might has right" and if a supertanker (or most any other "proper" ship) runs over a yacht, then I can assure you that they will not even feel the bump and the only sympathy that should be offered should be found in the dictionary somewhere between "Sh*t and Syphilis". The yacht should never have let themselevs get into that position.
Happy sailing.
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
Calamitys38,
I think you and I are on very much the same wavelength here. Personally I see nothing wrong with the existing Rule 17, and a very great deal that is right. I have never been able to understand why some people think that they should ignore it, far less why they encourage others to do so.
But I also acknowledge that they exist, and that they have genuine concerns about the application of Rule 17.
So, in the fictional WNS world in which we are rewriting the colregs, I initially suggested a rule that would allow the stand on vessel to give way (because that is what many seem determined to do, rules or no rules), but would not allow it to "jink all over the ocean".
I have the feeling that Observer and JFM are also working towards a form of words that would allow the stand on vessel to take early action to prevent the risk of collision from developing in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong!).
Once we start venturing along that route, I suggest that the big question is when the obligation to stand on begins.
Like you, I think it is considerably earlier than most small craft skippers believe: I certainly wouldn't argue with the distances you mention -- though there are others on these forums who do (see www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216006 and various other scuttlebut threads during October).
Why not specify that Rule 17 begins to apply when the vessels are six miles apart, for instance? I appreciate that watchkeepers without radar might not know exactly when the vessels are six miles apart, but at least it should be blindingly obvious that at three miles, it is far too late for the stand-on vessel to start jinking about!
...the only sympathy that should be offered should be found in the dictionary somewhere between "Sh*t and Syphilis". The yacht should never have let themselevs get into that position.
That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.
How about a yacht that was sunk by a ship whose watchkeepers were wearing dark glasses on the bridge at night, and which was making a very gradual alteration of course that would have given the yacht the impression that she was overtaking rather than converging?
Or a yacht that was hit by a ship that was doing 25 knots through thick fog, whose master thought a CPA of a quarter of a mile was perfectly adequate, and whose ARPA was later shown to be giving duff information anyway because someone had switched it into the wrong mode.
Being amateur does not make someone stupid or incompetent. Nor does being professional make them infallible!
I'd like to see the various "keep out of the way" and give way to" and "not impede" sorted out. They seem to be different, but unquantified. Likewise, a "catch all" clause for the stand on vessel. Haven't got the rules in front of me, but is it rule one or two, the one that starts (oddly) with the phrase "Nothing in these rules..." - the one that says look, you have got to avoid a collision. So don't be standing on for ever, and hiding behind the fact that you were the stand-on vessel even after an accident or near-accident. That means that at a certain point, even if you're the stand-on vessel - you dump the speed and/or fling hard to starboard. What point though?
Both these rule beg the question - how close is "too close"?
How about inshore open water (non-open water includes with xxx metres of a habour entrance, or in a narrow channel etc) "not impede"/give way/keep clear of" means (say) you must aim to maintain 100metres between you and any other vessel if passing ahead or overtaking. Offshore (more than a mile, say) it means maintain (say) 300metres even if passing behind. This also defines the limit of standing on - the give way boat must aim to maintain these distances, and the stand-on vessels responsibility is to take action if it appears that they won't be maintained. Taking action might include reporting the offending vessel, perhaps with pix. Hah! Or indeed, ooer.
So, too close is under 100m aside or ahead inshore, or within 300m offshore.
One class not mentioned are dive boats, very indistint when there is no wind and if there is most are about 12"-6" and not visible until nearly upon them.
That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.
How about a yacht that was sunk by a ship whose watchkeepers were wearing dark glasses on the bridge at night, and which was making a very gradual alteration of course that would have given the yacht the impression that she was overtaking rather than converging?
Or a yacht that was hit by a ship that was doing 25 knots through thick fog, whose master thought a CPA of a quarter of a mile was perfectly adequate, and whose ARPA was later shown to be giving duff information anyway because someone had switched it into the wrong mode.
Being amateur does not make someone stupid or incompetent. Nor does being professional make them infallible!
Sorry Tim
I agree, a very generalised and what could be viewed as a slightly worrying statement - but I wasn't talking about accidents or negligence (or even just not seeing the smaller vessel due to....whatever). These will always happen due to the nature of the beast - we are all human and consequently, sometimes screw up. My statement was with particular regard to the non application of the Col Regs whatsoever. In these situations I feel that the yachtsman deserves everything he/she gets.
An example - Believe it or not, I was at anchor a few years ago in Lyme Bay on a 255 000 DWT supertanker which was in ballast (approx 1/5 mile long and a good 80ft out of the water) and a yacht hit us!! As the OOW I had sounded our whistle 5 times (which immediately brought my Captain to the Bridge, but absolutely no show from the yacht) and then we both continued to watch as the yacht continued to close until it finally struck us amidships.
The funny thing was that a naked man then appeared on the yacht from down below and started berating us that "power gives way to sail - don't ya know" and " typical - officers on a commercial vessel thinking they own the world." He was shortly joined by a naked young lady and they inspected their bow and then sailed away advising they would be reporting "our negligence" to the Coastguard.
Suffice to say, I could fully understand why he had not seen us and that the activity he was apparently enaged in was much more pleasurable than obeying Rule 5 (Lookout), but my view of the "professionalism" of some boatowners has been consequently pretty clouded ever since.
Mind you, both myself and my Captain had a bloody good laugh and we never did hear anything from the Coastguard! Hopefully, if it was reported, then the yachtsman was given a short, sharp horrorscope reading on his expected survival rate.
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
I agree, a very generalised and what could be viewed as a slightly worrying statement
Hmm. Then:
Quote:
In these situations I feel that the yachtsman deserves everything he/she gets.
That's a particularly worrying statement from a professional seaman. Your attitude appears to be that anyone who makes a mistake, or inteprets the rules differently to you, can 'go hang'.
You don't appear to appreciate that the discussion with regard to Rule 17 is not about situations (such as the one you described later) where a small vessel has been totally oblivious of a collision risk, but the quite frequently occurring situations where a small vessel's watch keeper has to decide whether strict obervance of the rule carries a greater potential threat to his own safety than early action 'not-strictly-in-accordance-with-Colregs' that avoids a real risk of collision developing.
I have said before, and I think it's worth repeating, that there is a 'golden rule', which (as far as I am concerned) trumps colregs. That is "never allow your own safety to depend upon the actions of others".
That's a particularly worrying statement from a professional seaman. Your attitude appears to be that anyone who makes a mistake, or inteprets the rules differently to you, can 'go hang'.
[/b][/i].
Not true. If you read what I said in the context of what I said, then I hope you would understand that what it was not aimed at those who may make a mistake or, make an incorrect decision based on their interpretation of the rules at the critical moment etc. We are all human and we all make mistakes occasionally and sometimes these can be catastrophic. There's a number of times I could look back and say "there but for the grace of God!!!"
My words werre aimed more specifically at those who willingly missinterpret the Rules and/or cannot be bothered to even read them and/or if they do read them, cannot be bothered to try and understand them or seek advice on their meaning. I have personal experience of meeting some people who have got as far as reading "Power gives way to Sail" and stop there - thinking it applies in all situations everywhere (well it does I guess if you understand what "shall not impede the passage or safe passge" terms).
I'm not some kind of facist who thinks that all yotties (incl powerboaters) should be shot (or run over) on sight. But I am very keen to try and raise professional standards amongst the "professional" seagoing community as well as leisure users and consequently get a bot hot under the collar sometimes.
Anyway
Happy sailing
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
jfm,First, with regard to "shall not be deemed to exist" cf "shall be deemed not to exist", I was specifically (I'm not sure whether it should be exclusively?) seeking to counter the effect of rule 7(d)(i):
Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change
because that is the rule that locks a vessel, that would be 'stand on' if the risk of collision (by reason of the not-appreciably-changing compass bearing) is deemed to exist, into holding course and speed when the circumstances would permit (or dictate) taking some pre-emptive action that avoids 17(a)(i) from coming into play. Therefore, I felt "shall not be deemed to exist" was more correct (although I'm open to further discussion and correction).
Continuing nerdiness...! This is tricky. "Not deemed to exist" merely switches off the deeming provision in the constant-bearing sentence you quote. It does nothing about any real (as opposed to deemed) risk. If there is a real risk as well (which generally there would be on constant bearing), then the agile boat is still the stand on vessel and may not make the turn to port that you are seeking to permit. Your switching off of the deeming provision doesn't make the agile boat not stand on anymore. In contrast, my drafting deems there not to be a risk (even if actually there IS a risk) so relieving the agile vessel of his stand on duty and permitting him to turn to port. Happy to be challenged/corrected, but hope you get my drift as to where I was coming from
A problem here Observer is we're starting with lousy drafting. I mean what does the work "risk" mean? To me (and I might have spent too long in t'City!) "risk" is the possibility of different outcomes. If I buy some Microsoft shares they could go up or down, ie different outcomes possible, and that is risk. If my boat is on constant compass bearing to a crossing boat, there isn't risk of collision (prior to the taking of aoiding action by one of the boats), there is certainty. Hence trying to draft add-ons to the Colregs is a tricky task. I'd prefer to lose all mention of "risk" in these crossing situations and define a term like "collision situation" to mean circumstances where if neither boat takes avoiding action they will collide. "Risk" of collison might belong elsewhere as a term, but in different contexts, eg whenever 2 boats are close there is risk of collision eg an ill-judged turn/human error by one of them could cause collison, and that's a "risk".
I dont think I've fully answered all your points, just typing fast and it's late. Will look again later
A problem here Observer is we're starting with lousy drafting.
How about taking advantage of the fact that this is a purely hypothetical exercise? Dump the lousy drafting of the original, and rewrite from a blank screen. For instance:- "A potential collision situation shall be deemed to exist if
(a) a vessel is within <insert number> miles of another
and
(b) the range of the other vessel is reducing
and
(c) the compass bearing of the other vessel does not appreciably (?) change over a period of <insert number> minutes"
Rule 1 : Let L be the length of each vessel in metres. Under new colregs, all boats must carry L X £100 in cash, ready to hand over if they clonk into another boat. If another boat hits you astern or port side or you were at anchor, it's their fault unless you didn't have the correct lights or dayshapes, so all pretty straightforward really, bit like car crash rules except for the port side issue, and no need for any other rules.
(above might need jfm/observer to scrutinize for commas etc)
*****
Explanation with examples.
Thus, if frinstance your 10metre power or sailing vessel gets smashed up the backside by that ferry, your boat gets destroyed and you might be injured or worse. You get immediate payout of £10k if the ferry is 100m long. So they'll have incentive not to hit you astern or on port side, of course - else it costs them £10k. But it doesn't cost them to hit your starboard side! So best not to mess with them at all really, see? Your medical/life insurance pays out, so it's not that bad.
On the other hand, you whamming into a laser dinghy -oops!- (or a whole racing fleet) will cost you about a grand apiece, or £2k apiece if you're a 65 footer, which again is about right. They'll all have to tack sharpish to make sure you hittem astern to get the cash, of course, and if they can't manage that, well, they won't have the money to buy another boat so there's a very good incentive for proper training too, which current colregs don't address at all.
Note that MF colregs still means you still turn to starboard, as before, but goes much further - it helps the struggling boat industry with everyone being darn sure about their lights and spare bulbs, plus massive new sales of anchor balls and motoring cones. If you see another boat at anchor without an anchor ball, well, no problem at all to politely mention it, and if they just shrug their shoulders rudely, well, you can just glide over and crunch them with your anchor, a bit. That'll learnem! So the system is self-policing too, the hallmark of the very best sets of rules.
MFColregs also brilliantly solves the agile/non-agle boats issue too, as some crabbity old wrecks might possibly *want* to get hit and win a few quid, and it's the job of a speedier or nippier boat to avoid them.
And of course, taking revenge on other boats is also catered for *provided* you have got readies. So any shouty types in a rowing boat are gonna have pipe down or get run down by a RIB, which will only cost the RIB about £300 and often well worth it. Some people might even club together to pay for nastier individuals to have their boat removed from the marina in bits, hurrah!
Tim, are you really wishing to deem a collision situation to exist, or are you specifying the conditions that mean one actually exists? I'm using the word "deem" in its precise sense, the way it is used universally in the drafting of laws etc
Wrt the meaning of "risk", let's just agree that it means that circumstances exist where there is a possibility of a future event occurring (in this case, collision) with >0% probability. If two vessels are on intersecting courses such that, if each maintains its current course and speed, a collision will occur, then there is a theoretical risk of collision. In reality, depending upon range, manoeuvrability, preparedness to take action (and other considerations), the real risk of collision may vary between virtually nil and 100%.
Rule 7(d)(i) stipulates that the collision risk is deemed to exist by virtue of the unchanged bearing of an approaching vessel, As a consequence, the stand on vessel is required to hold course and speed regardless of the actual risk of collision. As stated above, the actual risk of collision is dependent upon other factors as mentioned. Of these, the most significant factual circumstance is range, but manoeuvrability (in terms of course and speed) is highly relevant from the perspective of the watch keeper who is assessing the risk. In any given situation, the perception of risk (and the reality of actual risk) can vary enormously between different vessels.
The problem created by rule 7(d)(i) is that it eliminates (or at least severely limits) the elasticity of interpretation (Tim, that was an excellent choice of word to convey what I was trying to capture with my reference to "grey area") that is a feature of Colregs, which I think is critical to their overall efficacy. The need for elasticity is, I think, self-evident. The perception (and reality) of risk of collision, and the range of alternative actions that are available and appropriate to avoid the risk materialising into actual collision, is necessarily quite different in different circumstances and the rules need to accommodate those varying perspectives and alternatives.
So going back to jfm's point about disabling the deeming provision in rule 7(d)(i), that's all I that I think is necessary. Because then the natural elasticity of the meaning of "risk of collision" is allowed to work (within a sensible range) and, if applicable, the 'vessel-that-would-be-stand-on' may take pre-emptive avoiding action, if that can be done before the time at which it is reasonable to expect that the 'vessel-that-would-be-give-way' will commence its own action. "Time at which it is reasonable to expect" is itself elastic, as it needs to be to accommodate (for example) the difference between open waters and restricted waters situations.
Tim, I think your re-draft of rule 17(a) is workable and admirably succinct, although it rather departs from the present drafting style of Colregs. I would disagree about the need for "earliest" (I am not sure how attached you are to it) because it unnecessarily limits the elasticity that I was trying to create/restore. The reasoning I follow in concluding it is unnecessary is this.
Looking at the alternatives and outcomes (I use "stand on" and "give way" in the sense that the relevant vessel would become 'stand on' or (as the case may be) 'give way' if no action precluding the risk of collision was taken):
(i) clearly (and I think it is unnecessary to state) the stand on vessel is not permitted to take pre-emptive action after the give way vessel has commenced its own action (why would it do so anyway?);
(ii) if the stand on vessel takes pre-emptive action before the give way vessel commences its own action, then the collision risk doesn't develop (or reduces) and both go about their own business;
(iii) if the stand on vessel chooses to stand on, the give way vessel is obliged to take action in accordance with rule 16 (and the stand on vessel is bound by rule 17);
(iv) if the stand on vessel (by a reasonably tall co-incidence) takes pre-emptive action at the same time as the give way vessel, then the give way vessel's action may be nullified by the stand on vessel's pre-emptive action. However, unless "the time at which it is reasonable to expect" has been very unreasonably interpreted, there would still be ample time for appropriate action in accordance with the applicable rule. This is the only circumstance in which the modification of 7(d)(i) could give rise to a problem.
In reality, I would expect vessels of roughly equivalent size, manned by commercially qualified watch-keepers, to ignore the new rule. The benefit is (probably) mostly for small vessels who are, at present, unnecessarily constrained by rule 17(a)(i) to stand on in circumstances when simple common sense dictates simply 'keeping out of the way'.
I repeat the the words I emphasised above - my purpose is that the natural elasticity of the meaning of "risk of collision" should be allowed to work because, as I see it, that is all I that the proposed change should and needs to achieve.
How about taking advantage of the fact that this is a purely hypothetical exercise? Dump the lousy drafting of the original, and rewrite from a blank screen. For instance:- "A potential collision situation shall be deemed to exist if
(a) a vessel is within <insert number> miles of another
and
(b) the range of the other vessel is reducing
and
(c) the compass bearing of the other vessel does not appreciably (?) change over a period of <insert number> minutes"
That approach will not be universally 'workable' - e.g. it may work in open waters but not in restricted waters.
I think jfm is (deliberately) overstating the "lousy drafting". There are some inconsistencies but, on the whole, as a body of 'law', Colregs works.
Tim, are you really wishing to deem a collision situation to exist, or are you specifying the conditions that mean one actually exists? I'm using the word "deem" in its precise sense, the way it is used universally in the drafting of laws etc
I'm not quite sure how the precise sense differs from the common sense (no pun intended) but I would say that those are the essential conditions that distinguish most collision situations, and that if they exist, then one should assume that a risk of collision exists and act accordingly.
If "deem" is the wrong word, then I'd be quite happy to go for "A potential collision situation exists if..."!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
...it rather departs from the present drafting style of Colregs.
Thank you! That's rather what I was hoping to achieve!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
I would disagree about the need for "earliest" (I am not sure how attached you are to it) because it unnecessarily limits the elasticity that I was trying to create/restore.
My concern is that -- based on the recent discussion on Scuttlebut, amongst other things -- many recreational sailors seem to believe that it is OK to ignore a developing collision situation until they are within about two or three miles, and then to say -- Oh dear, he's not going to alter course for me, so it's "common sense" for me to take my own avoiding action.
So far as a largish ship is concerned, that is just about the worst moment they could choose, because the ship -- having got a consistent ARPA lock on the yacht at about 4-5 miles and taken a couple of minutes to check out the situation -- begins to alter course at a range of about three miles. Then, just after the rudder has been applied the yottie -- who did absolutely nothing about the developing situation for the past twenty minutes or more -- suddenly decides that if he doesn't do something right now, it is tantamount to suicide. So he jinks to port, just as the ship's bows start to swing to starboard.
At various times in the past, the colregs have included a lot of guidance -- things that were part of the rules, but which gave advice rather than defining actions. I'm think ing of things such as the note on how to interpret "shall not impede" that explained what it meant far better than the "rule" which replaced it. Personally, I'd like to see more of that kind of thing reinstated -- fewer rules and more guidance. Amongst it might be a simple data table of the handling characteristics of typical ships and boats. My guess is that it might come as a revelation to professionals and amateurs alike!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
That approach will not be universally 'workable' - e.g. it may work in open waters but not in restricted waters.
I'm not wedded to it: it was just an idea thrown into the pot, rather late at night! But I confess I don't see what's wrong with it, even in restricted waters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
I think jfm is (deliberately) overstating the "lousy drafting". There are some inconsistencies but, on the whole, as a body of 'law', Colregs works.
Indeed it does -- and better than most. But I am concerned that there are plenty of instances where the rules are less clear than they might be, particularly to a simple sailor who has to make important decisions in quick time, adverse conditions, and with minimal support. This seems to be particularly true of the more recent changes and additions. The Victorian rules generally work well: it's the late 20th century ones that are the problem!
For me the fundamental issue is that the colregs apply equally to things which are not merely qauntitatively, but qualitatively, different.
Indulge me a moment, here, given that the law now deems a bodyboard to be the same as an ULCC.
The highway code comparison is much used but, frankly, we are looking at the interface between a 44-tonne artic and a kid on roller skates. Which one keeps out of the way - and lives?
That is what we leisure boaters are: the equivalent of a kid on roller skates. We can stop and turn on a sixpence. Sure, the ULCC can turn and stop too but not in the same time or distance frame.
As Samuel L Jackson's character Jules observed in Pulp Fiction, when comparing and contrasting various activities of an intimate nature, they are not merely not in the same ballpark; they are not even the same sport.
So, I'd be all for an easing of R17 along the observer/jfm lines. But I would prefer a clear requirement on leisure boaters to keep out of the way of anything that's big, made of steel, looks like it's carrying a cargo and has a bunch of matelots earning a living out of it.
I would prefer a clear requirement on leisure boaters to keep out of the way of anything that's big, made of steel, looks like it's carrying a cargo and has a bunch of matelots earning a living out of it.
Now that we are not discussing the actual rules, but the fictitious rules-as-we-might-like-them-to-be, that's a perfectly valid opinion, very lucidly put. But I would love to have someone flesh out the detail of a "tonnage rule" or a "pro-am rule" (or a combined rule that includes both)
Is a 300m cruise liner -- on which 75% of those on board are there purely for pleasure -- fundamentally different from a 10m vessel on a yachtmaster course, with a professional instructor, and three students on a residential professional training course? Or a superyacht, 50m long, with ten paid crew pandering to the whims of eight guests?
What happens when a 24-metre motor yacht, whose (amateur) skipper has a yachtmaster commercial ticket meets an 8-metre commercial ferry whose licensed by the local authority to carry not more than 12 persons, whose skipper has a Boatman's licence valid for one particular river
Does a 30m steel ex trawler on charter to a diving club have to give way to a 6m RIB on charter to a police diving team on an "exercise"?
And how do we identify which category each one falls into at a distance of several miles?
And does speed matter? (How can a sailing dinghy, becalmed and with only a single paddle for propulsion, give way to a 40-knot catamaran ferry?)
Please -- give me something to support the argument and I promise I will use it. But I can't use it if no-one comes up with it!
I'm not wedded to it: it was just an idea thrown into the pot, rather late at night! But I confess I don't see what's wrong with it, even in restricted waters.
I'll think a bit more about the rest of your response but, on this particular point, the rules have to work to regulate small vessel to small vessel, ship to ship, ship to small vessel and all other encounters. Also, restricted waters may include harbours and estuaries and other situations where the time available for action is measured in seconds rather than minutes (for example the entrance to a harbour where there is traffic entering and leaving and crossing as well). A fixed distance threshold (say 2 or 3 miles) and/or time threshold (x minutes) may work in open waters but it won't work in dense traffic where an avoidance manoeuvre may be required a dozen times in the space of a few minutes.
So far as a largish ship is concerned, that is just about the worst moment they could choose, because the ship -- having got a consistent ARPA lock on the yacht at about 4-5 miles and taken a couple of minutes to check out the situation -- begins to alter course at a range of about three miles. Then, just after the rudder has been applied the yottie -- who did absolutely nothing about the developing situation for the past twenty minutes or more -- suddenly decides that if he doesn't do something right now, it is tantamount to suicide. So he jinks to port, just as the ship's bows start to swing to starboard.
Hmm. I don't think this illustration helps your case.
1. Do you mean "yottie" as in sailing vessel or pleasure craft generally? If the former, then, going by what the MAIB thinks happened to Ouzo, the yottie would be well advised not to assume he'd been seen.
2. If rule 7(d)(i) did not exist in the form it does, possibly the yottie would have changed course earlier. It is quite possibly the 'inelasticity' of the 'deemed collision risk' that discourages a yottie from making a sound judgment to get out of the way sooner rather than later.
(p.s. I don't think expressions like "jinking around" are accurate or helpful, although admittedly it's less extreme than "rabbits in headlights".)
Hmm. I don't think this illustration helps your case.
I wasn't aware that I was making a "case", other than one for clarification of Rule 17 in general, which is clearly open to at least two very different interpretations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
1. Do you mean "yottie" as in sailing vessel or pleasure craft generally?
A "yacht", in my book, is a craft built for pleasure, regardless of its motive power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
If the former, then, going by what the MAIB thinks happened to Ouzo, the yottie would be well advised not to assume he'd been seen.
Ouzo was quite a rare exception, in many ways. One could equally quote the Wahkuna incident, in which the ship saw the yacht on radar, and assumed her to be passing clear. It would have been a near miss (rather than a collision) if only the yacht hadn't decided to "give way" by stopping in the path of the oncoming container ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
2. If rule 7(d)(i) did not exist in the form it does, possibly the yottie would have changed course earlier.
The problem is that case law has already set a precedent that allows the "stand on" vessel to disengage so long as she does it at more than six miles. But for several people in that earlier discussion, six miles is clearly too far, and I was left with the impression that the favourite range for stand-on yachts to alter course was 2-3 miles. In fact, I got the very strong impression that many of them felt that they should be allowed to alter course in order to disengage early at any stage up to and including the point at which they were allowed to alter course because the give way vessel had left it too late!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
(p.s. I don't think expressions like "jinking around" are accurate or helpful, although admittedly it's less extreme than "rabbits in headlights".)
I'm sorry if you are offended by that expression. But rather than retreading an old thread that has already shed far more heat on the subject than light, could we go back to the more constructive discussion about how we might *like* the colregs to look?
Ouzo was quite a rare exception, in many ways. One could equally quote the Wahkuna incident, in which the ship saw the yacht on radar, and assumed her to be passing clear. It would have been a near miss (rather than a collision) if only the yacht hadn't decided to "give way" by stopping in the path of the oncoming container ship.
Ouzo: rare exception no doubt but who want to be the "exception that proves the rule"?
Wahkuna: you imply that stopping to give way was in some way an incorrect action under Colregs. I disagree. First it was foggy, so no stand on principle applied anyway; second, her action was completely appropriate in accordance with rules 8(e) and 19(e). It was just unfortunate that (a) she misread/mis-operated her radar, so stopped in the path of the ship; and (b) the ship accepted a smaller than advisable CPA (and also had incorrect radar setting IIRC). The action to stop would have been entirely correct and well-judged, in the circumstances, if the ship had actually been where Wahkuna thought she was.
Quote:
The problem is that case law has already set a precedent that allows the "stand on" vessel to disengage so long as she does it at more than six miles. But for several people in that earlier discussion, six miles is clearly too far, and I was left with the impression that the favourite range for stand-on yachts to alter course was 2-3 miles. In fact, I got the very strong impression that many of them felt that they should be allowed to alter course in order to disengage early at any stage up to and including the point at which they were allowed to alter course because the give way vessel had left it too late!
This is the meat of the issue. You assert that the legal precedent binds future actions of all vessels. I disagree on the grounds that it is (clearly imo) possible to distinguish the situations we're discussing (in short, small vessel to ship interactions) from the decided case. Nevertheless, a modification of the rules, such as the one we've been discussing, would give the "but the law is the law" advocates something to hang their hat on in justifying what I consider to be the practical, common sense interpretation of a set of rules that was not designed or adapted to cope with small vessels. I may have to change my view when a small vessel skipper is prosecuted and convicted for not having a collision with a container ship; or when the reasonably judged, pre-emptive avoiding action taken by a small vessel actually causes a collision that wouldn't have happened in the absence of such action, but I don't think either of those is going to happen any time soon.
Quote:
I'm sorry if you are offended by that expression. But rather than retreading an old thread that has already shed far more heat on the subject than light, could we go back to the more constructive discussion about how we might *like* the colregs to look?
Not offended. But, like you, I sometimes indulge my sense of mischief by having 'a little 'dig'.
Now that we are not discussing the actual rules, but the fictitious rules-as-we-might-like-them-to-be, that's a perfectly valid opinion, very lucidly put. But I would love to have someone flesh out the detail of a "tonnage rule" or a "pro-am rule" (or a combined rule that includes both)
Is a 300m cruise liner -- on which 75% of those on board are there purely for pleasure -- fundamentally different from a 10m vessel on a yachtmaster course, with a professional instructor, and three students on a residential professional training course? Or a superyacht, 50m long, with ten paid crew pandering to the whims of eight guests?
What happens when a 24-metre motor yacht, whose (amateur) skipper has a yachtmaster commercial ticket meets an 8-metre commercial ferry whose licensed by the local authority to carry not more than 12 persons, whose skipper has a Boatman's licence valid for one particular river
Does a 30m steel ex trawler on charter to a diving club have to give way to a 6m RIB on charter to a police diving team on an "exercise"?
And how do we identify which category each one falls into at a distance of several miles?
And does speed matter? (How can a sailing dinghy, becalmed and with only a single paddle for propulsion, give way to a 40-knot catamaran ferry?)
Please -- give me something to support the argument and I promise I will use it. But I can't use it if no-one comes up with it!
Tim
All due respect, but I think you are at the nub of the problem. I personally think that in the main (there are some exceptions to the actual wording of some rules I grant you), but the Rules as they stand are pretty comprehensive, all inclusive and flexible for all users to be able to adhere and obey them.
For Example: All collision avoidance actions should result in passing at a safe distance. Should we try and define exactly what this diistance is? On my motorboat, I would be pretty happy passing a few hundred yards off another vessel because of my speed and manouervrability. The OOW on the other vessel may not be happy with this (unless on a similar sort of craft) and we're back to an argument of "if it's a large commercial vessel, a safe distance is (say) 3 miles, if a mediium sized (say) 2 miles etc." Now you will addittionally have to define, "large, medium and small craft" - no can do, as the damned things keep changing (just look at the new generation of containerships as a case in point.
Another Example: All vessels should proceed at a Safe Speed. What's this speed then? Again, should it be defined as 6 knots in rivers, 10 knots in harbours and whatever you want in the open sea - unless the visibility is restricted - then it should be (say) 10 knots. So how restricted does the visibilty have to be to make this bit come into force (less than (say) a mile for large commercial vessels and less than (say) 200 yards for leisure boats and.......we're back to what is a large commercial vessel and when is a leisure boat a leisure boat as per your own example with cruise liners and chartered yachts.
The main problem as I see it, is trying to take one rule at a time and trying to re-write that one. All the rules interlock in one way and another and changing one means a change to another, which in turn, has another knock on effect on another linked Rule.
Sitting down with a blank piece of paper would I think, just bring up the same Rules (with a bit of changing of wording here and there) and perhaps written in a slightly different order. For example, it beats me why "Definitions" are in Rule 3, when Rules 1 and 2 have already waxed lyrical about vessels etc., and it is only by the time you get to Rule 3 that you actually learn what a vessel is.
I really think you may have set yourself an impossible task - although full marks for trying and raising the discussion.
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
Is a 300m cruise liner -- on which 75% of those on board are there purely for pleasure -- fundamentally different from a 10m vessel on a yachtmaster course, with a professional instructor, and three students on a residential professional training course? Or a superyacht, 50m long, with ten paid crew pandering to the whims of eight guests?
In these examples in my preferred world I'd keep out of the way of the 300m cruise liner; I would want the existing colregs to apply between me and the 10metre training vessel. The superyacht is a bit marginal for my liking!
Quote:
What happens when a 24-metre motor yacht, whose (amateur) skipper has a yachtmaster commercial ticket meets an 8-metre commercial ferry whose licensed by the local authority to carry not more than 12 persons, whose skipper has a Boatman's licence valid for one particular river
Here, the colregs are likely to be displaced by local rules for the river, which generally seem to work.
Quote:
Does a 30m steel ex trawler on charter to a diving club have to give way to a 6m RIB on charter to a police diving team on an "exercise"?
Well, fishing boats don't give way to anyone so far as I'm aware so I wouldn't expect an ex-trawler to do so.
The rules in my fictional leisure boater's world might perhaps be summed up thus:
If to starboard red appear,
'tis your duty to keep clear,
But if to port, a rusty hulk,
Save your vessel; yield to bulk.
I would want the existing colregs to apply between me and the 10metre training vessel.
But it's only a few posts ago that you wanted commercial to have right of way over recreational!
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjenbav
Here, the colregs are likely to be displaced by local rules for the river, which generally seem to work.
and which usually give priority to large craft following the main channel -- so in this case the amateur recreational has precedence over the commercial
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjenbav
Well, fishing boats don't give way to anyone so far as I'm aware so I wouldn't expect an ex-trawler to do so.
I'm not sure that this is either true or logical! I used to ride an ex-police motorcycle, but I never imagined that its past life gave me immunity from prosecution!
I'm sure there must be more merit in the tonnage rules or pro-am rules than I am seeing -- come on guys, help me out here!
I'm sure there must be more merit in the tonnage rules or pro-am rules than I am seeing
Well, the main merit of these non existing rules is that they already work just fine in real world, in spite of (and against) the existing rule.
From the previous replies, I reckon that most if not all of us, when on a collision course with something real big that's supposed to give way, just steer to port regardless - and we're all still here to debate that...
I think Mapis probably does represent the view of a substantial majority. He, like most sensible, thinking yotties, takes responsibility for his own safety. A set of rules, unthinkingly applied, won't and can't keep you safe. Thinking about what you're doing and how you're doing it, guided by a code of behaviour, sensibly and responsibly interpreted (due regard), will.
I am trying very hard to avoid re-opening an old debate here.
It is highly unlikely that we will ever accept each other's opinions on the existing Rule 17.
But in the imaginary WNS world, we have the opportunity to come up with an alternative -- and if you can explain its merits, I will gladly use it in the mag.
If you look back at the original post you will see that I suggested an alternative ("My" rule 5(ii)) which would have allowed the "stand on" vessel to take avoiding action at any stage -- which I think is precisely what you want. The bit that I have put in that you might not like is that it prohibits altering course to port or slowing down. This is not there just to piss you off, but to discourage vessels from trying to go astern of a vessel which is trying to go astern of them.
Criticise my Rule 5(ii) by all means, suggest changes to it if you like, but please let's not waste any more time on the Rule 17 argument. IMO aren't likely to be changing it any time soon.
But it's only a few posts ago that you wanted commercial to have right of way over recreational!
Tim, I think you've hit the nail on the head. What I was trying to say was actually to suggest that the "obviously commercial" should have right of way over recreational.
I wouldn't claim to have managed a precise definition of the "obviously commercial" although broadly I think we all know it when we see it and there are, of course, instances in history where the concept has been defined - thinking largely of rules of engagement in naval warfare.
Today, on a more peaceful basis, it is possible to look to QHM's website where, as a explanatory note to the Port regulations for Portsmouth it states that leisure users should:
"Avoid sailing in the commercial shipping channels, especially in poor visibility. Obey Rule 9 of the Collision Regulations(ColRegs) for conduct in narrow channels by keeping to the starboard side of the channel and crossing only when this does not impede the passage of a large vessel that can safely navigate only within the narrow channel."
Is there any serious doubt as to the meaning of this, so as to make people think a training yacht wearing the colours of UKSA is offered special priority?
I think it would offer greater certainty and safety of navigation if this principle were to be extended to open waters and I don't think that it should prove impossible to make the definitions work.
I am trying very hard to avoid re-opening an old debate here. It is highly unlikely that we will ever accept each other's opinions on the existing Rule 17.
...
Criticise my Rule 5(ii) by all means, suggest changes to it if you like, but please let's not waste any more time on the Rule 17 argument. IMO aren't likely to be changing it any time soon.
Don't worry, I couldn't be more far from trying to re-open that debate.
Btw, it wasn't your view on colregs that upsetted me, as you probably remember.
See, actually I have no problem at all with current rule 17: I see why it's there and it does work perfectly in most circumstances.
In a sense, it's not even worth bothering to change it. In fact, most peeps around here seem to know it perfectly, and just apply it with a pinch of salt. But of course, if you prefer to stand on when you're on a collision course with a supertanker, just to steer to starboard at the last minute, fairenuff!
Re. your last statement above, how does it fit with this whole thread that you started?
I think it would offer greater certainty and safety of navigation if this principle were to be extended to open waters
I can't disagree: so long as we can all identify who has to give way, and do so at a range that leaves time for effective avoidance, that is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjenbav
and I don't think that it should prove impossible to make the definitions work.
That's where the problem lies. Even QHM seems to assume that "commercial=large; recreational=small" despite the fact that there are many sailing yachts that require as much or more water than the Wightlink ferries, and quite a few recreational motor yachts that are of comparable size to the Gosport ferries (and less manoeuvrable!) On the Hamble, there are thousands of yachts and motor boats that are bigger -- in some cases considerably bigger -- than the Hamble-Warsash ferries.
And most potential collisions probably don't involve pleasure craft and big ships: they involve relatively small vessels meeting other relatively small vessels. To have to decide who gives way on the basis of whether you think the six blokes standing around in the cockpit of an approaching boat is a charter party or just a group of friends out for a day's sea angling on a mate's boat sounds pretty dodgy to me!
On a selfish note, I would love to include a tonnage rule or a pro-am rule in my proposed feature (much more interesting than "let's stick with what we've got") but I honestly don't see how it would work. I'm counting on those who advocate it to give me some help, here!
Re. your last statement above, how does it fit with this whole thread that you started?
Quote:
I'd like you to imagine that IMO has invited the members of the ybw forum to rewrite the collision regulations, starting with a blank screen.
FWIW, As material for an article, I'm guardedly pleased with what has emerged/is emerging: with a few notable exceptions, it's been a sensible discussion raising some interesting points.
What we haven't quite achieved is the "blank screen" approach -- which I included at least partly because I wanted to avoid arguing about the existing regs.
Nor has anyone risen to the bait of my draft rules that have removed the privileged status of sailing vessels. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I reckon that if a watchkeeper can hit a starter button and become power-driven then he deserves no special rights over someone whose engine is already running but who needs to hit a button to disengage an autopilot.
On a selfish note, I would love to include a tonnage rule or a pro-am rule in my proposed feature (much more interesting than "let's stick with what we've got") but I honestly don't see how it would work. I'm counting on those who advocate it to give me some help, here!
__________________
OK: first draft - shoot me down in flames if you like!!
1 Tonnage rule applies so that vessels over 100m LOA have priority over smaller vessels.
2 As between 2 vessels each over 100m LOA or each under 100m LOA, existing colregs apply
3 If a skipper is in doubt whether rule 1 applies: existing colregs shall be deemed to apply.
Hey Tim, I'm only here for the argument (I mean "debate").
Rule 17 doesn't worry me in the slightest. I do as Mapis indicated and interpret "risk of collision" with a degree of elasticity. However, I feel some sympathy with our sailing brothers who don't have the turn of speed to get out of the way, if necessary, at the last minute. I have the overall impression that many of them would be more comfortable if Colregs allowed them to take pre-emptive action to keep out of the way instead of having to stand on and take the chance that a ship has seen them and will react appropriately.
Anyway, coming bact to your rule 5:
5. Except in traffic separation schemes, narrow channels, and overtaking situations, when vessels of the same class meet:
(i)Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to starboard, must give way by altering course to starboard. She may also reduce speed.
(ii) Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to port, may give way by altering course to starboard, but must avoid altering course to port or reducing speed.
In (i), reference to speed is unnecessary because it overlaps with 8(e) (unless that's disappeared). In (ii), the reference to speed contradicts 8(e). I agree a contradiction already exists between 8(e) and 17(a)(i) and not sure how the 'experts' resolve that.
Apart from the issues we've already debated, I don't think there's anything needs fixing other than a bit of cleaning up here and there. I agree lights and day-shapes could be made easier/clearer but that (lights anyway) would be prohibitively expensive.
Nor has anyone risen to the bait of my draft rules that have removed the privileged status of sailing vessels. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I reckon that if a watchkeeper can hit a starter button and become power-driven then he deserves no special rights over someone whose engine is already running but who needs to hit a button to disengage an autopilot.
I didn't realise that was your intention.
Quote:
3. All vessels fall into one of four classes:
class 0 = normal vessels -- power and auxiliary sail
class 1 = fishing vessels, unpowered sail
class 2 = restricted in ability to manoeuvre (including constrained by draft or tugs with tows)
class 3 = disabled (anchored, aground, mechanical failure)
I read class 0 as "PDVs and yachts motoring or motorsailing" and class 2 as "fishing and sailing".
However, what do I think of the idea. Well the obvious difficulty is that it requires a judgment to be made so introduces the opportunity for error or confusion.
At present, as a PDV, I assume that any vessel with a sail hoisted and moving through the water is a sailing vessel, unless it is clearly motorsailing (even then I will be cautious because yotties do sometimes fail to make the mental transition from 'sail' to 'power').
Under your new classification, if I see a vessel with sail hoisted and moving though the water, I have to judge whether it has auxiliary power (so is class 0) or has not (so class 1). That's more difficult. Then what about sailing vessel with engine that is inoperative. There's not much future in being treated as a PDV if you can't, in fact, manoeuvre like a PDV. On the whole, I don't think the idea flies (or floats).
Apart from the issues we've already debated, I don't think there's anything needs fixing other than a bit of cleaning up here and there. I agree lights and day-shapes could be made easier/clearer but that (lights anyway) would be prohibitively expensive.
Tim - agree with above quote and I'm only here for the Debate (I mean argument!!) LoL
FWIW, here's my attempt with a blank page:
Rule 1 - Definitions. This should be the same as current Rule 3.
Rule 2 - Application. This should be the same as current Rule 1.
Rule 3 - Responsibilty. This should be reworded along the following lines "It is the responsibility of every vessel to avoid a close quaters situation or risk of collsion developing. This is accomplished by adherence to these Rules. Should a close quarters situation and/or risk of collison subsequently develop, even though your vessel has adhered to these Rules, you must disobey the rules in order to minimise damage and/or avoid the collsion. Should both vessels collide, both will be held accountable as deemed appropriate in a subsequent Court of Law." This is not set in stone and I'm sure the lawyers amongst the community may wish to "play" with the wording, but I feel that this is a slightly better worded gist of what the current Rule 2 states.
Rule 4 - Responsibility Between Vessels. Mainly the same as the current Rule 18, but with para (d) removed and paras (a) and (b) amended to include vessels CBD. This removes the ambiguity of what does "Impede" mean and gives a clear satement to PDVs and Sailing Vessels to "keep out of the way of..."
Rule 5 - Lookout. This Rule should remain the same as current Rule 5, but with an additional final sentence of "A Proper Lookout shall encompass the full 360 degree horizon".
Rule 6 - Safe Speed. This should be the same as current Rule 6.
Rule 7 - Action to avoid Collision. No change to current Rule 7.
Rule 8 - Action to avoid Collision. Same as current Rule 8 but remove in total para (f) (i), (ii) and (iii)
Rule 9 - Narrow Channels. Fundamentally the same as current Rule 9 with amendments to paras (b) (c) and (d) to state that the vessels currently conatined in those paragrahs "Shall keep out of the way of a vessel that can only navigate within the confines of a narrow channel or fairway". Again, this will remove any missunderstanding of the word Impede with a direct instruction that they shall keep out of the way.
Rule 10 - Traffic Separation schemes (TSS). Like Narrow Channels above, fundamentally the same, but amended as required in paras (i) and (j) with an instruction that these vessels "Shall keep out of the way of a vessel following a TSS".
Rule 11 - Overtaking. Keep as per Rule 13.
Rule 12 - Head On. Keep as per Rule 14.
Rule 13 - Crossing. Keep as per Rule 15.
Rule 14 - Action by Stand On vessel. Keep as per current Rule 17 with (perhaps) the addition of a Refernece to the "new" Rule 3 (Responsibility) above.
Rule 15 - As per current Rule 12
Rule 16 - as per current Rule 19.
Re: Lights and shapes - I've lost the will to live at this stage. I may come back to address these later, depends on how much I get shot down in flames for my attempt above.
Anyway. happy sailing
__________________
Trying the champagne lifestyle on beer money!!
OK: first draft - shoot me down in flames if you like!!
1 Tonnage rule applies so that vessels over 100m LOA have priority over smaller vessels.
2 As between 2 vessels each over 100m LOA or each under 100m LOA, existing colregs apply
3 If a skipper is in doubt whether rule 1 applies: existing colregs shall be deemed to apply.
I know you haven't really given this much thought so I'm not knocking the brainstorming approach. So let's have a look at the idea.
At present, ~99% (a guess, but probably in the right region) of all collision avoidance assessments are determined on the basis of "is the other vessel PDV or sail?" (excepting the special cases of RAM, CBD, fishing etc). Regardless of size, the same rules apply once that (reasonably simple) determination is made. Introducing a size threshold, that changes the pecking order, will massively increase the scope for error or uncertainty.
To illustrate, let's say I'm (clearly) a >100m PDV ("A") operating under your tonnage (or size) rule. I have to assess whether a target vessel ("B") is <100m (in which case I'm stand on in [all?] circumstances or >100m, in which I may be give way or stand on, according to current rules. If I'm unsure, existing rules apply. So I'm unsure and apply existing rules.
Now take the target vessel view. He knows he's <100m so expects to be give way to me in [all?] circumstances. Immediate conflict. A is operating under existing rules and B is not.
Then, what about night? Perhaps make the cut off at 50m to fit with current light rules? Then what about large sailing vessels?
The trouble is that the current situation also results in different rules being applied, as many on this thread have already acknowledged.
For example, if I - in my 10m pdv - see the "Titan Uranus" on a fixed bearing relative to me some six miles away, my first thought is going to be that I will do something about changing that situation so that we don't both have to sweat about applying rule 17.
Another thought - again, top of the head stuff - is to identify "priority vessels" by paintwork/lights/AIS signatures.
In 1939-1941 a similar scheme was used by US warships engaged in escort duties in the Atlantic, which had a large US flag painted on their topsides so that the U-Boats would not attack them. It mostly worked.
I read class 0 as "PDVs and yachts motoring or motorsailing" and class 2 as "fishing and sailing".
Sorry for the confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
However, what do I think of the idea. Well the obvious difficulty is that it requires a judgment to be made so introduces the opportunity for error or confusion.
At present, as a PDV, I assume that any vessel with a sail hoisted and moving through the water is a sailing vessel, unless it is clearly motorsailing
Most of the present rules require a vessel to display additional lights or day shapes in order to claim special rights. The motorsailing cone is the exception, because it requires someone who thinks of himself as a sailing vessel to display a signal in order to relinquish "his rights".
My suggestion reverts to the general pattern that if a SV (without an engine or with an inoperable engine) wishes to claim privileged status, it has to display a special signal to do so.
I know I didn't list the day signals separately, but what I had in mind was something like a black ball by day in place of each of the yellow lights at night.
Most of the present rules require a vessel to display additional lights or day shapes in order to claim special rights. The motorsailing cone is the exception, because it requires someone who thinks of himself as a sailing vessel to display a signal in order to relinquish "his rights".
My suggestion reverts to the general pattern that if a SV (without an engine or with an inoperable engine) wishes to claim privileged status, it has to display a special signal to do so.
I know I didn't list the day signals separately, but what I had in mind was something like a black ball by day in place of each of the yellow lights at night.
As a matter of intepretation, I think a SV relinquishes his rights when he commences to use the engine for propulsion. If he is being propelled by the engine, he is no less a PDV because he has no cone than he is with it.
Nevertheless, I see how your idea would work in theory. What about in practice?
A couple of objections (not intended to be exhaustive):
1. I can easily pick out a SV at long range (several miles) so, under present rules, I would assume (as a PDV) I should keep out of the way. Under your rule, I would need to be within (say) 500m to confidently sight (or exclude) a day shape. That may be tolerable from the perspective of a small PDV but it may be of some concern to larger vessels.
2. For a SV to acquire the manoeuvrability of a PDV (ignoring the likely difference in speed potential), it's not just about starting the engine. A SV with sail set, even with engine, can't manoeuvre in both directions, or even simply stop, with the same facility as a PDV.
The trouble is that the current situation also results in different rules being applied, as many on this thread have already acknowledged.
For example, if I - in my 10m pdv - see the "Titan Uranus" on a fixed bearing relative to me some six miles away, my first thought is going to be that I will do something about changing that situation so that we don't both have to sweat about applying rule 17.
Another thought - again, top of the head stuff - is to identify "priority vessels" by paintwork/lights/AIS signatures.
In 1939-1941 a similar scheme was used by US warships engaged in escort duties in the Atlantic, which had a large US flag painted on their topsides so that the U-Boats would not attack them. It mostly worked.
All of these ideas add complexity/variability, so faill the KISS test for what gain?
It is or should be a fundamental requirement of new law/regulation that: (i) there is some mischief that requires fixing; (ii) the proposed new law will provide a reasonably certain remedy to the mischief without adverse side effects.
I don't see that either test is satisfied by a proposed 'tonnage rule' or anything along those lines. There is (in reality) no problem to be fixed. Ship/pleasure vessel collisions are extremely rare and the ones that have occurred would have been avoided by correct application of existing rules. So a 'tonnage rule' is a solution in search of a problem.
With regard to "different rules being applied", most people (I think) agree on rule 17. It's only the rigidity of rule 7(d)(i) that turns what is, in reality, a commonplace and sensible approach to collision avoidance into something that, on narrow interpretation, is unlawful. That runs contrary to common sense - as a matter of principle, the careful and competent actions of generally law-abiding people going about their lawful business should not be or be deemed unlawful.
It is or should be a fundamental requirement of new law/regulation that: (i) there is some mischief that requires fixing; (ii) the proposed new law will provide a reasonably certain remedy to the mischief without adverse side effects.
Wow! You're suggesting that we amateur law-makers in our game should be bound by tighter constraints than the professional law-makers in real life!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
as a matter of principle, the careful and competent actions of generally law-abiding people going about their lawful business should not be or be deemed unlawful.
-- ditto --
If this one were universally applied, it would cost the government millions in "lost" speeding penalties! And that's just a start!!
I think Observer, like me, may have attended law school prior to the days of governments which believed in new laws for their own sake!
I am somewhat gratified to be mistaken for a lawyer/law graduate but I should admit that I am neither. I am a self-taught 'practitioner' of commercial contract drafting (particularly asset finance, which is my employer's business), with some narrow expertise in accounting, tax (particularly VAT) and risk analysis (a bit of a 'jack of all trades', in other words). I like to think that I have an aptitude for analysis of legal issues and a 'forensic' approach to complex problems. Apart from that, I'm just a layman.
If this one were universally applied, it would cost the government millions in "lost" speeding penalties! And that's just a start!!
I confess that the aphorism was borrowed (with a little tweaking of my own) from the www.safespeed.org.uk website owner, Paul Smith (now sadly deceased). I was almost certain that it would strike a chord with you. So, it is surprising to me that the adhere so passionately (obdurately) to a narrow interpretation of the the maritime 'highway code'.
If I remarked that "safe driving is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual drivers and cannot be assured by strict adherence to the Highway Code", I would anticipate your agreement. Why is it so different to remark, in the maritime context, that "safe navigation is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual helmsmen and cannot be assured by strict adherence to Colregs"?
Why is it so different to remark, in the maritime context, that "safe navigation is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual helmsmen and cannot be assured by strict adherence to Colregs"?
Very nicely put - in layman’s terms, so to speak.
I'm also curious about that!
Proposed tazmanian rule XYZ123: little leisure boats playing should keep out of the way of commerce and shipping that's working for a living on the seas. Large Ship v leisure yacht or mobo, upto leisure boat to keep out of the way and ship should not have to alter course.
It's unsafe and plain nuts that a 100,000 ton ship should have to do anything to avoid small leisure traffic. How do effect this? well only extensive traffic separation schemes much like airways, rather than the limited TSSs at known hot spots. (ie lanes where shipping has priority)
If I remarked that "safe driving is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual drivers and cannot be assured by strict adherence to the Highway Code", I would anticipate your agreement.
And I would agree with you... up to a point.
But if you stretched that concept to the extent that individual drivers could choose to go the wrong way round roundabouts, or drive on the wrong side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic, I would disagree -- strongly.
That is not because there is anything wrong with driving on the right, per se: it works perfectly well in many other countries. But in the UK, we drive on the left and go clockwise round roundabouts, and we expect other people to do likewise.
I live in a rural area, in which many people (myself included) often drive in the middle of the road. It is perfectly safe to do so, until we meet an oncoming vehicle. At that point, we all revert to driving on the left. If we did not conform to that established pattern of behaviour, there would be either carnage or chaos!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
Why is it so different to remark, in the maritime context, that "safe navigation is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual helmsmen and cannot be assured by strict adherence to Colregs"?
I presume we are back on Rule 17 again?.
When two vessels meet, in most cases the rules lead us to expect one to give way, and the other to stand on. It is when one of the two arbitrarily decides to do something unexpected that the situation becomes dangerous -- akin to someone arbitrarily deciding that it would be nice to drive on the right today.
Standing on when you are the stand-on vessel is not a question of slavishly following a rule for its own sake. It is a matter of conforming to an established pattern of behaviour so that both vessels in the encounter know what to expect of the other.
The fact that many small recreational craft avoid collisions by "giving way" when they should stand on -- particularly when "giving way" involves altering course to port -- is mostly due to a combination of manoeuvrability, luck, and good seamanship on the part of the other vessel. They survive in spite of disregarding the rules -- not because they disregard the rules.
In the context of the imaginary world of the WNS discussion, if we want to rewrite the rules so that there is no stand-on rule, we could do so. My suggested Rule 5(ii) was exactly that. But it doesn't seem to have met with much support, nor (unless I've missed something) has anyone suggested a workable alternative.
Proposed tazmanian rule XYZ123: little leisure boats playing should keep out of the way of commerce and shipping that's working for a living on the seas.
See my posts of 10-11-09 12:31 and 09-11-09 15:42
Quote:
On a selfish note, I would love to include a tonnage rule or a pro-am rule in my proposed feature (much more interesting than "let's stick with what we've got") but I honestly don't see how it would work. I'm counting on those who advocate it to give me some help, here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanfroggie
It's unsafe and plain nuts that a 100,000 ton ship should have to do anything to avoid small leisure traffic.
I can't guarantee these figures, but I would be surprised if there are more than about 150-200 ships of more than 100,000 tons in the world. And in open waters, I really don't see anything "unsafe and plain nuts" about requiring them to conform to the same rules as everyone else -- after all, they do so at the moment.
But I say again:-
Quote:
On a selfish note, I would love to include a tonnage rule or a pro-am rule in my proposed feature etc.etc.
The only proviso is that it should be practical. That means it needs to work for the mundane meetings between 15m motor yachts and "licensed to carry not more than 12 persons" passenger ferries, as well as for the headline-making special cases. In particular, I suggest that it needs to address the problem of how to identify a vessel's pro-am status or size
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanfroggie
How do effect this? well only extensive traffic separation schemes much like airways, rather than the limited TSSs at known hot spots. (ie lanes where shipping has priority)
I'm not an aviation expert, but I was under the impression that controlled airspace was pretty limited, and pretty much confined to the approaches to major airports. Even there, light aircraft are able to go round it, over it, or (in places) under it. It would be kinda difficult to for boats to go over or under a Traffic Separation Scheme -- so would you go for designated crossing points, or would you ban all recreational traffic from crossing the Channel, the North-sea, and the Celtic sea, or allow crossing only after obtaining permission from someone?
What Now Skip? If I Ruled the World
Ocean Froggie 
I have reduced the Colregs down to 2 rules, and already someone can't understand them 
) - IME the informal rule that small keeps away from VERY big. and rocks. works well enuf.........but, as always, YMMV 
Linear Mode
