Avoidance of Collision Regulations which side to pass on

[SHUG]

I have been mugging up on the CEVNI regulations as a raggie who is contemplating a canal holiday.
The general canal rule is "overtake another vessel on its port side" whereas in open water, either side can be used.
I reckon the CEVNI rule could be extended to open water where, in close proximity, the port side should be favoured for overtaking. This also leaves the overtaken vessell free to turn to starboard if they wish to avoid a crossing stand on vessel.
Any opinions?

 

[webcraft]

.
OMG, here we go again.

Rule 13 is quite clear, so why does it need to be rewritten or modified? Overtaking on the port side might not be possible for a variety of reasons (e.g. depth) so it seems a daft idea to me.

- W

 

[Woodlouse]

In theory in a narrow channel a vessel overtaking would be forced to use the port side as the vessel being overtaken would be on the starboard side of the channel.

However, in close proximity and narrow channels an over taking vessel is required to announce it's intentions with the relevant blasts of the horn, and may only proceed upon a confirmative response from the vessel being overtaken.

Also the vessel being overtaken always has right of way regardless.

Basically, as long as both vessels follow the colregs then the situation you have described is already under full control and needs no amendments to the current rules.

 

[timbartlett]

I reckon the CEVNI rule could be extended to open water where, in close proximity, the port side should be favoured for overtaking. This also leaves the overtaken vessell free to turn to starboard if they wish to avoid a crossing stand on vessel.
Any opinions?

(a) it's unnecessary, because in narrow channels, there shouldn't be enough room for you to overtake on the starboard side of a vessel which is keeping as close to the starboard side of the channel as is safe and practicable.
(b) given that 80% of YBW forumites regard it as praiseworthy to disobey any rule they find inconvenient or hard to understand , it seems pretty pointless to introduce any more.

 

[Ubergeekian]

(b) given that 80% of YBW forumites regard it as praiseworthy to disobey any rule they find inconvenient or hard to understand ...

Example?

 

[ancientsailor]

rule could be extended to open water where, in close proximity, the port side should be favoured for overtaking. This also leaves the overtaken vessell free to turn to starboard if they wish to avoid a crossing stand on vessel.
Any opinions?

My own preference when overtaking under power is to do on the starboard side. This means:

• if meeting a power-driven vessel end-on you can still turn to starboard as required
• if required to give way to a crossing power-driven vessel you can still alter to starboard in the usual way
• if the overtaken vessel alters to starboard for any reason (for example either of the above) you just take a wider turn to starboard to keep clear of her

This was brought home to me graphically one night in the Persian Gulf when I came on watch and was shocked to find us on the port side of a line of ships we were overtaking. As the watch went on we met a series of ships end-on for which we were required to alter to starboard - this we kept doing, edging closer and closer to the line of ships on our starboard side.

The highlight of the watch came right at the end, when a ship - a large tanker - appeared on our port side, crossing. She was the give-way vessel. She did not (until the last moment). We could not:

• alter to port (prohibited by the ColRegs) - and probably would have collided with her when she did eventually alter
• alter to starboard - another ship we were overtaking was too close
• slow down - we had a ship we'd just overtaken close astern - she'd probably run us down

Eventually, after whistle and light signals, the tanker altered to her starboard and passed close down our port side. I could read her name (pre AIS) in the moonlight!

I could cherfully have murdered two watch-keepers - the one I'd relieved (who was senior to me) and the one on the other bridge!

 

[timbartlett]

(b) given that 80% of YBW forumites regard it as praiseworthy to disobey any rule they find inconvenient or hard to understand , it seems pretty pointless to introduce any more.

Example?

http://www.ybw.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2874

 

[sailorman]

I have been mugging up on the CEVNI regulations as a raggie who is contemplating a canal holiday.
The general canal rule is "overtake another vessel on its port side" whereas in open water, either side can be used.
I reckon the CEVNI rule could be extended to open water where, in close proximity, the port side should be favoured for overtaking. This also leaves the overtaken vessell free to turn to starboard if they wish to avoid a crossing stand on vessel.
Any opinions?

simples
The Onus is upon the Overtaking vessel to keep clear

 

[Ubergeekian]

http://www.ybw.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2874

All that says is that most of us try to avoid getting into situations where a risk of collision exists. Big deal.

 

[SHUG]

My own preference when overtaking under power is to do on the starboard side. This means:

• if meeting a power-driven vessel end-on you can still turn to starboard as required
• if required to give way to a crossing power-driven vessel you can still alter to starboard in the usual way
• if the overtaken vessel alters to starboard for any reason (for example either of the above) you just take a wider turn to starboard to keep clear of her

This was brought home to me graphically one night in the Persian Gulf when I came on watch and was shocked to find us on the port side of a line of ships we were overtaking. As the watch went on we met a series of ships end-on for which we were required to alter to starboard - this we kept doing, edging closer and closer to the line of ships on our starboard side.

The highlight of the watch came right at the end, when a ship - a large tanker - appeared on our port side, crossing. She was the give-way vessel. She did not (until the last moment). We could not:

• alter to port (prohibited by the ColRegs) - and probably would have collided with her when she did eventually alter
• alter to starboard - another ship we were overtaking was too close
• slow down - we had a ship we'd just overtaken close astern - she'd probably run us down

:

All of that summarises my concerns. Without a designated side for overtaking, safety can be compromised. Why have a designated side for passing but not for overtaking?