Colregs -- a question of interpretation?

[timbartlett]

You are driving a 12m motor cruiser in open water, at about 25 knots, and you see a ship approaching from your port side. By the time the range has reduced to about 4 miles, you are concerned that there is a risk of collision.

Based on other recent threads, it seems that many people would alter course a few degrees to port (I guess somewhere between 5 and 50 degrees).

Can someone please offer an interpretation of Rule 17 that makes altering course to port to avoid a give way vessel legitimate? Here is the rule. I've highlighted the bits that I see as being an issue in this case.

Rule 17
Action by stand-on vessel
(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

 

[DAKA]

You are driving a 12m motor cruiser in open water, at about 25 knots, and you see a ship approaching from your port side. By the time the range has reduced to about 4 miles, you are concerned that there is a risk of collision.

Based on other recent threads, it seems that many people would alter course a few degrees to port (I guess somewhere between 5 and 50 degrees).

Can someone please offer an interpretation of Rule 17 that makes altering course to port to avoid a give way vessel legitimate? Here is the rule. I've highlighted the bits that I see as being an issue in this case.

Come on Tim, yesterday you were threatening lakesailor with arrest for non compliance.
You cant expect us to put our hands up in case you grass us up


A mate of mine

Says he would not alter @ 4 miles.
He would stand on until the ship is significantly closer.

Once the bow wave is visible turn to port , run parallel with the ship and pass close astern before the wake starts to break.

There is no way the ship could make an alteration in course to cause a collision with my mate now running down the side of the ship.

My mate says he wouldnt allow the ship to helm a course to pass 1/4 mile astern of the 12m 20 knot boat in case the 20 knot 12m boat fouls a prop.

If the 12m boat stands on and then fouls a prop the ship will not be able to alter in time.

 

[jfm]

Tim, I could give you plenty of interpretations of that rule which would render a turn to port not unlawful, but I don't have the time or inclination to type it all and then have you argue back without any knowledge of the rules of court, evidence or statutory interpretation, so I'm going to refrain. If ever needed, the schoolboy drafting of Colregs leaves so much room for a defendant to manoeuvre that when I got into the courtroom with MCA it would be like taking candy from a sleeping baby. You're flogging a dead horse with maggots on it Tim.

 

[timbartlett]

Come on Tim, yesterday you were threatening lakesailor with arrest for non compliance.
You cant expect us to put our hands up in case you grass us up

I wasn't threatening anyone with anything: I have neither the authority nor the inclination. And I wasn't asking anyone to "put their hands up". Quite the contrary: I was asking for an explanation of why the action I described would be legitimate!

Tim, I could give you plenty of interpretations of that rule which would render a turn to port not unlawful, but I don't have the time or inclination to type it all and then have you argue back without any knowledge of the rules of court, evidence or statutory interpretation, so I'm going to refrain. If ever needed, the schoolboy drafting of Colregs leaves so much room for a defendant to manoeuvre that when I got into the courtroom with MCA it would be like taking candy from a sleeping baby. You're flogging a dead horse with maggots on it Tim.

But we're not in a court, and collisions don't happen in court. Collisions happen when two people -- often tired, not always terribly intelligent or well-educated people, sometimes cold, wet or seasick -- have to make quick decisions on the basis of limited and sometimes ambiguous information.

Part of the "problem" with the colregs -- as you and I have discussed before (amicably, and with a fair measure of agreement, IIRC) is that their prime purpose is to guide seamen in a very wide range of circumstances -- that's why they are in non-lawyer language and why there are all the "if the circumstances of the case admit" phrases.

I genuinely want to know why, when the rule explicitly says don't alter course to port, anyone thinks altering course to port is legitimate. I'm struggling. Maybe that's 'cos I'm not a lawyer. You are. So please: enlighten me. I really want to know, but I'm afraid I can't afford your fees.

 

[capnsensible]

Tim, I could give you plenty of interpretations of that rule which would render a turn to port not unlawful, but I don't have the time or inclination to type it all and then have you argue back without any knowledge of the rules of court, evidence or statutory interpretation, so I'm going to refrain. If ever needed, the schoolboy drafting of Colregs leaves so much room for a defendant to manoeuvre that when I got into the courtroom with MCA it would be like taking candy from a sleeping baby. You're flogging a dead horse with maggots on it Tim.

Wish you had of been there when an oppo of mine got a large fine!

Seen these?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/newsandpublications/mcgaprosecutions.htm

 

[DAKA]

Wish you had of been there when an oppo of mine got a large fine!

perhaps jfm could be the mariners Mr Loophole (wouldnt surprise me if he was at the same school as Nick Freeman )

 

[[2068]]

The question is flawed, because there is no risk of collision at a distance of four miles unless you are either "Spirit of Australia" or an Aircraft Carrier.

At that distance, a course can be set to avoid the vessel completely, and interpretation of collision regulations is not required.

 

[jfm]

Funnily enough i have been on the receiving end of a written investigation/attack by the MCA's enforcement department for an alleged transgression of colregs in my current boat, with a view to prosecution and punishment. But, erm, I won before it got to court. They were plainly wrong, though rather officious and encumbered with an over inflated sense of their powers and a lack of ability to read the law. Scuse the snobbery, but where do the world's least good, least successful and most chip-on-shouldery lawyers end up? As dolts in government jobs like MCA enforcement unit

 

[timbartlett]

As dolts in government jobs like MCA enforcement unit

But collisions usually involve two vessels -- usually with two owners and two insurers.
I presume that means that at least 50% of the good, successful, and least chip-on-the-shouldery lawyers who represented those owners/insurers and who thought that winning would be like taking candy from a sleeping baby must have discovered that they, themselves, were the sleeping babies?

After all, every one of those cases must have at least one loser (though I agree it probably wasn't the lawyers! )

 

[DAKA]

deleted.
life's too short.

 

[piratos]

one reason

You are driving a 12m motor cruiser in open water, at about 25 knots, and you see a ship approaching from your port side. By the time the range has reduced to about 4 miles, you are concerned that there is a risk of collision.

Based on other recent threads, it seems that many people would alter course a few degrees to port (I guess somewhere between 5 and 50 degrees).

Can someone please offer an interpretation of Rule 17 that makes altering course to port to avoid a give way vessel legitimate? Here is the rule. I've highlighted the bits that I see as being an issue in this case.

altering the course 3° to port at a distance of said 4 miles = NO RISK OF COLLISSION
Altering the course 10° and the bridge officer is in no doubt, and might even be happy with you

 

[tinkicker0]

Don't understand this thread Where is there any rule that says any helmsman is not free to turn whichever way he wants as he sees fit provided it does not cause or possibly cause a collision?

Is a boats heading cast in stone? Are there roadways just under the surface with little signs saying keep off the grass?

What the OP is saying that once you spot a ship some 4 miles out you have to keep on the same course. What if I don't want to? What if I am short of fuel and need to turn back? What if I changed my mind and want to visit a beach that requires a course that will take me behind the ship?


All nonsense. COLREGS merely gives the stand on the right to maintain course and speed if it so chooses, if the stand on helmsman wishes to alter course so as to avoid conflict at the earliest opportunity with as little inconvenience to either party as possible, then that is good seamanship in my book. EDIT: Such a change should be easily interpreted by the other party so as to make one's intentions clear.

Anyone with any clue can quickly tell if another vessel is on a collision course or will pass safely behind, even I used to have to assess this quickly at often much less than 2 miles and at 200knots closure.

Since I never fluttered back to earth in a cloud of mangled aluminium and plexiglass I guess I was successful at gauging it.


Put the effin book away, engage brain and keep your eyes open, by far the safest way to avoid collisions.

 

[jfm]

Tim
I said i'd refrain, and I'm def not going to be drawn into a lot of posts (famous last words eh?!), not least cos i have a bit of work to do then a flight to catch. Some quick comments though:

But we're not in a court, ... Part of the "problem" with the colregs -- as you and I have discussed before (amicably, and with a fair measure of agreement, IIRC) is that their prime purpose is to guide seamen in a very wide range of circumstances -- that's why they are in non-lawyer language and why there are all the "if the circumstances of the case admit" phrases.

We are in effect in court if we're going to discuss what is and isn't correct boat driving under Colregs. Their purpose isn't merely to guide seamen. They are law, and folks who disobey them face punishment by the state. They have in that respect an entirely higher legal status than say the Highway Code. I firmly disgaree with you that they have a status as mere guidance and "that's why they are in non-lawyer language". They are not in non-lawyer language. They are just a very bad piece of law writing.

I don't think you recall our discussions about them accurately. I have for years gone on about their very poor drafting. The standard is fine if you're writing an instruction manual for assembling a coffee table, but when you're writing law which if broken result in people being punished, the draftsman should have done better. I've said for many years they need to be rewritten. Bits like "circumstances admit", without any language to set a standard for admission, combined with inconsistent "shall not impede", "keep out of way of", "give way" is terrible stuff and is substnatially lower quality that all other modern statute that we have. and those are 1% of the examples i could give

Do you know the difference between "shall not impede", "keep out of way of", and "give way to"? I don't. (No need to answer btw!)

To get back to your question, one can turn to port in the manner MapisM (and I) have said we think is ok if (a) you're not in collision circs, as FlowerPower say above and (b) any time the circumstnaces fail the "admission" test. Look carefully at the syntax Tim. The "don't steer port" rule operates only "if circs admit". The defualt is that it doesn't operate and Mapis is corrext in that default scenario. The MCA as prosecutor (where they have jusridiction) has the onus of proof (to a beyond reas doubt standard) to show positively that the circumstances meet the "admit" test. If MCA fails, the port-steerer in the dock gets acquitted. Now, the (lousy) draftsman has given no language to determine how high the "admit" bar is or even what i looks like, and so the courts must make it up, and will err on the side of MapisM under the contra preferentum doctrine (assuming MapisM's lawyers knows about stuff to that degree).

Seriously Tim, the Colregs are bollox as a piece of law. The drafting just doesn't cut it as law, as I hope you see my comment on the "admit" test illustrates. I'm right behind Mapism on his steer to port habit, and i do the same. And I think I'm right in law

 

[jfm]

But collisions usually involve two vessels -- usually with two owners and two insurers.
I presume that means that at least 50% of the good, successful, and least chip-on-the-shouldery lawyers who represented those owners/insurers and who thought that winning would be like taking candy from a sleeping baby must have discovered that they, themselves, were the sleeping babies?

Tim I mustn't have explained my point well; sorry in rush today. We're at crossed purposes, like Ronny Barker asking customer if he wants inch or inch and a half plug etc, and then it turns out customer wants 13amp

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Tim, as you're looking a bit Billy No Mates on this one, I'm going to side with you. I'm sure jfm is right when he says that the ColRegs are badly drafted but I guess they had to be written in such a way so as to be understood by other people for whom English is not their first language. For me it's about predictability and good seamanship. Yes in 99.9% of crossing situations, there will be no danger in turning to port but you are doing something which, possibly, the other skipper may not be expecting. For me the spirit of the Col Regs is about vessels behaving in a manner which is predictable by other vessels. On a fast mobo, there's really no issue about slowing down or stopping so IMHO why not do that rather than turn to port; it's not really much to ask

 

[rbcoomer]

I'm going to regret this but...

Rule 8 - all of, but mostly c. It doesn't specify any limitation on course change here because as I read it, if it's done clearly and early then there is no risk of collision and thus colregs are no longer applicable. Not arguing with rule 17, but surely that has to be regarded for 'close(r) quarters' hence why it is in part II? 4 miles might be close quarters for a pair of supertankers, but not for a pleasure craft that can turn, stop etc on a sixpence relative to the tanker.

If we all followed rule 17 to the letter for every vessel within 3-4 miles, resultant course changes in busy areas would result in a completely new destination and sailing would become the 22nd century version of chess!

Rule 17 is in Part II and Rule 8 (Part I) stipulates "Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part " i.e. "Conduct of vessels in any condition of visibility." (part II being "vessels within sight of each other"). To me the proximity thing is key here and this isn't going to be the same for 2 x 20' leisure craft as it is for 2 x 200M ships. 'Within sight' is perhaps being taken too literally - and in some circumstances (e.g. the 2 tankers doing 20kts with radar, AIS etc) they may have already remedial action. Nowhere in Part I does it say you cannot alter course to port. More importantly, the give way vessel will know how quickly or otherwise they need to take action and are probably not going to take it until that time is close. Reducing speed or changing course in a big ship will come at a cost, so why do so every 5 minutes if 90% of the collision situations resolve themselves before action is required?

My point is that the wording is deliberately 'vague/open to interpretation/whatever' until a more defined circumstance arises which will override and/or further limit the actions that are then deemed correct. Within sight could be interpreted as a wisp of funnel smoke on the horizon or close enough to see bow wave and any indicators like vessel fishing etc.

Busy waterways like the Solent perhaps make within sight a bit overkill/too broad brush and thus the application will always be down to good seamanship and judgement (and a hot debate topic!) I can't think of a definition that would suit all circumstances better however. If the rules defined a specific distance, it would be too late to apply rules/avoid collision for some and still too soon for others. Personally, I hate over-engineered rules and were we all to use more common sense, society would need far less of them. As a result we'd be much less plagued by bureaucratic little jobsworths. Thus, leaving the rules as they stand (ambiguities and all) gets my vote...

Anyway, if all else fails, I can remove my glasses and that takes rule 17 out of the equation until the other vessel is about 250' away!

 

[fireball]

You are driving a 12m motor cruiser in open water, at about 25 knots, and you see a ship approaching from your port side. By the time the range has reduced to about 4 miles, you are concerned that there is a risk of collision.

Based on other recent threads, it seems that many people would alter course a few degrees to port (I guess somewhere between 5 and 50 degrees).

Can someone please offer an interpretation of Rule 17 that makes altering course to port to avoid a give way vessel legitimate? Here is the rule. I've highlighted the bits that I see as being an issue in this case.

Rule 17:
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a) (ii) of this rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances at the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

So - the "stand on vessel" can alter course to port providing they are not taking action in accordance with subparagraph (a) (ii) -

The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone,
as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

Which (IMHO) basically interprets as you're only not allowed to alter to port if you believe the other vessel hasn't got the time/space to avoid you on your current course.
At 25kts that's over 9 minutes to impact - can a ship alter course sufficiently to avoid a collision in that 9 minute window? Depends what ship it is and what surrounding traffic there may be.

Those that say they stop and then head for the stern - are they not breaking the bind of the rule? What's the time window for avoiding manoeuvres..


For sailing boats (not subject to this thread I know) 4Nm is more like 1/2 hour away - so should not be constrained by this rule either.

 

[Mariner69]

Having been on the bridge of a variety of vessels from 220 metres long and down to my own small yacht at 19 feet (that I now crawl up the east coast creeks with) and from speeds in the upper twenties of knots to the more sublime of 12.5 and my current 3 knots down hill may I suggest that the altering to port as a defensive manouevre is fraught with danger.

It will also scare the buggery out of the professional seaman on the ship and he may react in a completely unexpected way.

Better to go to starboard, parallel if close, then continue around in a round turn to starboard; that is the sort of action a large ship is likely to take. You are running away and reducing the impact speeds at the same time.

Proximity of vessels is very subjective. In large bulk carriers and general cargo vessels, we would be twitching if the CPA was likely to be within 2 miles.

In warships we were used to operating much closer to other ships in operations down to 300 or 500 yards in bigger ships and 20 metres in mine counter measure vessels. On passage, 2 miles featured again as too close for comfort.

I was lucky that I had Cockcroft as my lecturer when doing Extras. One thing that shook my confidence was when we were testing one of the early radar simulators in 82. Three of the students were in three booths with a radar each facing the same problem to solve. Two went one way the other God Only Knows. These guys are supposed to the cream of the crop and I had expected all to react in the same manner but they didn't.

The problem is that yachtsmen (motor and sail) do not seem to want to learn the rules and practise them at sea. I love the concept of freedom of the seas in the UK but unless we learn and obey the rules(with common sense; aware that the other man may see it differently)the odds are that compulsion will arrive.

If you Obey the rules we, on the big ships, know what you are going to do. There is nothing worse than altering course in a big ship for a small craft on a steady bearing, as described in the OP, and then having it do something unexpected.

At 4 miles he is likely to be considering taking action since it takes about 3 minutes for the turn to really get under way, he will have been plotting you for sometime and also expect you to continue and will have planned his action to provide his required minimum CPA. To stop the turn it is even more fun; does he swing back to the first course, more to starboard? If he is on sea passage then stopping is not really an option due to engine constraints.

The small yachts can always turn inside the circle of a big vessel but you have to be awake. A good look out is the most important rule to follow, all flows from there.

Whilst treasury solicitors may be dire, the commercial guys you will come up against in a collision where real money is involved are extremly good and the costs of courts are crippling. This used to be the control factor for commercial operations long before the MAIB was ever thought of.

My two penny worth.

 

[MapisM]

I genuinely want to know why, when the rule explicitly says don't alter course to port, anyone thinks altering course to port is legitimate.

Ok, I just said in the other thread that I was heading out of the discussion, but since I have a funny feeling that you're considering myself among those "anyone" who consider steering to port legitimate: I never said that! If anything, the opposite.

I said clearly that my habit is just based on a) a pinch of salt and b) a bit of experience proving that it's the most effective way to avoid troubles. The "legitimate or not" is an entirely separate point, and in this respect I always admitted to be aware that my habit might not be fully colregs-compliant.

Now, I'm happy to hear that also from a legal standpoint there's at least the benefit of the doubt, but even if everybody would agree that the "SOTTLM" procedure (stand-on-till-the-last-minute) is the only legitimate thing to do, I would still take the risk and stick to my habit.

But before you complain, NO, I'm recommeding anyone to do so.
Just throwing in a strictly personal viewpoint.

 

[timbartlett]

Suplementary question:

... even if everybody would agree that the "SOTTLM" procedure (stand-on-till-the-last-minute) is the only legitimate thing to do...

Not getting at you, Mapis, but several people have mention this "stand on to the last minute" or "stand on to the death" procedure, but I'm at a loss to find anyone who has advocated it or suggested that it is a legal requirement in the colregs.

It's certainly not something I would recommend, and I would have a big issue with anyone who suggested it.

Can anyone give us/me a clue where it comes from?