Colregs -- a question of interpretation?

[timbartlett]

There's your mistake Tim, you think a risk of collision exists, the rest of us don't.

We think if we continue on our current course a risk of collision may develop, so we change course early, well before rule 17 comes into force....

Personally, in open water and decent vis, I would expect to have taken a bearing on the vessel at about 6 miles range (difficult to do it at much more, and why wait to do it at much less?). I'd expect to take a second bearing at about 4 miles. Until I've taken the second bearing, it is almost impossible to tell whether there is a potential collision risk or none whatsoever.
Rule 7di says that if the compass bearing isn't changing, risk of collision "is deemed to exist".

Of course, if you are planning to tear up Rule 17anyway, then I don't suppose you'll be too worried about sticking rule 7 in the shredder along with it.

If there is no risk of collision, why do you want to alter course to avoid a risk of collision that doesn't exist? Of course you can disengage early -- as you suggest -- I don't think I or anyone else has ever suggested otherwise. But for a big ship in open water 4M isn't "early".

And if you think a risk of collision is a bout to develop, how do you know that the ship was going to pass ahead of you? If he was going to pass astern (his most likely action, BTW) then altering course towards him may well negate the effect of any manoeuvre he may have already made.

Remember that the point of Rule 17 is to make sure that one vessel behaves consistently so as to give the other vessel a chance to manoeuvre round it.

My own boat won't actually make 25 knots, but at my usual cruise speed of about 17 knots, there is no way in a million years a ship, or even a sailing yacht, could collide with me if he tried. I'd drive circles around him all day.

I suggest you need to reappraise the speed at which ships operate. Tankers, in open water, typically operate at speeds in the mid teens. Cross-channel ferries twenty-ish. Container ships may well be in the mid twenties.

 

[timbartlett]

Simple answer but I've not managed to get my idea across to ... In summary if there exists a risk of collision at close quarters then it is so obvious the ship hasn't seen us or requires /expects us to move.

If there exists a risk of collision at close quarters then you avoid it:
- either by something other than altering course to port (Rule 17 a ii)
or
- by last minute action (rule 17 b)

What's the problem?
There are two legitimate methods of dealing with rogues, so why does the possibility that you might encounter a rogue give you the right to become a rogue yourself?

 

[piratos]

collission

Tim
Nobody has sofar given any reason why not to comply with rule 17, but you are constructing as risk of collission that does not exist : "By the time the range has reduced to about 4 miles, you are concerned that there is a risk of collision."

Everybody seem to be of the opinion that at 4 miles (and a lot less) there is no risk of collission, and as such you can make circles if you like to - even turn to port if you like. With no risk of collission there is no such thing as a stand on vessel.

You could maybe ask the question when is the point reached where a risk of collission occur. There will be lots of different views that that question.

 

[fireball]

So it boils down to when you determine "risk of collision" and what that means - "risk of collision" means you'll collide if nobody takes any action - what's the chance of being that close? Most of the time it is clearance zones - for me I'd prefer to be 1 or 2Nm ahead of a ship min (depending on it's speed) whilst I'd quite happily go 1/2 mile astern - technically there is no risk of collision so I'm not obliged to follow the colregs in that instance...

 

[piratos]

So it boils down to when you determine "risk of collision" and what that means - "risk of collision" means you'll collide if nobody takes any action - what's the chance of being that close? Most of the time it is clearance zones - for me I'd prefer to be 1 or 2Nm ahead of a ship min (depending on it's speed) whilst I'd quite happily go 1/2 mile astern - technically there is no risk of collision so I'm not obliged to follow the colregs in that instance...

I beleive that where you feel you are at risk of collission can be totally different of what I feel, and your opponent may have a total different view and even take actions to prevent a collission where you still beleive everything is fine. Its however obvious that non of us (except maybe Tim) consider the situation he initially described as a risk of collission. If you keep 1/2 mile off me I will be totally relaxed

 

[timbartlett]

I beleive that where you feel you are at risk of collission can be totally different of what I feel, and your opponent may have a total different view and even take actions to prevent a collission where you still beleive everything is fine. Its however obvious that non of us (except maybe Tim) consider the situation he initially described as a risk of collission. If you keep 1/2 mile off me I will be totally relaxed

The situation is in some ways analogous to the kid on a bike, weaving around all over the road without lights at dusk. So far as he is concerned, his antics are "just having fun" -- and of course he knows he that he has seen the approaching car and that he has the skill and speed required to avoid it.

At least, he thinks he knows that. He also thinks he knows that there is no way in a million years that a car could collide with him if it tried. He'd drive circles around it all day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Risk of collision doesn't mean "collision is inevitable" it means that if things continue as they are, then a collision could happen.
Rule 7a says that if there is any doubt, risk shall be deemed to exist
Rule 7d says that risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change.

If you don't like my specificexample, let's look at a more general case: You see a vessel in the distance, at some indeterminate range.
Is there a risk of collision?
If the answer is yes, then why do you think the collision regulations should not apply to you?
If the answer is no, then why do you think it necessary to alter course in order to avoid a collision that you believe to be impossible?
If the answer is maybe, then why doesn't Rule 7a apply to you?

In the Banshee-Kildare case (1887, but still a crucial legal precedent in this instance) the judge raised the question of the distance at which there could be no risk of collision, and came up with a figure of 6 miles. That was for two ships, one doing 6 knots and one overtaking her at 7 knots. i.e. he said there was no risk of collision when they were six hours from possible collision. In the case of a typical container ship and 25kt mobo crossing each other, when they are four miles apart they are just a shade over six minutes from potential collision.

 

[PaulGooch]

If there is no risk of collision, why do you want to alter course to avoid a risk of collision that doesn't exist?

As i keep saying (and you keep ignoring), i'm not changing course because a risk of collision exists, i'm 4 miles (10 minutes) away, what the feck am i going to collide with ?

If i continued on my present course for long enough, a risk of collision might develop. I'm not going to start plotting courses and taking bearings, i'm not even going to track him on radar, i'm simply going to steer a clear course that avoids any chance of a risk of collision even developing.

 

[PaulGooch]

I suggest you need to reappraise the speed at which ships operate. Tankers, in open water, typically operate at speeds in the mid teens. Cross-channel ferries twenty-ish. Container ships may well be in the mid twenties.

I have no doubt that's correct, seen enough containers ships to know how the work, thanks. I also have a sneaky suspicion they aren't quite as agile as a 27 foot mobo.

 

[oceanfroggie]

When interpreting when the various rules apply one must take into account the size, speed and agility of both vessels as well as prevailing weather. The colregs were evolved originally from a shipping perspective, the distances, inertia, turn rates and speeds involved determine the reaction times required to avoid a collision risk developing. With 4 miles between a fast agile mobo and a slow ship doing only 15-20kt in VMC there clearly is no risk of collision. 4 miles is a large distance for a small fast agile mobo. As others have posted the mobo could dance circles around the ship in either direction without any chance of a collision ever developing. How did I allow myself to get sucked in again to a boring colreg thread . .

 

[timbartlett]

...My own boat won't actually make 25 knots, but at my usual cruise speed of about 17 knots, there is no way in a million years a ship, or even a sailing yacht, could collide with me if he tried. I'd drive circles around him all day.

I don't care how "agile" you are: how can a 17-knot boat possibly "drive circles" round a ship doing 20-25 knots?

I refer you, again, to my kid on bicycle analogy. The kid on a bicycle is a menace to everyone (especially himself) because he thinks has enough speed, skill, and agility to be able to ignore the boring old rules like driving on the left.

I am still struggling to see what is wrong with simply obeying the rules as written?
Your agility argument makes it even more difficult to understand why you aren't prepared to give Rule 17a (i) a chance to work

 

[hlb]

What I want to know is, lets say we are both doing 20 knots and my course is 90 deg to the ship, so I turn to starboad and so does the ship. I am now abeam of the ship and we are both doing 20knots, but in the wrong direction. Is there a way of resuming our courses, or do we both have to go some where else.

 

[piratos]

Colregs at age

What I want to know is, lets say we are both doing 20 knots and my course is 90 deg to the ship, so I turn to starboad and so does the ship. I am now abeam of the ship and we are both doing 20knots, but in the wrong direction. Is there a way of resuming our courses, or do we both have to go some where else.

Maurice an 82 year-old man went to the doctor for his physical.

A few days later the doctor saw Maurice walking down the street with a gorgeous young lady on his arm.

A couple of days later do doctor spoke to Maurice and said, You re really dong great, aren t you?

Maurice replied, Just doing what you said, Doc: Get a hot mamma and be cheerful.

The doctor said, I did not say that. I said, You got a heart murmur. Be careful.

 

[timbartlett]

What I want to know is, lets say we are both doing 20 knots and my course is 90 deg to the ship, so I turn to starboad and so does the ship. I am now abeam of the ship and we are both doing 20knots, but in the wrong direction. Is there a way of resuming our courses, or do we both have to go some where else.

Another excellent argument in favour of conforming to the rules. If you (as the stand-on vessel) had not altered course when you were required to stand on, then you would not have found yourself in that predicament.

If you altered under Rule 17a(ii) or 17b then:

If you look carefully around your helm position, somewhere quite close to the wheel, you will find one, two, or four levers (it depends on the boat, and there are one or two odd-balls). Most boats have two. I expect you've discovered that if you push them forward while the engines are running, the engine noise increases and the boat goes faster. If you pull them backwards, the boat slows down.

In the situation you describe, I would suggest pulling the levers back about half way, so that the boat slows down and the ship goes past. then you can turn back onto your original course.

(I'm surprised I need to tell a man of your experience.)

 

[hlb]

Another excellent argument in favour of conforming to the rules. If you (as the stand-on vessel) had not altered course when you were required to stand on, then you would not have found yourself in that predicament.

If you altered under Rule 17a(ii) or 17b then:

If you look carefully around your helm position, somewhere quite close to the wheel, you will find one, two, or four levers (it depends on the boat, and there are one or two odd-balls). Most boats have two. I expect you've discovered that if you push them forward while the engines are running, the engine noise increases and the boat goes faster. If you pull them backwards, the boat slows down.

In the situation you describe, I would suggest pulling the levers back about half way, so that the boat slows down and the ship goes past. then you can turn back onto your original course.

(I'm surprised I need to tell a man of your experience.)

So I now slow down and go round the back of the ship, just like I was going to do in the first place.

 

[honeybee]

Another excellent argument in favour of conforming to the rules. If you (as the stand-on vessel) had not altered course when you were required to stand on, then you would not have found yourself in that predicament.

If you altered under Rule 17a(ii) or 17b then:

If you look carefully around your helm position, somewhere quite close to the wheel, you will find one, two, or four levers (it depends on the boat, and there are one or two odd-balls). Most boats have two. I expect you've discovered that if you push them forward while the engines are running, the engine noise increases and the boat goes faster. If you pull them backwards, the boat slows down.

In the situation you describe, I would suggest pulling the levers back about half way, so that the boat slows down and the ship goes past. then you can turn back onto your original course.

(I'm surprised I need to tell a man of your experience.)

Oh boy how fun would you be in a risk & compliance position in any company .......................

Chris

 

[timbartlett]

So I now slow down and go round the back of the ship, just like I was going to do in the first place.

Assuming we are talking about a vessel that is crossing you from port to starboard:
- If BOTH vessels obey the rules, then you stand on, and the other vessel goes behind you. You do not need to alter course or speed at all.

- If the other vessel breaks the rules, then yes you may have to alter course and slow down.

Why do you think that the possibility that the other vessel might break the rules gives you the right (or responsibility) to break them first? That remains the fundamental question: why do you want to break the rules and force ships into taking emergency evasive action, when it would be so easy for everyone if you simply followed the rules?

They aren't exactly difficult. If you see his green sidelight it means go. If you see his red sidelight, it means stop. It's just like traffic lights. The only "difficult" bit is during the day, when his sidelights are switched off. (But here's a clue -- his red and green are on the same sides of his vessel as yours are on yours!)

BTW, altering course on a ship isn't difficult, either. Even in my days, it was just a matter of saying "starboard five" or "starboard ten" into a microphone hanging from the bridge deckhead. Nowadays, for many merchant ships, it's just a question of turning a little handwheel or moving a little joystick. The thought processes of trying to work out what on earth is going on when someone decides the rules don't apply to them are far more difficult.

 

[timbartlett]

Oh boy how fun would you be in a risk & compliance position in any company .......................

Chris

In a risk andcompliance position in any company, I seriously doubt whether I would find myself having to explain to the company's drivers that they would be generally safer if they drove on the left and went clockwise round roundabouts. I think most people would take that for granted, rather than arguing the toss about whether it was "common sense" to do something completely different

 

[honeybee]

lol, you have a lot of time on yer hands that's for sure......................

 

[piratos]

In a risk andcompliance position in any company, I seriously doubt whether I would find myself having to explain to the company's drivers that they would be generally safer if they drove on the left and went clockwise round roundabouts. I think most people would take that for granted, rather than arguing the toss about whether it was "common sense" to do something completely different

Ahh - We do drive on the RIGHT side of the road - otherwise we would be driving on the wrong side ???
At least thats what is common law in Europe

You would be the right man in Brussel ..

 

[PaulGooch]

I don't care how "agile" you are: how can a 17-knot boat possibly "drive circles" round a ship doing 20-25 knots?

I refer you, again, to my kid on bicycle analogy. The kid on a bicycle is a menace to everyone (especially himself) because he thinks has enough speed, skill, and agility to be able to ignore the boring old rules like driving on the left.

I am still struggling to see what is wrong with simply obeying the rules as written?
Your agility argument makes it even more difficult to understand why you aren't prepared to give Rule 17a (i) a chance to work

It isn't all about speed, numbscull, it's about manoeuvrability. At four miles, if he deliberately set a course for me at ramming speed, what do you think the chances are that i couldn't avoid him ?

I am obeying the rules, you are too stupid and pig headed to even read what others write.

Troll.