Colregs -- a question of interpretation?

[piratos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbartlett
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.


That was maybe too hard. What Tim say abt Rule 17 is not wrong, but comming back to the road, he also say that we have to stop at the green light, because it will soon become red, and then we do have different opinions. But I just learned some new words

 

[PaulGooch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbartlett
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.


That was maybe too hard. What Tim say abt Rule 17 is not wrong, but comming back to the road, he also say that we have to stop at the green light, because it will soon become red, and then we do have different opinions. But I just learned some new words

But we're not on the road and i'm not on a bike (although i wish Tim would get on his )

I understand how rule 17 works, that's not in dispute.

What is in dispute is Tim's insistence that at 4 miles (10 minutes) away, there is a risk of collision that means i'm subject to rule 17. That is obviously not the case, as everyone else but Tim can see.

 

[piratos]

But we're not on the road and i'm not on a bike (although i wish Tim would get on his )

I understand how rule 17 works, that's not in dispute.

What is in dispute is Tim's insistence that at 4 miles (10 minutes) away, there is a risk of collision that means i'm subject to rule 17. That is obviously not the case, as everyone else but Tim can see.

On the road again. At the time the Colregs came up, the horses used some kind of blinders.....
Usually I read the threads, and never participate in the discussion. Now I will go back to sea and when I have an internet connection maybe check whether there come some new and interesting comments.
Ciao

 

[oceanfroggie]

Bah, humbug. Once at 1/2 mile range aim at the ships stern and you will easily avoid being run over.

 

[timbartlett]

But we're not on the road and i'm not on a bike (although i wish Tim would get on his )

I understand how rule 17 works, that's not in dispute.

What is in dispute is Tim's insistence that at 4 miles (10 minutes) away, there is a risk of collision that means i'm subject to rule 17. That is obviously not the case, as everyone else but Tim can see.

One last chance.

Why do you WANT to alter course to port for a vessel four miles on your port bow -- particularly given the fact that you could still avoid a collision -- and with no possibility of anyone even questioning the legitimacy of your manoeuvre -- even if it were only 400 yards away?

Why are you so determined to deny it the opportunity of obeying the rules ??

 

[Aurai]

Alteration to Port

My reading of this one

and it comes up frequently for us, in Thames Estuary shipping channels where the difference in vessels is usually massive (speed and bulk).

Radio the ship and come up with an agreed action via VTS if you wish.

Stop and wait

Do a large circle to starboard to end up astern of the other ship.

[If you cannot speed up and pass safely ahead]

Thanks

Aurai

 

[timbartlett]

Bah, humbug. Once at 1/2 mile range aim at the ships stern and you will easily avoid being run over.

That's fine. At half a mile, I doubt whether anyone would question that you are in the optional avoiding action zone (Rule 17 a (ii))

 

[DAKA]

That's fine. At half a mile, I doubt whether anyone would question that you are in the optional avoiding action zone (Rule 17 a (ii))

Thats me happy then Tim

I'm almost in full agreement



BTW
You have mentioned the RTA a few times and I dont feel a Roundabout in a car is really the correct analogy.
When I use a zebra crossing , I dont just run across it , I stop, look listen wait until I am sure the traffic and lorries have given way to me and then cross infront but only after they have stopped.

I wouldnt cross infront of them if they were still rolling , even if I think I can make it, its just never going to happen because I know that if I trip they may not be able to stop in time.

 

[PaulGooch]

One last chance.

Why do you WANT to alter course to port for a vessel four miles on your port bow -- particularly given the fact that you could still avoid a collision -- and with no possibility of anyone even questioning the legitimacy of your manoeuvre -- even if it were only 400 yards away?

Why are you so determined to deny it the opportunity of obeying the rules ??

You don't get it, do you ?

At 4 miles there is no risk of collision, i can go where ever i want. I choose to take a course that will take me past the stern of the ship. I'll always be on that course, the ship will be able to see where i'm going. The ships radar/marpa will show where i'm going. There will not be a risk of collision. I'm not on a collision course. I'm going somewhere else.

It ain't rocket science. I've thus far managed to avoid all of the container traffic, ferrys, cruise ships and a gazillion high speed cats all in and out of Harwich/Ipswich/Felixstowe. Not had a close encounter yet, or a cross word from any of the captains/skippers.

I sail in the real World, not your imaginary universe.

I'll now do what the more sensible forum members did long ago, ignore your stupid trolling posts. But, i'd rather you didn't send me private messages, if you have something to say, say it here.

 

[hlb]

When I drove a big truck, mostly to Saudi Arabia. The rules said, I was not allowed to use the size of the truck to control the road.

But in reality, say at a roundabout, I had to take up two lanes, to stop stupid cars from trying to pass me on the rounabout, then finishing up under the trailer.

Same driving through some where like London, mostly drive in the middle of the road, to stop folk passing, else there is a big cockup, when I come to a parked car, which only I can see.

Police drivers are also trained, in much different methods than the high way code.

It's just about keeping everyone safe, never mind the rules.

 

[Richard10002]

Tim is flogging a dead horse here.

I once read that, every day, we all make a number of negligent actions but it is only occasionally that any of these negligent actions coincide with something else to cause damage to person or property.

All of those suggesting that they need not, or do not, obey the rules, or that the rules do not apply to their particular situation, are risking being that negligent action that occasionally causes damage. The only time it really matters that you do not obey the rules is when a collision, or other damage, occurs so, most of the time, you get away with it.

You can carry on being cavalier towards the rules and will probably be fine for all of your 3 score and ten - there are mostly no traffic police to give you a ticket and ultimately ban you but, if you end up in Court, and are shown to have not followed the rules, the chances are you will be penalised.

To the poster who said he alters course to port to line up with the stern of the vessel in question, then alters course to starboard gradually, to maintain the line with the vessels stern, until back on course - collisions have been caused by this type of action where the steering gear has failed, along with the engine controls, and the gradual turning to starboard has resulted in the collision. You may reply that the chances are slim, but it has happened, and it's not a good idea.

the rules exist to help avoid those rare occasions when ships collide. Most of the time, obeying, or not obeying, the rules, will make no difference to the outcome - there will be no collision. Where a collision is likely, obeying the rules will help avoid it.

My obeying of the rules is fairly instinctive, as is my recognition of lights and signals. It was trained into me as part of my job. If I was found to appear to be not following the rules, questions would be asked. As a leisure sailor, I lost nothing by following my training and instincts.

 

[rbcoomer]

Ok, here's one for Tim:-

You're heading East towards a headland with the coastline a half mile off port side. As you approach the headland, the intention is to follow the coastline by turning 100 degrees to port, maintaining the half-mile distance from shore. However as the vessel approaches the headland (before you turn) a freighter comes into view at around 3 miles off the port bow on a constant bearing.

The freighter is unlikely to venture further inshore, but colregs now say a collision risk exists and by that you (as stand on vessel) must continue course and speed. (???) This will take you directly into the path of the freighter, 2+ miles further out to sea than you planned and in the wrong direction - thereby extending the voyage and perhaps risking your crew? To add some focus, your crew are inexperienced and weather is deteriorating rapidly with your destination just 3 miles away to the North.

Are you SERIOUSLY saying you should make a course adjustment to starboard, taking your vessel into rougher waters and in the wrong direction just to appease some rule that is perhaps irrelevant anyway as the freighter likely has too bigger a draft to traverse the waters of your original planned course anyway? As you were intending a 100deg turn to port anyway, this would have removed any risk of collision so why not continue as planned - the freighter will very quickly see you are following the coastline... (as mostly likely, more than half of leisure craft do!)

(Perhaps a good topic for a what now skip? )

 

[PaulGooch]

To the poster who said he alters course to port to line up with the stern of the vessel in question, then alters course to starboard gradually, to maintain the line with the vessels stern, until back on course - collisions have been caused by this type of action where the steering gear has failed, along with the engine controls, and the gradual turning to starboard has resulted in the collision. You may reply that the chances are slim, but it has happened, and it's not a good idea.

What nonsense. I'm steering a course to take me astern of the ship, from 4 miles away. Making gradual changes in course to starboard. Because i altered course well in advance of any risk of collision, i'm not breaking any rules. Nowhere in Colregs does it say i can't make a turn to starboard, providing it doesn't cause a risk of collision, i'm steering to a point astern of the ship.

In the incredibly unlikely case that my steering fails, the engine controls fail, the ignition switch jams in the switch and the windlass controls jam, why would my boat suddenly be in a collision course with the ship ? I was never on a collision course, so what on Earth has gone wrong to cause my steering to turn to starboard, the throttle to stick open, the ignition switch to jam and the windlass to fail, causing the boat to veer violently to starboard and accelerate of of control, whilst being unable to turn the engine off or drop the anchor ?

How about, i just shut the throttle back halfway, according to Tims advice and the engine doesn't shutdown, the key won't switch the engine off and the steering won't respond. Now i'm on a direct collision course. At least my way i'd simply pass astern of the ship as planned

The chances of the steering, engine controls, engine shut off and anchor windlass all failing instantly and simultaneously must be astronomical.

 

[timbartlett]

You don't get it, do you ?...
...But, i'd rather you didn't send me private messages, if you have something to say, say it here.

No, I don't "get it". And the reason I don't "get it" is because you seem incapable of responding to any of my posts with anything other than personal abuse.
I sent you a PM because I don't believe the open forum is the place for personal quarrels. Bye bye.

When I drove a big truck, mostly to Saudi Arabia. The rules said, I was not allowed to use the size of the truck to control the road....

I didn't know there were any rules to prevent anyone driving defensively. Can you give us an example?

...My obeying of the rules is fairly instinctive, as is my recognition of lights and signals. It was trained into me as part of my job. If I was found to appear to be not following the rules, questions would be asked. As a leisure sailor, I lost nothing by following my training and instincts.

That seems to be the fundamental issue. Professional seafarers learn to respect the colregs very early in their careers.

Ok, here's one for Tim:-...

Why not have a look at the judgements in the Windsor-Roanake case and the Clan MacKenzie-Manchester Regiment case and see which one you think is the most relevant precedent? Then come back and let us have your opinion?

 

[hlb]

TB. I didn't know there were any rules to prevent anyone driving defensively. Can you give us an example?


Thought I'd just given you a couple of examples!!

According to HGV trainers/examiners, it is deemed as aggressive driving, to control the road and the traffic.

But if you did'nt, some idiot would find themselves under the trailer.

As happened in Belgium once, going through chicanes of road works, when I could not control the traffic, because we were only moving about three feet at a time. Anyway a horn kept bleating, but I could see no one there. Eventually I got out and finally found this old couple and their car, under the trailer, with my back wheels, having run up their boot and were now just about to climb on the roof.

Now tecnically they were in the overtaking lane, so I suppose, had a right to pass. Except we were in road ups, and constantly passing from one side of the duel carrageway to the other. Once an artic is bent, you cant see anything behind, so he'd fitted into the gap I'd left, to get the trailer through the chicane.

Point I am making is. Some times it's better to break the rules, in order to make things more safe.

Like standing in the road, because there is an accident round the corner.

 

[Richard10002]

What nonsense. I'm steering a course to take me astern of the ship, from 4 miles away. Making gradual changes in course to starboard. Because i altered course well in advance of any risk of collision, i'm not breaking any rules. Nowhere in Colregs does it say i can't make a turn to starboard, providing it doesn't cause a risk of collision, i'm etc.....

OK. My comment was based on recalling the gist of your post, rather than the specifics. If someone read it, and thought it was OK to do what you suggest, they may take it to the n'th degree, and aim such that they pass a couple of hundred yards from the other boats stern.

If you do what you suggest at 4 miles, and keep from aiming closer than a couple of miles from his stern, what you say is pretty much correct. But I couldn't let it pass without comment.

The scenario i imagined on reading your practise was: At 4 miles he's on a steady bearing, so risk of collision exists, he sees you, and you see him. He's thinking, " if the bearing doesn't change, I'll alter to starboard at about 2 miles...... But the chances are it will change, so neither of us need do anything". Then he sees you altering to port. "Fair enough", he thinks, but then he sees you stop your turn to port to just astern of him, "fair enough", he thinks again. A few minutes later, he has a quick look to make sure you're passing well astern of him, and you're still aiming for just astern of him. "Bloody Hell" is his renewed thought, " I'm going to have to watch this guy pretty closely now, just in case something goes wrong". He knows what you're doing, and he knows the chances are that all will be well.... But they might not.

I don't know at what point you stop aiming for a bit astern of him, or what you plan your CPA to be...... I'd guess that, at some point, you're about a mile from him, still altering to starboard. His engines fail, your steering jams. Takes a bit of time for you to realise something's gone wrong..... Perhaps you fight it a bit, or you switch from autopilot to manual, all of a sudden, you're a couple of minutes away from a collision, perhaps you panic......

In the 15 minutes or so that it takes for the above scenario to unfold, it doesn't take long for things to change from comfortable to ****.

Paul..... You carry on doing what you are doing, and I would probably bet my mortgage on your not having a problem. I don't know what the odds are for a collision to occur in your circumstance, but if they're 2000:1, then, if 2000 of the above scenarios occur, there will be 1 collision, (if the odds are 10,000:1, collisions will happen).

I don't know what the figures are.... There are probably millions of Vessel encounters every year, and not many collisions in relative terms. The aim of the rules are to avoid the "few" collisions that conspire to occur.

The facts are that big ships hit each other, little boats hit big ships, and little boats hit little boats. None of them will have expected it to happen, none of them did it deliberately, and all will have thought all was OK, until it wasn't.

We could probably have a similar discussion regarding VHF assisted collisions, or radar assisted collisions....

Having said all of the above, many years ago, when racing, either seriously, or for fun, I have often aimed for the midships of a competitor, with the aim of just missing his stern. On every one of these occasions, it could have ended in tears...... So never say never

 

[fisherman]

I have not read any but the OP, same old stuff, ships round here yesterday having VHF discussions about course alterations, if everyone just stuck to the rules it should not be necessary. You always know if there's a US warship about, endless calls, the last one I heard was calling ships 12 nm away to establish passing procedure.

For the OP, in my case if the ship to port does not give way, I will turn to stbd 360 degs. This first puts him as the overtaking vessel, increases the time to collision, then makes him the stand-on vessel, reducing the possibility that he will suddenly respond to my presence, then I can safely pass his stern.

 

[PaulGooch]

<snip>

If you do what you suggest at 4 miles, and keep from aiming closer than a couple of miles from his stern, what you say is pretty much correct. But I couldn't let it pass without comment.

The scenario i imagined on reading your practise was: At 4 miles he's on a steady bearing, so risk of collision exists, he sees you, and you see him. He's thinking, " if the bearing doesn't change, I'll alter to starboard at about 2 miles...... But the chances are it will change, so neither of us need do anything". Then he sees you altering to port. "Fair enough", he thinks,

That's about how i see things unfolding Richard. I've always imagined that the ship skipper would be half expecting the mobo to make a course change, because that's what most of us would do. I honestly couldn't imagine the skipper of a large ship making course changes for mobos at 6 or 4 miles.

but then he sees you stop your turn to port to just astern of him, "fair enough", he thinks again. A few minutes later, he has a quick look to make sure you're passing well astern of him, and you're still aiming for just astern of him. "Bloody Hell" is his renewed thought, " I'm going to have to watch this guy pretty closely now, just in case something goes wrong". He knows what you're doing, and he knows the chances are that all will be well.... But they might not.

Ah, perhaps i wasn't clear. I'd make my initial course change so that i'd pass about half a mile astern of the ship. This would of course show clear intent to the ship skipper, as above. Obviously, with the ship crossing from port to starboard and my being 4 miles away when i made the initial course change, by the time i passed the ship the distance from his stern would be much greater. I wouldn't really need to make that much of a detour, so somewhere along the line i'd make some small course changes to starboard, so that i would always be going to pass half a mile from the ships stern.

 

[Elessar]

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.

Tim, you know I think your book on this is the best, I love the way it goes into detail if you want yet simplifies things too for mere mortals to remember the salient points.

But this thread has gone bonkers and as far from your book as you can get.

Read world (mine)

I don't use the hand bearing compass any more, i read the bearing to target off the AIS. A very accurate reading, and I have ships course too. Handy to know.

I will therefore alter to port often before I am in visual range to go astern. Or I will stand on.

If I am standing on, I monitor the ship's course. They often alter by just a few degrees to avoid me. You would never see that change - except on the AIS. For every target I therefore write down bearing and their course.

If they don't alter course and the CPA is low, I will call them on the radio and point out that in my view the CPA is low. They then alter course. I've never know them not do so once I've spoken to them. I don't doubt they are waiting to see what I do due to the generally unpredictable actions of small boats.

This is so much easier when you are transmitting on AIS too, as you can give your boat name instead of "target on a bearing 225 degrees 4 miles from you". My own boat can't do that so I have to do the latter. Even so a VHF call can remove all the ambiguity if used with care.

So Tim, is turning to port when "seen" on AIS but not by eyeball OK in your view?

What's your view on the use of VHF in this way that no one seems to have mentioned.

 

[timbartlett]

...But this thread has gone bonkers and as far from your book as you can get...

Thank you for your comments about my book. And I entirely agree with you about this thread. I fear the problem is that some people are just trying to pick a fight -- they are looking for reasons not to obey the colregs, or for situations in which they think the colregs cannot apply.

Hardly anyone (in the real world) needs to know about court cases that happened in 18-something or other: they just need to know that "you don't do that". But for some reason the colregs bring out the worst in people: people who wouldn't dream of asking why we drive clockwise round roundabouts (in the UK) seem to think it is perfectly OK to question the colregs in a way that they would never dream of questioning the Road Traffic Acts.

So Tim, is turning to port when "seen" on AIS but not by eyeball OK in your view?
What's your view on the use of VHF in this way that no one seems to have mentioned.

re AIS: Absolutely fine. No question.
re VHF: a slightly guarded OK -- IMHO.

Do you want explanations?
re AIS: AIS bearings are much more accurate and precise than compass bearings. No reason not to use new technology when it's better than old. Not using it would be silly. And as you've got it, then it is part of the "all available means" mentioned in Rule 5.
re AIS: Rule 17 is in Part B Section 2: it applies only to vessels that are in sight of each other. If you are not in sight of each other, then Rule 17 does not apply, and does not prevent you from altering course.
re VHF: I am slightly ambivalent about this, because the MCA has issued a guidance note advising us not to use VHF in collision avoidance because of the risk of confusion. But AIS removes that risk of confusion, so I (personally) see no reason why you shouldn't use it exactly as you suggest. BUT I still don't think that every potential collision needs to be the subject of VHF negotiation. In most cases, I think we should just follow the rules, and stop arguing!