Colregs -- a question of interpretation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter timbartlett
  • Start date Start date
???

timbartlett said:
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?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd say that neither are relevant. The second is clearly negligence on the part of the lead vessel to alter course into the path of the other. The adjustment of compasses is no excuse for failing to keep a proper lookout and akin to joining a motorway without so much as a cursory glance - IMHO of course. :)

The first case might seem more similar, but I cannot see how the freighter in my example could/should in anyway assume that the leisure craft would be following the coastline - certainly not without a longer observation period. (remember leisure craft has just come into view from behind headland) That said, she may well not be able to alter course to starboard for risk of running aground and (again IMHO) would likely take no action other than reduce speed until the distance closed. We've already established that there is a cost to 'full astern' and such vessels take time to maneuver. Would she really keep doing this along a busy coastline every time a new 'target' came into view? In the (unlikely) event of the leisure craft not altering course and continuing East out to sea, she could still avoid an accident by turning to port... :rolleyes: My original point was that the outlook is better for all concerned if the leisure vessel makes either a 110deg port turn as originally intended or (to satisfy the regs) a 265deg starboard turn. The moment she alters course by more than a few degrees, the risk is averted. Despite the vessel being 'stand on', I cannot see it would be in anyone's interest for her to be tied into a course that was never her intended one for the sake of a 'technicality' - worse still, in doing so, putting her crew and perhaps that of the other vessel at risk. For me this would be a rare 'common sense overrides rulebook' scenario. I for one would take the view that the risk of collision at that range was not tangible enough to prohibit the turn to port by the leisure vessel. I accept that in the event that both vessels were freighters etc then circumstances would be very different and that's the aspect that the rules don't appear to cater for. (Or at least from where I stand common sense should apply)

Like others have said, the survival instinct and common courtesy tell me that as I'm just pottering along the coast for pleasure, I should wherever possible keep out of the way of those who's living depends upon safe passage. I can't always avoid getting within 6 miles of other craft, but I can keep out of the way or stop to avoid a risk of collision arising. I really can't see that using over zealous application of rules to force others into close quarters situations that they perceive as risky or dangerous is in anyway constructive or safe. (All IMHO of course :D)
 
rbcoomer said:
Personally, I'd say that neither are relevant. The second is clearly negligence on the part of the lead vessel to alter course into the path of the other. The adjustment of compasses is no excuse for failing to keep a proper lookout and akin to joining a motorway without so much as a cursory glance - IMHO of course. :)

The first case might seem more similar, but I cannot see how the freighter in my example could/should in anyway assume that the leisure craft would be following the coastline - certainly not without a longer observation period. ...For me this would be a rare 'common sense overrides rulebook' scenario. ....Like others have said, the survival instinct and common courtesy tell me that as I'm just pottering along the coast for pleasure, I should wherever possible keep out of the way of those who's living depends upon safe passage. I can't always avoid getting within 6 miles of other craft, but I can keep out of the way or stop to avoid a risk of collision arising. I really can't see that using over zealous application of rules to force others into close quarters situations that they perceive as risky or dangerous is in anyway constructive or safe. (All IMHO of course :D)
Click to expand...
The situation you have described is very different from an open water situation. On (say) a channel crossing, you set off in one direction and generally head in the same direction until you get to the other side. To make a sudden, alteration of course that is not required by the rules and has no other explanation is, IMHO, even more random as the "adjusting of compasses".

But in your situation -- a small, open boat, close to the coast, travelling parallel to it, close to a harbour, and with rough water offshore -- I would suggest that altering course around the headland is a farmore likely and foreseeable course than expecting it to suddenly head offshore. Plus we are in (slightly) confined waters, where my six mile rule of thumb clearly cannot apply. Nothing wrong, IMHO, with a bold turn to port by the small craft: it is "maintaining its course" as "course" was defined by the Windsor-Roanoke judge.

I agree that this is a rare scenario: it is one where I can see a perfectly valid clash between seamanship and a simplistic interpretation of the rules. That is part of the reason why so many major headlands have little separation schemes around them -- to make this scenario even rarer!

But I don't see why you talk about giving way based on percieved pleasure/commercial status:
(a) Most professionals on this forum sem to have argued in support of a stricter interpretation of the rules than the pure recreational boaters.
(b) if you are driving round a roundabout on a car, do you stop to allow lorries to pull on to it, in contradiction of the highway code, but just because the lorries are working?
 
I think we've kind of reached a consensus then... ;)

I would add however in reference to b) that in busy traffic I DO give way way to traffic joining - particularly commercial traffic like buses or delivery drivers - as I suspect do a fair number of others. Otherwise people like myself who's driveway opens onto a major road would sit there for 4-5 hours at a time waiting for a gap because there aren't any! I don't however percieve that as a breach of the highway code, simply common courtesy? (And yes at very busy junctions near me that also means traffic allowing others onto a couple of major roundabouts - 'common sense' prevails on the road it seems! :rolleyes:)
 
timbartlett said:
(a) Most professionals on this forum sem to have argued in support of a stricter interpretation of the rules than the pure recreational boaters.
(b) if you are driving round a roundabout on a car, do you stop to allow lorries to pull on to it, in contradiction of the highway code, but just because the lorries are working?
Click to expand...

a) Most proffesionals here have stated they would not be changing course for a mobo at 4 miles, let alone 6.

b) I often slow down well in advance of a busy junction, where i can see another road user struggling to get out. It's called courtesy.
 
PaulGooch said:
a) Most proffesionals here have stated they would not be changing course for a mobo at 4 miles, let alone 6.

b) I often slow down well in advance of a busy junction, where i can see another road user struggling to get out. It's called courtesy.
Click to expand...

on the road you don't have the obligation to stand on.........

many ships do alter course early, just by a degree or 2. Those that don't I guess they are fed up with people who don't know or aren't prepared to comply with the rules.

I think Tim's interpretation is a little OTT as pointed out in another post. But many here are just wrong which he isn't.
 
Elessar said:
on the road you don't have the obligation to stand on.........

many ships do alter course early, just by a degree or 2. Those that don't I guess they are fed up with people who don't know or aren't prepared to comply with the rules.

I think Tim's interpretation is a little OTT as pointed out in another post. But many here are just wrong which he isn't.
Click to expand...

So, you agree that you are obliged to stand on from 6 miles away ?
 
Elessar said:
Not always, but it certainly isn't ever wrong to do so. It may be wrong not to.

Once they've altered course for you that's when it triggers it for me.
Click to expand...

Just read some of your posts in the other thread and i think we're pretty much in agreement. In fact, i think 99.9% of as are in broad agreement, except Tim.

All i'm saying is, i'd make an early and obvious course change, to prevent a risk of collision developing. Everyone has agreed that makes sense, including (as far as i can tell) several commercial/ex-commercial skippers.

As far as i can see, the only issue of contention is Tims insistence that rule 17 must be obeyed from 6 miles, at least.

I'd agree of course that if they have already changed course it would be wrong to turn to port. That would be creating a collision risk, negating the points of changing course early and obviously causing confusion. All the commercial guys on these threads seem to be saying they wouldn't have changed course at 4 miles, but would definitely be taking action at 2. So, my changing at 4 doesn't pose any risks at all.
 
Last edited:
PaulGooch said:
Just read some of your posts in the other thread and i think we're pretty much in agreement. In fact, i think 99.9% of as are in broad agreement, except Tim.

All i'm saying is, i'd make an early and obvious course change, to prevent a risk of collision developing. Everyone has agreed that makes sense, including (as far as i can tell) several commercial/ex-commercial skippers.

As far as i can see, the only issue of contention is Tims insistence that rule 17 must be obeyed from 6 miles, at least.

I'd agree of course that if they have already changed course it would be wrong to turn to port. That would be creating a collision risk, negating the points of changing course early and obviously causing confusion. All the commercial guys on these threads seem to be saying they wouldn't have changed course at 4 miles, but would definitely be taking action at 2. So, my changing at 4 doesn't pose any risks at all.
Click to expand...

Yes I disagree with Tim's must always but only with caution.

Must always is a safe option. Your changing at 4 may cause inconvenience/risk. If you've thought this much about it, it won't when you do it, but to give a blanket instruction that it's OK to change at 4 is not best advice.

I know Tim can wind people up when he talks about some topics, but I take careful note of everything he says on this subject. I don't have to agree with his every word to respect them.
 
I used to be of the turn to port school many years ago on basis that, executed well, the risk of collision might be deemed not to exist. Which isn't exactly kosher ColReg action but seemed to make sense. That was until, as I did it one day, a ship I was trying to avoid took a very obvious lurch to starboard, which left me guessing what to do next.

Soon afterwards in prepping a Rules of the Road handbook I saw how many bad collisions had been caused by small alterations to port.

So my own tactics are now either to press on with the expectation of avoidance (assuming Rule 9 /10 not applicable) or if I fear the ship's watch is off on a coffee break to stop or slow completely and well in advance; or to actually perform a full 360 to starboard if I really want to post a message that I'm not intending to test the relationship.

Always get a bit fixated by Rule 2 when considering these things.
 
CameraImage.jpg



looking at the diagram, ship heading from left to right.
25 knot 12m pleasure boat heading up the screen.

safe zone blue.

danger zone magenta, being the widest possible ships course.

Kill zone red being the most likely course without emergency manoeuvre.



turning to starboard prolongs the agony as you just enter the danger zone in a different place.

turning to port immediately puts you in the safety zone.

remaining in the safety zone there is zero chance of collision, the ship can not enter that zone , it hasnt got the manoeuvrability .
 
DAKA said:


looking at the diagram, ship heading from left to right.
25 knot 12m pleasure boat heading up the screen.

safe zone blue.

danger zone magenta, being the widest possible ships course.

Kill zone red being the most likely course without emergency manoeuvre.



turning to starboard prolongs the agony as you just enter the danger zone in a different place.

turning to port immediately puts you in the safety zone.

remaining in the safety zone there is zero chance of collision, the ship can not enter that zone , it hasnt got the manoeuvrability .[/QUOTE]

Assuming you are quite close now, having stood on.

If the ship is making a turn to starboard to avoid you, making a turn to port will put you on a collision course. That's to point of rule 17 saying avoid turning to port.

If he hasn't changed course by now, he clearly isn't going to and it's up to you to take action, under Colregs. If you think turning to starboard puts you in danger, which in this situation it might, unless you turn more than 90 degrees, you could slow down and/or turn more than 90 degress, get some distance from the boat and then turn around and resume your original course, passing the stern of the ship. You might think turning to port will keep you safe, perhaps it will. The problem is, if the ship sees you at the last minute and makes a big course change to starboard, things could get a bit tricky. You should be able to get out of that situation by turning even harder to port and keeping the gas on.

IMO, i change of course from a few miles further back, passing 1/2 a mile astern of the ship doesn't allow this situation to become a possibility.
Click to expand...
 
PaulGooch said:
Assuming you are quite close now, having stood on.

If the ship is making a turn to starboard to avoid you, making a turn to port will put you on a collision course. That's to point of rule 17 saying avoid turning to port.

If he hasn't changed course by now, he clearly isn't going to and it's up to you to take action, under Colregs. If you think turning to starboard puts you in danger, which in this situation it might, unless you turn more than 90 degrees, you could slow down and/or turn more than 90 degress, get some distance from the boat and then turn around and resume your original course, passing the stern of the ship. You might think turning to port will keep you safe, perhaps it will. The problem is, if the ship sees you at the last minute and makes a big course change to starboard, things could get a bit tricky. You should be able to get out of that situation by turning even harder to port and keeping the gas on.

IMO, i change of course from a few miles further back, passing 1/2 a mile astern of the ship doesn't allow this situation to become a possibility.
Click to expand...
just for clarity, not arguing with you paul.

The magenta zone is the total area that the ship can get in in an emergency manoeuvre situation.

if you keep out of it then it doesnt matter which way you go, a collision cant occur, even if he does turn towards you he cant get in the blue zone.


you can view it as 1/2 nm , emergency collision avoidance.

but it equally works @ 1 mile.

if you stay in the blue you are safe to do a few donuts !

That will no doubt cause confusion and would be wrong but there is still no risk of collision.
 
I understand rationale and at the end of the day we are all master under God, which is the bit about boating I really like.

However it is exactly the circumstance of a ship moving to starboard that has personally given me cause to think about this.

In considering you of course inevitably fall back on Rule 2(b)

In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

All of which in summary I suspect means there is no 'right' answer - just the one that seems appropriate at the time to stop a tin on plastic greeting!
 
Neil_Y said:
I was going to add something lengthy until I read Mariner69's response, which is exactly as I see things. I do in situations of uncertanty try to call up the other vessel on vhf. In more than one case it has confirmed we were seen and they were taking avoiding action but it was not visible at that stage by us. Had we turned to port the larger vessel would, or could have been a little busy on the bridge trying to understand what we were up to, had we seen him?

The legal side is interesting but I'd prefer to avoid it.
Click to expand...

VHF is undoubtedly used a lot by the commercial boys, but controversially since it has come under the spotlight in collision investigations and that in turn lead to this:

MGN 167 Dangers in the Use of VHF Radio in Collision Avoidance
 
Elessar said:
old news pre AIS.

The ambiguity can now be eliminated if used with care.
Click to expand...

AIS certainly makes it clear to you which ship you are looking at, including his speed and course etc. Unless you're transmitting AIS, you still have to make sure the ship is looking at you, not another ship. He could of course mistake another ship for you, change course for him, and be heading for you.

But definitely a good tool to have onboard though. Very, very easy to keep an eye on all the commercial stuff and particularly useful in busy areas or poor vis.

Should be on the top of DAKA's "to buy" list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Refueler
Strange water accumulation ...
Replies
9
Views
304
Refueler
Refueler
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 51
Replies
4
Views
531
Shaz77
S

Share this page

Top