Colregs, big mobo/small sailboat, on Hamble and similar

[doug748]

I think the "ambiguity" (not quite the right word) in Colregs is deliberate. There are too many different situations you can encounter for it to be possible to devise hard and fast rules like those we have on the road. Particularly since very few situations only involve two vessels and as soon as 3 or more are involved the inter-relationships get very hard to set in stone.

Fundamentally we are all required not to impede any other vessel.

100%

Critics imagine that it is possible to construct perfectly objective rules when real situations are often short term and subjective. The IRPCS are more sophisticated than some commentators imagine.

.

 

[finestgreen]

100%

Critics imagine that it is possible to construct perfectly objective rules when real situations are often short term and subjective. The IRPCS are more sophisticated than some commentators imagine.

.

The problem is people take that and decide that since there's a subjective element what the rules actually say doesn't really matter, we'll just sail "carefully" and invent rules like "the more manoeuvrable boat gets out the way".

 

[Mark-1]

I think the "ambiguity" (not quite the right word) in Colregs is deliberate.

I'm certain it is in sone places. Rule 17, Action by the Stand on Vessel, for instance. It wasn't chance that they chose 'apparent', a word with 2 different meanings. (Four if you count the ones that make no sense in the context.)

We can see why they did it.

 

[finestgreen]

I'm certain it is in sone places. Rule 17, Action by the Stand on Vessel, for instance. It wasn't chance that they chose 'apparent', a word with 2 different meanings. (Four if you count the ones that make no sense in the context.)

We can see why they did it.

I'm not sure I see the ambiguity here?

 

[Mark-1]

I'm not sure I see the ambiguity here?

"Apparent" has two meanings that might be relevant and is not defined. (Even Cockroft dodge it.)

"Seems" in which case you can change course any time you want or "Is blatantly obvious" in which case you have to stand on... Well, forever, until Rule 2 comes into play.

In reality we all know what to do, stand on as long as we deem sensible, but that isn't what the rule says.

 

[Hermit]

And of course, this is only going to get more complicated in years to come. The COLREGS as they stand are not easily digitally interpretable so many autonomous systems just use a see and avoid strategy rather than a proper appreciation of the rules, particularly with respect to being a stand on vessel and the obligations that implies.

 

[winch2]

but I was quite resentful. It was unpardonable behaviour, he was not constrained from navigating in any way, just asserted his size and speed.

Yes its quite the rabbit hole but again if it came to court I can see the argument going along the lines of 'the rights of the many' etc. In other words the ferries are performing a critical public service and Im not sure a gaggle of "yachties" enjoying a plethora of indulgencies such as racing, or just sloshing along with coffee in one hand and a sheet in the other would be deemed..."critical".

 

[Mark-1]

And of course, this is only going to get more complicated in years to come. The COLREGS as they stand are not easily digitally interpretable so many autonomous systems just use a see and avoid strategy rather than a proper appreciation of the rules, particularly with respect to being a stand on vessel and the obligations that implies.

I guess the simplest thing is to add a new rule that makes autonomous boats give way vessel to everything under all circumstances.

...it's just occurred to me that every successful torpedo attack in history was a breach of the coll regs.

 

[benjenbav]

The title: ‘International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea’ suggests a measure against which these regulations should be judged; namely, do they help to prevent collisions at sea?

It’s difficult to align that purpose with the idea that they are also intended to create ambiguity.

Certainly they are imperfect: take, for example, 9, in which there are several references to ‘… narrow channel or fairway…’

Does the adjective qualify both ‘channel’ and ‘fairway’? Or is a fairway that is not narrow outside the scope?

Goodness knows that all, or almost all, written documents contain logical inconsistencies and ambiguities: the courts - not to mention lawyers - would be out of business if it was otherwise.

My only observation in this context is that I don’t think that the framers of the Colregs intended to create ambiguity.

 

[Never Grumble]

Yes its quite the rabbit hole but again if it came to court I can see the argument going along the lines of 'the rights of the many' etc. In other words the ferries are performing a critical public service and Im not sure a gaggle of "yachties" enjoying a plethora of indulgencies such as racing, or just sloshing along with coffee in one hand and a sheet in the other would be deemed..."critical".

Why is it a critical public service? It's only a passenger ferry. @Chiara’s slave I suspect they (VTS) only bother if you fill in their incident report form.

I agree with you re the ability of the Red Jet 7 to go almost anywhere in the Solent, its a debate I have with many of my sailing friends, the draft of the Red Jet is 1.3m about the same as my modest yacht.

 

[finestgreen]

Yes its quite the rabbit hole but again if it came to court I can see the argument going along the lines of 'the rights of the many' etc. In other words the ferries are performing a critical public service and Im not sure a gaggle of "yachties" enjoying a plethora of indulgencies such as racing, or just sloshing along with coffee in one hand and a sheet in the other would be deemed..."critical".

I've never seen anything that would suggest anything like that principle would be applied by a court.

 

[ylop]

Also, as applies to motorcyclists and cyclists on the road, by making the choice to operate a more vulnerable vehicle than those which surround you, the onus is on yourself to mitigate that risk.

The highway code thinks differently. The sentencing guidelines also think differently when you get it wrong.

Good luck with that in a court of law. The argument would be about degrees of I suspect and probably common sense too.. Its also worth remembering, fast as they may be they are not actually terribly manouvrable.

They are pretty manouverable, but when you are going fast often all you need is a fairly small change to throttle to avoid the risk.

Dont worry about the regs just never get in front them....Slow down, change course, stop, or even go backwards if you have to. In decades mooching about off Cowes and Calshot my thinking has never let me down yet.

But that must be about degrees - how far in front is in front v's completely out the way of?

Yes its quite the rabbit hole but again if it came to court I can see the argument going along the lines of 'the rights of the many' etc.

thats not really how courts interpret law though. In some ways you'd have much better laws if they did - but parliament's job is to make the rules, the court's to enforce them. Occassionally a court had to clarify or interpret a rule - for something like the Colregs they will do it very literally knowing that considerable thought and effort went into the wording and there are no unwritten 'value of the journey' judgements implied.

 

[oldgit]

Blimming heck there was me thinking that boating was supposed to be fun.
This saga simply confirms how lucky some of us are to be forced by reason of birth or funds to boat in the other 95% of the UKs coastline. ?

 

[benjenbav]

Blimming heck there was me thinking that boating was supposed to be fun.
This saga simply confirms how lucky some of us are to be forced by reason of birth or funds to boat in the other 95% of the UKs coastline. ?

Deleted

 

[obmij]

I find the COLREGS pretty straightforward. Even in a highly congested area with multiple targets and multiple rules interacting, they will keep you safe - as long as applied with common sense. They have to be so - mariners of all nationalities need to instinctively understand and apply the same colregs wherever they are in the world.

Here is an example of a common sense application of Rule 9 - Tanker underway and making way in The Humber. It will go aground outside of the channel. Realistically it cannot manoeuvre to avoid anything. Yachts or small commercial getting in the way will cause an accident so they must keep out of the way. Anything over 20m is required to report to VTS whenever they do anything so are not in play.

Simple, reasonable, uncontroversial.

Here is an example of an application of Rule 9 lacking in common sense - Multiple small sailing and small power vessels underway in the River Hamble. All consider the Hamble to be a 'narrow channel'. All therefore must 'keep out of the way' of each other. Everyone driving round in circles in a panic and the perfectly good colregs designed to keep them safe are ignored. The smouldering wreckage of leisure vessels litter the banks..

The latter does not happen, because in the real world most people use common sense and just apply the colregs as they are meant to be applied.

The alternative to the colregs as they are is a nightmare of a document that seeks to define every possible event and interaction. If you want to see a document such as this in practice then take a look at the UK tax manual. 80000 pages long and as bitterly contested as the old city of Jerusalem.

 

[Mark-1]

This saga simply confirms how lucky some of us are to be forced by reason of birth or funds to boat in the other 95% of the UKs coastline. ?

Whilst I can't deny the other 95% of the coast has many advantages over the Solent, this thread was mainly an interesting excuse for a Col Regs squabble discussion rather than a real world question.

 

[winch2]

But that must be about degrees - how far in front is in front v's completely out the way of?

Well that's for the skipper to judge, and judge it he must. Be interested to know if they have a 'play' off there during DS? Personally I give them the widest berth possible irrespective of whether it messes with my fun, or not..

 

[capnsensible]

Follow the money.

 

[winch2]

As a newish sprog to this forum thght I'd have a quick peek at the Tanker incident chitter chatter. As I thght, best I stay well clear (no pun intended)

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Yes its quite the rabbit hole but again if it came to court I can see the argument going along the lines of 'the rights of the many' etc. In other words the ferries are performing a critical public service and Im not sure a gaggle of "yachties" enjoying a plethora of indulgencies such as racing, or just sloshing along with coffee in one hand and a sheet in the other would be deemed..."critical".

Why is it a critical public service? It's only a passenger ferry. @Chiara’s slave I suspect they (VTS) only bother if you fill in their incident report form.

I agree with you re the ability of the Red Jet 7 to go almost anywhere in the Solent, its a debate I have with many of my sailing friends, the draft of the Red Jet is 1.3m about the same as my modest yacht.

I thought I’d made it absolutely clear in my original post it wasn’t a ferry, but a smallish bulk carrier, heading east, not a ferry heading cross Solent. The ferries in the west do 8-9kn, are considerate to yachts, and we try in return to keep clear of their critical points, like docking at Yarmouth. This guy just steamed through a fair crowd of yachts at C. 15kn, giving us all very very little time to keep clear, when he was very clearly the give way craft. We’d have been able to give him all the room he wished for if he hadn’t dialled up ramming speed and carried on regardless.