Colregs Puzzle

Searush said:
FFS, it's dead simple, Wood gives way to GRP & GRP gives way to steel, especially when they are stonkin' great lumps of steel.

Your esoteric nonsense has as much link to reality as the discussion of whether fairies exist (& that is not a euphemism for homosexuals). How hard is it to go round the back of another boat & make your intentions clear as soon as you spot any potential risk?

Simply avoid all situatiions where the colregs might need to be discussed rather than be blindingly obvious! It is a simple survival strategy & avoiding potential collision situations is the first step to becoming an Ancient Mariner.
Click to expand...

No argument with what you say as a primary strategy - it's certainly what I do. But the Colregs would not exist if all Colregs situations could be simply avoided. If you're not interested in understanding the more confusing bits of the Colregs, then that's certainly your privilege. This thread would then not be for you!
 
Searush said:
Simply avoid all situatiions where the colregs might need to be discussed rather than be blindingly obvious! It is a simple survival strategy & avoiding potential collision situations is the first step to becoming an Ancient Mariner.
Click to expand...
Blindly obvious it may be, but actually it isn't always possible. Just try crossing the Dover Straight TSS on a normal day. You have to take decisions that combine common sense with proper application of the collision regulations. And if you dither, you will end up causing more problems than you solve.

Or would you argue that small boats shouldn't be allowed near such places?
 
I feel that the trolls have taken over. Let them get run down by trying to argue that black is white. I know what the rules say and, equally, what the intention of those rules is; to prevent collisions at sea by reinforcing common sense. Common sense says to me that in my small boat, able to turn quickly, I don't get in the way of any larger vessels who will not be able to avoid me.

I recall an incident on my diving supervisors course, which included a good deal of boat handling, seeing one of my fellow candidates being dealt with fairly severely after he had crossed in front of a fast moving ferry entering Plymouth Harbour. In theory, we had the right of way over the ferry but the point was made, fairly strongly, that we'd have all been in the **** if the RIB had any sort of engine trouble. Now translate that from a RIB doing 20 knots to a boat under sail - you simply don't hold to a course crossing in front of a larger vessel constrained by draft or ability to manouvere unless you have a death wish.
 
Not impede, get out of the channel that the vessel is using, take particular notice of swinging room to take any bends in the channel, talk to the other vessel to make sure you have if you have any doubt or if he gives five blasts.

There is no stand on position in yacht verses vessel constrained by draft or limited in ability to manouvre.

In my own personal view here this is an area where vhf radios are not used enough.

Based on 35 years of being responsible for vessels from 14 - 70 with drafts to over 3m.
 
Neil_Y said:
Not impede, get out of the channel that the vessel is using, take particular notice of swinging room to take any bends in the channel, talk to the other vessel to make sure you have if you have any doubt or if he gives five blasts.

There is no stand on position in yacht verses vessel constrained by draft or limited in ability to manouvre.

In my own personal view here this is an area where vhf radios are not used enough.

Based on 35 years of being responsible for vessels from 14 - 70 with drafts to over 3m.
Click to expand...

Agree with most but really think VHF with caution.

As for shall not impede shall make all efforts to avoid situation, would be my other thought. When it happens etc do best keep it to minimum, let ship past not take middle of channel etc. ..
 
I think relying on talking over the VHF is a non-starter.
In a narrow channel, a constrained vessel will most likely be on the port frequency where calls from yachts are not that welcome and liable to be overspoken anyway. Coming into Portsmouth for instance, it is often necessary to wait a few minutes before you can call QHM, due to the amount of voice traffic.

There are times when it is appropriate to stand on to one commercial vessel, in order to keep clear of another. That is when a good knowledge of the rules is helpful.

But there is no point getting too arcane about it, as the bloke driving the commercial vessel may be a pragmatist with only a working knowledge of the rules, or in the case of smaller vessels, under some mistaken belief that all commercial traffic has priority.
 
onesea said:
Agree with most but really think VHF with caution. ..
Click to expand...

I agree, I assumed common sense but it's something that probably needs to be added. If radio chatter is quiet and you can identify the other vessel by name it stops all that guessing. It's far more difficult for the commercial vessel to ID the one small yacht and call them up than it is for the yacht to call the larger vessel. It's worked for me a couple of times.
 
duncan99210 said:
I feel that the trolls have taken over. Let them get run down by trying to argue that black is white. I know what the rules say and, equally, what the intention of those rules is; to prevent collisions at sea by reinforcing common sense. Common sense says to me that in my small boat, able to turn quickly, I don't get in the way of any larger vessels who will not be able to avoid me.

I recall an incident on my diving supervisors course, which included a good deal of boat handling, seeing one of my fellow candidates being dealt with fairly severely after he had crossed in front of a fast moving ferry entering Plymouth Harbour. In theory, we had the right of way over the ferry but the point was made, fairly strongly, that we'd have all been in the **** if the RIB had any sort of engine trouble. Now translate that from a RIB doing 20 knots to a boat under sail - you simply don't hold to a course crossing in front of a larger vessel constrained by draft or ability to manouvere unless you have a death wish.
Click to expand...

Again, this thread is not about practical aspects of collision avoidance. It is about interpreting a difficult point in the Colregs. If the subject is not interesting for you, then there are plenty of other conversations going on here.

I can't help but mention, however, that your statement that "I know what the rules say" is not convincing in the context of your other remarks.

Let's take the phrase "In theory, we had the right of way over the ferry . . ." Where to even start with that.

First of all, there is no such thing as "right of way" at sea. This lubberly phrase does not exist in the Colregs, nor the lubberly -- and dangerous -- concept of it.

Second, the Colregs do not permit you to cross ahead of a fast ferry entering a harbour. Under Rule 9, you are obligated to not impede a vessel navigating in a narrow channel (such as a buoyed channel into a harbor) and unable to safely navigate outside of it.

Besides that, you are not allowed to stand on into danger, creating a collision risk where one did not exist before. Standing on -- and here is just one of the ways in which it is fundamentally different from any kind of right of way -- is done only when vessels are in sight of each other, after a risk of collision exists, but prior to the point where a collision can be averted only by your own maneuver. So it is a violation not only of common sense but of the plain rules of the Colregs to cross ahead of a fast ferry entering a harbor. It is a violation to cross ahead of any vessel unless you can do it at a safe distance.

All of this is off topic.
 
AndrewB said:
Blindly obvious it may be, but actually it isn't always possible. Just try crossing the Dover Straight TSS on a normal day. You have to take decisions that combine common sense with proper application of the collision regulations. And if you dither, you will end up causing more problems than you solve.

Or would you argue that small boats shouldn't be allowed near such places?
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, we're changing the scenario now are we? OK. I've bin there & dun that too. Racing across the channel in light winds, it still wasn't much effort to nip astern of one but well ahead of the next one in line. Big ships are not so stupid as to follow each other bow to stern a few meteres apart are they?

Cross astern & if there is one coming the other way, just turn parallel in the middle untill you can turn astern of the next one. Again they doo not pass each other within a few metres so there is room to avoid collision situations - otherwise no-one would ever get across.

These sorts of threads are just silly, people are creating almost ridiculous situations that no-one has actually ever put themselves in & then asking how colregs apply. WTF is it about, just seems like willy waving about colreg interpretation to me. Such esoteric make believe problems can only confuse & frighten newbies.

I doubt that any of us on here draw much more than 2m, so where's the problem in moving out of the channel to let a big boy past & then cross behind him?
 
Dockhead said:
Interesting post. It seems to me that "not impeding" means you don't do anything which would cause the vessel which you are required to "not impede" to maneuver. If he has to maneuver, you are impeding him, wouldn't you think so? It seems entirely logical to me.

But some have argued this very thing.
Click to expand...
I'm with AndrewB on this one - the requirement not to impede is explicitly defined in the rules - you have to give them enough space to manoeuvre safely.

If the rule writers had intended what you are suggesting then
(a) That would be stated in the definition of not impede
(b) they would have used the existing stand-on / give way rules and not had to invent a new term

So if you are required "not to impede" then you must not get into a close quarters situation if the action the other vessel would need to take to avoid you would endanger the vessel (e.g. force it out of a narrow channel). Otherwise you can keep going and should risk of collision exist then the other vessel remains give way and so must fulfil the obligations of the give way vessel
 
I would figure the interpretation on a big ship could be:
"you have to give them enough space to manoeuvre safely - " They will expect you to manoeuvre round them as far as is reasonably possible.

"So if you are required "not to impede" then you must not get into a close quarters situation if the action the other vessel would need to take to avoid you would endanger the vessel (e.g. force it out of a narrow channel). " I think the bit at the end could be dropped.

"Otherwise you can keep going and should risk of collision exist then the other vessel remains give way and so must fulfil the obligations of the give way vessel"
Other wise in the event that plans do not work out and risk of collision develops when you are not to impede, the other vessel is still obliged to give way.
 
onesea said:
I would figure the interpretation on a big ship could be:
"you have to give them enough space to manoeuvre safely - " They will expect you to manoeuvre round them as far as is reasonably possible.

"So if you are required "not to impede" then you must not get into a close quarters situation if the action the other vessel would need to take to avoid you would endanger the vessel (e.g. force it out of a narrow channel). " I think the bit at the end could be dropped.

"Otherwise you can keep going and should risk of collision exist then the other vessel remains give way and so must fulfil the obligations of the give way vessel"
Other wise in the event that plans do not work out and risk of collision develops when you are not to impede, the other vessel is still obliged to give way.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people think that - but if your interpretation is correct how does "not impede" differ from just being the give way vessel.

It is clear that the people who wrote the rules intended them to be different.

Als if they meant what you take it to mean - why not say that explicity

However what all this debate shows is that the current rules are very badly written and should be re-written to avoid all the confusion
 
My own interpretation of "shall not impede" (whether correct or not), is - don't do anything which causes the other vessel to have to manoeuvre or alter speed. The OP states "in a narrow channel" which by implication suggests that the other vessel does not have room to manoeuvre so, keep well clear out of the channel before the guy is close enough to start worrying about his paintwork getting scratched.
 
Rule 18 clearly states that 9, 10 and 13 overrule it, as the OP states. If I understand this question correctly, it boils down to why the phrase "not impede" is used, in this case in rule 9, but also in 18d(i). 18a-c talk about "keeping out of the way".

Could it perhaps be this:

17(a) says:

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.
Click to expand...

Now a vessel which can only navigate safely in a narrow channel, or one constrained by its draft cannot necessarily maintain its course and speed: It is constrained to follow the channel / available depth. It cannot necessarily "stand on" as per rule 17.

In other words, "keeping out of the way of" implies a restriction on *both* vessels. The one which keeps out of the way must alter course and/or speed so that paths no longer converge and the other must stand on, maintaining course and speed. "Not impeding" does not require the vessel not to be impeded to "stand on".

The bottom line in this interpretation is that it is the yacht needs to take action whatever (8f(ii)), although 8f(iii) still imposes an obligation on the other vessel to ultimately do whatever is necessary to avoid collision.

Of course I could be wrong :-)
 
I've always assumed, that to 'stand on' in a channel could mean to follow the course of the channel, not a fixed compass course.

Tim Bartlett posted on this subject with some links to case law which clarifies exactly what 'stand on' and 'not impede' means. IIRC it isn't what you might infer from the OED.
 
This subject doesn't really warrant a discussion - " shall not impede" means erm..... Erm...... Erm...... "shall not impede"

Without reference to the minutiae of any of the rules, it means exactly what it says, and that's what we should do.
 
Richard10002 said:
This subject doesn't really warrant a discussion - " shall not impede" means erm..... Erm...... Erm...... "shall not impede"

Without reference to the minutiae of any of the rules, it means exactly what it says, and that's what we should do.
Click to expand...

I can't find the previous thread, but IIRC it looked like some lawyers had probably earned an Oyster or two 'clarifying' that!
 
"I know a lot of people think that - but if your interpretation is correct how does "not impede" differ from just being the give way vessel."
It still leaves the onus on the other vessel to avoid a boat that starts impeding..

The rules respect there are times when you cannot avoid being in the vicinity of vessels that are restricted for what ever reason and try to allow you both to go your own way...

I sail out of a narrow channel (for the ferry) if I had to keep out of his way I could not use the river whilst he is underway. As it is I keep to the edge he slides past we both give way...

There is a fine difference in the interpretation, I will leave you to discuss it with the next wall of steel (ship) that passes that bit to close :confused: because he felt you could of given a bit more room...Personally I prefare my interpretation.:o

The rules are not perfect but they are used by millions of people in loads of different languages all around the world. I do not think they do a bad job, IMO if they where rewritten they would not be lenient to small craft and leisure boaters..
 
Give way, as of the other vessels current speed and heading you alter course to put yourself some distance from and heading away from the other vessel.

Not impede, take account of the restrictions and requirements of the other vessel to navigate safely and ensure that at no time do you put your vessel in a position where the stand on vessel is either unsure of your intentions or has to alter his planned course and speed.

Is that better?

Back up, turn round, head out of channel, stop where you are.... same rules as when the milk lorry comes down the lane and through the village.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top