Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
Either way, nobody is saying what happended there was good seamanship or in accordance with COLREGS.
Do you ignore col regs
- Thread starter DAKA
- Start date
Either way, nobody is saying what happended there was good seamanship or in accordance with COLREGS.
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
Are you one of these people that suddenly come to an abrupt halt on the road because you have decided to let somebody out from a side road?
rubberduck
Well-Known Member
Are you one of these people that suddenly come to an abrupt halt on the road because you have decided to let somebody out from a side road?
No, I,m actually a professional driver, or was with well over 1000000 miles under my belt & no accidents & very few speeding convictions. If you are any good at driving whatsoever you should always be able to predict what the guy in front is going to do. You should actually be able to do this for several cars in front, when you drive in excess of 100000 miles per year, its how you stay alive. Likewise when giving way you should always be aware of those around you, including behind, & act accordingly.
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
As it happens until recently I used to drive a similar amount each year and without any speed convicitions, but I'm not really sure how relevant that is.
While most experianced drivers will be able to read the road/traffic ahead of them (it saves on new brakes discs if nothing else) every so often another road user will do something random such as I described above. These people may not be involved in accidents themselves but may well cause them. This links back into the debate regarding COLREGS, if everybody behaves in a predicatable fashion then things will be a lot easier and accidents far less likely.
Last edited:
rubberduck
Well-Known Member
Which is fine IF everyone does, but as on the roads they don't, which is why I say a good knowledge of the rules combined with common sense is key. If you cause a large ship to alert you as to their presence with their horn in your little yacht, & then you persist in your course of action, you are a fool, rules or not.
Philiz
Well-Known Member
Please tell me where I said I'd decided Colregs don't apply to me and I thought it would be a good idea to do something expressly prohibited?
westernman
Well-Known Member
What do you suppose happens when a big fleet (say 50 or more), is sailing across a major shipping lane?
Do you think the master of a super tanker can plan a route to avoid each and every one of those assuming they all stand on?
What is his best course of action?
As a skipper of one of those yachts what do you think your best course of action is assuming your track takes you on a collision course with that super tanker?
Do you think the master of a super tanker can plan a route to avoid each and every one of those assuming they all stand on?
What is his best course of action?
As a skipper of one of those yachts what do you think your best course of action is assuming your track takes you on a collision course with that super tanker?
hlb
RIP
Phil, your wasting your time. Mr Bartlett just makes it up as he goes on. I'm beginning to see why he's a journalist and not a sea captain.
Tim seems to think there's utter carnage going on on every sea. And it's all our fault.
Tim seems to think there's utter carnage going on on every sea. And it's all our fault.
rbcoomer
Well-Known Member
It's called Darwin's theory of natural selection. He takes no action at all because as we all now know when he takes no action the onus is then on them as per 17a - ii. Which in turn is why nobody should be in that situation in the first instance (that's the unwritten 'common sense rule' - or not as the case seems to be!)...
He's hardly going to be able to dodge between them is he? Hence Rules 6 & 8?
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
I agree, but nobody has is suggested mixing it with ships in that manner - so why mention it?
Philiz
Well-Known Member
I must say, I have the utmost regard for Tim Bartletts knowledge, his book on Navigation is extremely good. If he's quoting the Colregs from memory he certainly knows them better than me and I've just done them for YM. But I don't like being mis-quoted.
Well most of it must be your fault then, you've been on more seas than me
T
timbartlett
Guest
Has anyone tried to suggest that is is acceptable to get that close to a ship?
I certainly haven't.
In fact, I have pointed out that the yacht that appears to have collided with the ship is clearly not conforming to Rule 17.
I thought it was you who was arguing that recreational craft should regard themselves as being at liberty to ignore the colregs whenever it suited them.
BTW: I'm afraid you are allowing your anti-RYA sentiment to run away with you: the colregs are not devised by the RYA, and the RYA has no direct input into their wording, interpretation or enforcement.
hlb
RIP
According to our great leader font of all boaty knowledge. The Super tanker should turn round and go back where he came from. Probably taking a few other ships out on his way round.
(Hushed voice) Dont tell Tim. No he keeps a steady course and they all go round the back of him.
Actually I found myself in the very same position. Cowes week up the Solent.
Ploding along about 8 knots. Minding my own business. I was suddenly attacked from both sides, by a heard of yachts with bloody great telegraph poles out the front. They were all standing on. At one point I just stopped. Thinking it would be safer to be hit stopped than moveing.
T
timbartlett
Guest
I don't think I suggested that you did -- and if it came across that way, I'm sorry.
But it would have sounded pretentious to write "How comforting would it be to know that the reason one has been bashed into was because one decided that the colregs shouldn't apply to one, and one thought it would be a good idea to do something that is expressly prohibited?
westernman
Well-Known Member
It's called Darwin's theory of natural selection. He takes no action at all because as we all now know when he takes no action the onus is then on them as per 17a - ii. Which in turn is why nobody should be in that situation in the first instance (that's the unwritten 'common sense rule' - or not as the case seems to be!)...
Oh come on. Don't spoil this with common sense ;-)
Philiz
Well-Known Member
I don't think I suggested that you did -- and if it came across that way, I'm sorry.
But it would have sounded pretentious to write "How comforting would it be to know that the reason one has been bashed into was because one decided that the colregs shouldn't apply to one, and one thought it would be a good idea to do something that is expressly prohibited?
Fair enough, apology accepted. I don't profess to be as skillful or as knowledgeable as most of the guys on here, I'm just a newbie trying to do his best and learn as much as possible. However, in my relatively limited experience I've realised that the regulations are ignored on a regular basis by many boaters, both commercial and pleasure vessels, it is therefore often better to stand off and give way. Even if you're the stand-on vessel, thereby avoiding any near miss situations arising.
hlb
RIP
I must say, I have the utmost regard for Tim Bartletts knowledge, his book on Navigation is extremely good. If he's quoting the Colregs from memory he certainly knows them better than me and I've just done them for YM. But I don't like being mis-quoted.
Well most of it must be your fault then, you've been on more seas than me
Hmmm. Trouble is Phil, your not going to meet many sea captains or YM's up the Straits. So it's more about street cred init.
Philiz
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Trouble is Phil, your not going to meet many sea captains or YM's up the Straits. So it's more about street cred init.
Dunno about Sea Captains, but there are quite a few YMs. Anyway, don't you mean Strait cred
rbcoomer
Well-Known Member
I didn't think there was any left...
I personally don't see that rule 17 should come into it as clear, early action will remove the risk in the first instance. Firstly, the ship should surely be able to see the hazard (and in your example will probably have been warned by radio that there's 'flotsam' ahead anyway) and therefore it should have reduced speed accordingly (6a-ii). (some here are saying that is unlikely however...) Secondly, the 'flotsam' should have seen there is shipping approaching and under 8 (all sections) should I'd say, have taken action too - particularly 8c. This is the bit I believe is where the contention comes in because I can see a valid argument that in delaying / doing nothing you are arguably waiting for it to become a risk of collision whereupon rule 17 certainly would apply. The argument is that the smaller vessel can alter course early as per rule 8 and providing it is early and clear then no risk of collision exists and 17 becomes irrelevant. Even if the smaller vessel is 'stand on' and makes a course adjustment affirming his intention to pass ahead of the ship (i.e. towards the direction the ship is heading), this not only makes it clear to the ship, but probably negates the risk of collision anyway (unless the ship is significantly faster). On this basis I can see no merit in the 'wait and see' route when vessels are on a continuous bearing.
DAKA
Well-Known Member
I am happy with col regs, its the RYA interpretation as represented by you that I have a very serious issue with.
Perhaps you are unaware just how your descriptions come across but you make them sound more like a duel to the death/ game of chicken with tankers than sensible guidance.
It was my hope that you and webby would would work it out for yourselves (Robin sorted it days ago but you and webby made the thread so nasty no one dare post anymore, anyway it is just too painful watching people making fools of themselves so I have broken silence.
We all perceive the 'last chance to live' opportunity at different distances depending on our boats and experiences (but not class room experiences).
It is my perception that the ship will see me first from his radar and if he is still an issue by the time I see him then I will start to work out the best solution which is almost certainly helm for his stern.
Someone who perceives a problem before you isnt in contravention of col regs.
I hope I have managed to explain this in a way as you can understand it.
it would be reassuring to think a few have learned something really important........
when you are preaching col regs you need to be aware that your preachings come across to 80% of us that you are standing on to near death, I realize you dont but thats how it comes across to us.