powerskipper
Well-Known Member
need modernising and if so how?
Do you think the col reg
- Thread starter powerskipper
- Start date
boatone
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not. Don't even think it.
Just for a moment consider the wide ranging opinions that exist here on every topic you can think of. Now think of the likelyhood of devising a new form of procedures that would be acceptable to all the forumites.
Then think of extending the need for consensus worldwide for adoption by every seafaring nation and, in these enlightened days, even non-seafaring nations, because we must be mindful of minority views.
Absolutely not. Don't even think of it.
Just for a moment consider the wide ranging opinions that exist here on every topic you can think of. Now think of the likelyhood of devising a new form of procedures that would be acceptable to all the forumites.
Then think of extending the need for consensus worldwide for adoption by every seafaring nation and, in these enlightened days, even non-seafaring nations, because we must be mindful of minority views.
Absolutely not. Don't even think of it.
powerskipper
Well-Known Member
I said the same but not so eloquently put to a student today when asked that question. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
steverow
Well-Known Member
Definitely Not.
If it gets tampered with it'll only be "dumbed down" like everything else these days.
Lets let the RYA revamp them..so they can get even more brainless candidates past DS and YM and make loads more money...a short one day course like the SRC should suffice...that'll be 100 quid then...
It'll mean more commandless container and cargo vessels and more collisions and loss of life.
Sure the colregs are not that easy to learn, but once mastered give a clear direction and responsibilty at sea.
Leave well alone.
Steve
If it gets tampered with it'll only be "dumbed down" like everything else these days.
Lets let the RYA revamp them..so they can get even more brainless candidates past DS and YM and make loads more money...a short one day course like the SRC should suffice...that'll be 100 quid then...
It'll mean more commandless container and cargo vessels and more collisions and loss of life.
Sure the colregs are not that easy to learn, but once mastered give a clear direction and responsibilty at sea.
Leave well alone.
Steve
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
Maybe on a couple of points?
1, PWC are specifically included in these regulations.
2, Nowhere in these regulations is it intended to be expressed or implied that "power automatically and under all circumstances", gives way to sail.
3. Racing craft are specifically required to observe IRPCS regulations before they take any account of racing rules in force. IRPCS has precedence in areas of conflict or uncertainty.
4. The IRPCS do not specify that pleasure craft must give way to craft being operated commercially but attention is drawn to the requirements of good seamanship and the obligation of all parties to avoid collision.
1, PWC are specifically included in these regulations.
2, Nowhere in these regulations is it intended to be expressed or implied that "power automatically and under all circumstances", gives way to sail.
3. Racing craft are specifically required to observe IRPCS regulations before they take any account of racing rules in force. IRPCS has precedence in areas of conflict or uncertainty.
4. The IRPCS do not specify that pleasure craft must give way to craft being operated commercially but attention is drawn to the requirements of good seamanship and the obligation of all parties to avoid collision.
Jonmendez
Well-Known Member
whilst not perfect, they seem to work resonable well!
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
I think they should make a new rule 1
all mariners (including pwc's) must know, understand and comply with these rules at all times or be guilty of an offence ...... punishable by life imprisonment or death - depending if loss of life was a result of non compliance.
seems stupid they fogot to include this in the last re-write /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
be difficult to get it past the do gooders though I think.
all mariners (including pwc's) must know, understand and comply with these rules at all times or be guilty of an offence ...... punishable by life imprisonment or death - depending if loss of life was a result of non compliance.
seems stupid they fogot to include this in the last re-write /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
be difficult to get it past the do gooders though I think.
ShipsWoofy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
2, Nowhere in these regulations is it intended to be expressed or implied that "power automatically and under all circumstances", gives way to sail.
[/ QUOTE ]
You lot really hate this don't you, having to turn your steering wheels a little bit, using at least three muscles at once!
None of your rules do not already exist, maybe you are asking for a highlighter pen to help out all the mobo drivers who get very confused by simple terms like impede and overtaking vessel etc.
2, Nowhere in these regulations is it intended to be expressed or implied that "power automatically and under all circumstances", gives way to sail.
[/ QUOTE ]
You lot really hate this don't you, having to turn your steering wheels a little bit, using at least three muscles at once!
None of your rules do not already exist, maybe you are asking for a highlighter pen to help out all the mobo drivers who get very confused by simple terms like impede and overtaking vessel etc.
bdsweeting
Well-Known Member
Personally I would like to see the Col Regs applied to the general motoring public when I am on the road.
The only clear form of 'whose fault is it' is when someone shunts you up the rear end of the car; otherwise it's a free-for-all.
Private rant, sorry...
The only clear form of 'whose fault is it' is when someone shunts you up the rear end of the car; otherwise it's a free-for-all.
Private rant, sorry...
hlb
RIP
No, but there really does need a big effort putting in. Stopping this idea that sailing dinghys have complete right of way in Harbours. The arragance displayed by litttle kids in places like Salcolmbe really needs clamping down on. No vessel entering a strange harbour should have to run the gauntlet of power giving way to sail in all circumstances, as many believe. To try to work out whether or not there is room to manuver under the laws and is this a restricted channel or not, needs serious clarification. Nothing against giving way to sailing boats in open water, but trying to give way to 20 of them in restricted areas is plain silly.
[2068]
...
It would be useful. A recent communication from the harbourmaster in chichester said that mobos in the main channels in the harbour could NOT consider themselves to be in a narrow channel, so it's open season, and lets-ram-the-mobos-with-hundreds-of-dinghys-from-all-directions again, and carte blanche for those with sails up to sail up the port side of the channel against the general "flow" causing chaos, rather than sticking to the starboard side which would be easier for all on a busy day.
dv.
dv.
fireball
Well-Known Member
Racing boats must comply with colregs ...
[ QUOTE ]
The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area
and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing
shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 22.1. When a
boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with
the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or
government right-of-way rules. However, an alleged breach of those rules shall
not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee.
If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the rightof-
way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
They do ... and as I have said in other forums - if you have a blatant disregard for the rule then call up the race officer (usually ch37/m) and protest them. It may not have an immediate effect, but in club racing the ROs usually know who are rule breakers...
[ QUOTE ]
The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area
and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing
shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 22.1. When a
boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with
the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or
government right-of-way rules. However, an alleged breach of those rules shall
not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee.
If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the rightof-
way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
They do ... and as I have said in other forums - if you have a blatant disregard for the rule then call up the race officer (usually ch37/m) and protest them. It may not have an immediate effect, but in club racing the ROs usually know who are rule breakers...
fireball
Well-Known Member
Ye gods ... do you find the channels in Chi harbour THAT narrow? perhaps you need to go on a course ... 6 of 1 - 1/2 dozen of the other... cos you missed out that the harbour master as said that fast asymetric dinghies must give way to slower vessels in the harbour, and has been trying to promote harmony between the various users with a bit of give and take ... Its not YOUR harbour anymore than it is MINE ... so lets just share it ... and perhaps I can gain speed by surfing down your wake occaisionally! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Sixpence
Well-Known Member
somehow , methinks this doesn't improve relationships overly , 'fishermans' comments describe the problems they have , whereas this asks for a torpedo right up the stern , I am always alert to raggies , but in the wash you have to be , surely a more constructive approach works better , or was it a bad day today /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif gouranja
Dave_Snelson
Well-Known Member
See what you started now! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I think colregs cover most angles if you weedle out the meanings and counter meanings of each line. Personally I wouldn't change them save to add PWC's to the list of those that have to comply.
Oh - and what do we need to do about those yotties that come into the Porthmadog chanel 3 abreast, blocking up the entire channel?? Ditto those dinghy sailors at PSC scudding back & forth across the harbour entrance! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I think colregs cover most angles if you weedle out the meanings and counter meanings of each line. Personally I wouldn't change them save to add PWC's to the list of those that have to comply.
Oh - and what do we need to do about those yotties that come into the Porthmadog chanel 3 abreast, blocking up the entire channel?? Ditto those dinghy sailors at PSC scudding back & forth across the harbour entrance! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
boatone
Well-Known Member
So why do we need to specially mention PWC's????
[ QUOTE ]
Rule 1
Application
(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.
...............
For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:
(a) The word "vessel" includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely everything quoted in posts above/below is actually covered by the regs.
OK, you may need to spend a little time (a lot of time?) carefully reading and understanding them but they have stood the test of time, albeit with occasional ammendments, and all the rants and angst in the world from self interested user groups will not alter the fact that they work and its the people that drive the boats that are the problem, not the regs.
As a trainee Merchant Navy Officer I spent hours learning the regs off by heart and learning every angle of their intent and interpretation. I presume the pros still do much the same today. As a matter of interest I almost failed my Masters ticket oral exam because of some stupid idiots attempt to add trick questions in a training session. There are no tricks....there is no room for interpretation errors.....the only arbiter is a court of law.
I haven't seen the Chichester Harbour local rules which can take precedence over the regs but I would be surprised if they permit any craft to endanger a vessel which needs enough depth of water to avoid running aground.
Don't argue for changing the regs. It's peoples attitudes that need to change and if they don't do it voluntarily then legislation will eventually demand it.
[ QUOTE ]
Rule 1
Application
(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.
...............
For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:
(a) The word "vessel" includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely everything quoted in posts above/below is actually covered by the regs.
OK, you may need to spend a little time (a lot of time?) carefully reading and understanding them but they have stood the test of time, albeit with occasional ammendments, and all the rants and angst in the world from self interested user groups will not alter the fact that they work and its the people that drive the boats that are the problem, not the regs.
As a trainee Merchant Navy Officer I spent hours learning the regs off by heart and learning every angle of their intent and interpretation. I presume the pros still do much the same today. As a matter of interest I almost failed my Masters ticket oral exam because of some stupid idiots attempt to add trick questions in a training session. There are no tricks....there is no room for interpretation errors.....the only arbiter is a court of law.
I haven't seen the Chichester Harbour local rules which can take precedence over the regs but I would be surprised if they permit any craft to endanger a vessel which needs enough depth of water to avoid running aground.
Don't argue for changing the regs. It's peoples attitudes that need to change and if they don't do it voluntarily then legislation will eventually demand it.
KevB
Well-Known Member
Most definitely. They are just too ambiguous. That's why there are so many posts on here about colregs, we all interpret them differently depending on our own situation.
Can you imagine if the highway code was so complicated and woolly?
We don't diferentiate between 16 ton lorries and pushbikes on the road, they all have to respect the same rules applied equally to both and if something is unsuitable for the conditions (learners, mopeds and pushbikes) like motorways we ban them from using it.
So if a particular vessel in its everyday usage is unable to comply with the rules it shouldn't be allowed in that location. Sailing boats taking in narrow channels for instance when everyone else is trying to comply with the rules and stick to their side of the river. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Can you imagine if the highway code was so complicated and woolly?
We don't diferentiate between 16 ton lorries and pushbikes on the road, they all have to respect the same rules applied equally to both and if something is unsuitable for the conditions (learners, mopeds and pushbikes) like motorways we ban them from using it.
So if a particular vessel in its everyday usage is unable to comply with the rules it shouldn't be allowed in that location. Sailing boats taking in narrow channels for instance when everyone else is trying to comply with the rules and stick to their side of the river. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Dave_Snelson
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
So why do we need to specially mention PWC's????
[/ QUOTE ]
Because they think they are exempt. Why do they think they are exempt? Because stupid courts of law tell them that they are exempt. And why do they do that? Because they just can't agree with what constitutes a "ship" (or in this case a vessel). And why can't they agee on this point? Because they lack a complete understanding of what is required at sea (and that includes close to the shore-line).
Short answer is - I agree with you.
So why do we need to specially mention PWC's????
[/ QUOTE ]
Because they think they are exempt. Why do they think they are exempt? Because stupid courts of law tell them that they are exempt. And why do they do that? Because they just can't agree with what constitutes a "ship" (or in this case a vessel). And why can't they agee on this point? Because they lack a complete understanding of what is required at sea (and that includes close to the shore-line).
Short answer is - I agree with you.
boatone
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
They are just too ambiguous. That's why there are so many posts on here about colregs, we all interpret them differently depending on our own situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
But they are most certainly NOT ambiguous.
There is only one interpretation....the right one. Any other interpretation is either ignorance or a deliberate wish to interpret them to favour one's own situation.
They are just too ambiguous. That's why there are so many posts on here about colregs, we all interpret them differently depending on our own situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
But they are most certainly NOT ambiguous.
There is only one interpretation....the right one. Any other interpretation is either ignorance or a deliberate wish to interpret them to favour one's own situation.
boatone
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Why do they think they are exempt? Because stupid courts of law tell them that they are exempt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really??? Can you quote a specific instance of this?
Why do they think they are exempt? Because stupid courts of law tell them that they are exempt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really??? Can you quote a specific instance of this?
