mirage
Well-Known Member
News report and web page say they come under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, but I seem to remember a report within the last couple of weeks (possibly here) that said they are exempt.
Do you think the col reg
- Thread starter powerskipper
- Start date
KevB
Well-Known Member
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
What complete rubbish. Just have a search for posts with colregs in the title and see how many HUNDREDS of different interpretations we all have. So if they are that simple why do we all question them? This thread alone proves my point.
With the highway code you know everyone has to abide by the same rules as yourself and no one has any special privaleges over you, be it push bike or juganaut lorry.
Can you tell me why it should be any different on the water?
Why does the Chichester harbour authority feel the need to send out a commincation telling everyone that the harbour isn't considered a narrow channel? You wouldn't expect the Kent Police to send out a communication telling everyone the M20 is a motorway would you?
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
What complete rubbish. Just have a search for posts with colregs in the title and see how many HUNDREDS of different interpretations we all have. So if they are that simple why do we all question them? This thread alone proves my point.
With the highway code you know everyone has to abide by the same rules as yourself and no one has any special privaleges over you, be it push bike or juganaut lorry.
Can you tell me why it should be any different on the water?
Why does the Chichester harbour authority feel the need to send out a commincation telling everyone that the harbour isn't considered a narrow channel? You wouldn't expect the Kent Police to send out a communication telling everyone the M20 is a motorway would you?
boatone
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
What complete rubbish. Just have a search for posts with colregs in the title and see how many HUNDREDS of different interpretations we all have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, now Kev.....no need to get umpty.
You cannot prove you are right just by referring to hundreds of posts which are MISinterpretations or lack of understanding.
I stand by my belief and can probably (subject to old age and research) quote almost any aspect of the colregs which clearly covers any 'misunderstanding' there may appear to be. I reserve the right not to bother tho cos theres a lot more of you than there is of me !
Any more 'pros' or 'ex pros' that may care to assist me here?
What complete rubbish. Just have a search for posts with colregs in the title and see how many HUNDREDS of different interpretations we all have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, now Kev.....no need to get umpty.
You cannot prove you are right just by referring to hundreds of posts which are MISinterpretations or lack of understanding.
I stand by my belief and can probably (subject to old age and research) quote almost any aspect of the colregs which clearly covers any 'misunderstanding' there may appear to be. I reserve the right not to bother tho cos theres a lot more of you than there is of me !
Any more 'pros' or 'ex pros' that may care to assist me here?
boatone
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Why does the Chichester harbour authority feel the need to send out a commincation telling everyone that the harbour isn't considered a narrow channel? You wouldn't expect the Kent Police to send out a communication telling everyone the M20 is a motorway would you?
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen the notice so I can't comment on its content.
However......presumably the Harbour Authority are acting under......
[ QUOTE ]
Rule 1
Application
(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why does the Chichester harbour authority feel the need to send out a commincation telling everyone that the harbour isn't considered a narrow channel? You wouldn't expect the Kent Police to send out a communication telling everyone the M20 is a motorway would you?
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen the notice so I can't comment on its content.
However......presumably the Harbour Authority are acting under......
[ QUOTE ]
Rule 1
Application
(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
KevB
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen the notice so I can't comment on its content.
However......presumably the Harbour Authority are acting under......
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1
Application
(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that.
So the colregs are the rules we use unless someone decides to change them? Fantastic!!
My anology is with the highway code again, You know whether you are driving kent, sussex or surrey that the rules you were tought are the rules that are used. Not something the local authority has decide to implement.
I haven't seen the notice so I can't comment on its content.
However......presumably the Harbour Authority are acting under......
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1
Application
(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that.
So the colregs are the rules we use unless someone decides to change them? Fantastic!!
My anology is with the highway code again, You know whether you are driving kent, sussex or surrey that the rules you were tought are the rules that are used. Not something the local authority has decide to implement.
boatone
Well-Known Member
And when you leave the public roads and enter a private estate?
And also bear in mind that the colregs are truly international.....whioch side of the road do you drive on when you got to France? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
And also bear in mind that the colregs are truly international.....whioch side of the road do you drive on when you got to France? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
twisterkai
Well-Known Member
The voice of reason!!
Like you, I also believe that any 'ambiguity' within the colregs is purely a function of misunderstanding. I cannot think of a single situation I've found myself in when the application of the rules was in any way ambiguous.
An intersesting one is when vessels are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre. It doesn't just apply to large tankers/cargo ships!
Unfortunately, a rather high percentage of dinghy racers seem to think that racing rules take precedence (especially in Falmouth) which is purely an education issue, certainly no need for a rewrite. I do like the idea of contacting the RO as was previously mentioned tho' .
Like you, I also believe that any 'ambiguity' within the colregs is purely a function of misunderstanding. I cannot think of a single situation I've found myself in when the application of the rules was in any way ambiguous.
An intersesting one is when vessels are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre. It doesn't just apply to large tankers/cargo ships!
Unfortunately, a rather high percentage of dinghy racers seem to think that racing rules take precedence (especially in Falmouth) which is purely an education issue, certainly no need for a rewrite. I do like the idea of contacting the RO as was previously mentioned tho' .
KevB
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
whioch side of the road do you drive on when you got to France?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well what do you expect from Johnny foreigner? Can't even get that right /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
whioch side of the road do you drive on when you got to France?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well what do you expect from Johnny foreigner? Can't even get that right /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[2068]
...
Don't remember that I remember saying it was my harbour. I would say that the situation in Chichester would be less chaotic if all craft kept to the starboard half of the channel. As you say, the channel is pretty big, so why not ?
At the moment, it can feel very narrow if you find yourself in a mobo facing six yachts coming towards you abreast on the starboard side of the channel, with the following choices:
1.) Keep to starboard of the lot of them, go out of the channel, and risk running aground (secretly, I think this is what the yachts are hoping for)
2.) Try and pick a course through them, simultaneously giving way to six yachts tacking at different times (this gives the yachts the opportunity to tack in front of you, then shout "power gives way to sail": also a win to the sailing fraternity)
3.) Go round the lot of them by altering course dramatically to port. This then puts you in the middle of, or on the "wrong" side of the channel, and the next batch of sailing boats shout at you that you should be on the starboard side of the channel...
This is, of course, all while avoiding the high performance sailing dinghies doing 18-20 knots inside the 8-knot limit, and making sure you're not mown down from behind by another advancing mobo.
My harbour ? I think not.
dv.
At the moment, it can feel very narrow if you find yourself in a mobo facing six yachts coming towards you abreast on the starboard side of the channel, with the following choices:
1.) Keep to starboard of the lot of them, go out of the channel, and risk running aground (secretly, I think this is what the yachts are hoping for)
2.) Try and pick a course through them, simultaneously giving way to six yachts tacking at different times (this gives the yachts the opportunity to tack in front of you, then shout "power gives way to sail": also a win to the sailing fraternity)
3.) Go round the lot of them by altering course dramatically to port. This then puts you in the middle of, or on the "wrong" side of the channel, and the next batch of sailing boats shout at you that you should be on the starboard side of the channel...
This is, of course, all while avoiding the high performance sailing dinghies doing 18-20 knots inside the 8-knot limit, and making sure you're not mown down from behind by another advancing mobo.
My harbour ? I think not.
dv.
Dave_Snelson
Well-Known Member
Yep - absolutely right. The initial ruling that a PWC ia classed as a ship was, only a couple of weeks later, overuled by an appeal judge.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Then it should be appealed. I am surprised the RYA and others have not pursued this? Or are they in the process of doing so?
MCA report........
[ QUOTE ]
Penalty: At a hearing Friday 5th August 2005 at Bournemouth Crown Court, Mr Mark Goodwin was sentenced to a custodial sentence after he pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to riding his Yamaha Wave Runner in contravention of Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
[/ QUOTE ]
He pleaded guilty......are you sure there WAS an appeal.....bit unusual to appeal a guilty plea.
Some interesting stuff HERE
MCA report........
[ QUOTE ]
Penalty: At a hearing Friday 5th August 2005 at Bournemouth Crown Court, Mr Mark Goodwin was sentenced to a custodial sentence after he pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to riding his Yamaha Wave Runner in contravention of Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
[/ QUOTE ]
He pleaded guilty......are you sure there WAS an appeal.....bit unusual to appeal a guilty plea.
Some interesting stuff HERE
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
The issue on PWC and colregs was in the news last week. My comments, see above, were mostly aimed at additions in simple language rather than legalese. The legal wording is fine, but simple slogans might be better applied to the hard of thinking.
KevB
Well-Known Member
I think he pleaded guilty because of the ruling that a PWC was ship. So when the ruling changed how could he be guilty of a crime under marine law when he was actually on a pwc which now isn't a ship /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
boatone
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Rule 3
General definitions
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 ]
Very odd.....would you not agree that a PWC is adequately covered by the above?
Rule 3
General definitions
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 ]
Very odd.....would you not agree that a PWC is adequately covered by the above?
fireball
Well-Known Member
Is there one partiular stretch your talking about or are you talking generally about the "M25" from Chi marina through to the entrance?
I don't disagree with you - it gets very busy there at times ... Perhaps all skippers should make more attempt to workout the potential path of other vessels as well as their own ... afterall, its ok demanding "Right of Way" as some do ... but if you've got nowhere to go then you can hardly give way can you?!
You really shouldn't need to worry about the 18-20knot racing dinghies - especially when they've got their kites up ... keep a constant course and speed (as much as possible) and they will go round you - either that or they'll have a swim - in that case get your camera out and have a good hearty chuckle ... I've been one of them dinghies and had yachts & mobos try and get out of my way ... (very nice of them) but it doesn't help cos I'm planning my path 1/2-3/4 mile in front ....
I don't disagree with you - it gets very busy there at times ... Perhaps all skippers should make more attempt to workout the potential path of other vessels as well as their own ... afterall, its ok demanding "Right of Way" as some do ... but if you've got nowhere to go then you can hardly give way can you?!
You really shouldn't need to worry about the 18-20knot racing dinghies - especially when they've got their kites up ... keep a constant course and speed (as much as possible) and they will go round you - either that or they'll have a swim - in that case get your camera out and have a good hearty chuckle ... I've been one of them dinghies and had yachts & mobos try and get out of my way ... (very nice of them) but it doesn't help cos I'm planning my path 1/2-3/4 mile in front ....
KevB
Well-Known Member
Technicalities......Don't you just love them?
It's absurd for a jetski to be classed as a ship but just as absurd that because they are not classed as ships that they don't have to follow the colregs (regardless of how ambiguous they are /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif )
Or are they required to comply with the colregs but can't be charge with anything under maritime law?
It's absurd for a jetski to be classed as a ship but just as absurd that because they are not classed as ships that they don't have to follow the colregs (regardless of how ambiguous they are /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif )
Or are they required to comply with the colregs but can't be charge with anything under maritime law?
duncan
Well-Known Member
here we all go again!........... /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
fwiw
1. re the original post my only concern with the col regs revolves around the position of mechanically, but not engine, driven craft - canoes, rowing boats, skulls and eights as examples and possibly kite surfers too. The overall responsibilities they have, and others have to them are covered under all vessels but how many people would be happy to agree that the col regs require them to be give way vessel in all but overtaking situations (my understanding)?
2. Re Chichester harbour surely all the harbour master is saying is to clarify that mobo's shouldn't automatically consider themselves restricted in their ability to manoevre when in the main channels of the harbour. Given that a tender & OB is clearly not in teh same position as a 50ft flybridge proceeding in a 16ft wide channel this makes sense. In the latter case the skipper may well consider that he is restricted in his ability to manoevre if there was a cross current or strong wind and, showing the appropriate signals, proceed in that manner. The harbour master cannot possibly pre-determine that no motor vessel can ever consider themselves restricted in thier ability to manoevre.........arguably this would contradict the Colregs and be invalid under the same authority (in teh regs and already quoted above) that grants him the ability to make local regulations.
3. The jet ski.........surely the issue is that he was subjected to a criminal proscecution under the specific Act not whether he was subject to the colregs. The question as to whether the Act should be changed, or a Leisure shipping Act introduced is another one completely! As most leisure boating criminal proscutions are brought for byelaw infringements and colreg 'arguments' can be settled under civil law (in extreme cases only I would hope!) there doesn't seem a huge case for change here either.
fwiw
1. re the original post my only concern with the col regs revolves around the position of mechanically, but not engine, driven craft - canoes, rowing boats, skulls and eights as examples and possibly kite surfers too. The overall responsibilities they have, and others have to them are covered under all vessels but how many people would be happy to agree that the col regs require them to be give way vessel in all but overtaking situations (my understanding)?
2. Re Chichester harbour surely all the harbour master is saying is to clarify that mobo's shouldn't automatically consider themselves restricted in their ability to manoevre when in the main channels of the harbour. Given that a tender & OB is clearly not in teh same position as a 50ft flybridge proceeding in a 16ft wide channel this makes sense. In the latter case the skipper may well consider that he is restricted in his ability to manoevre if there was a cross current or strong wind and, showing the appropriate signals, proceed in that manner. The harbour master cannot possibly pre-determine that no motor vessel can ever consider themselves restricted in thier ability to manoevre.........arguably this would contradict the Colregs and be invalid under the same authority (in teh regs and already quoted above) that grants him the ability to make local regulations.
3. The jet ski.........surely the issue is that he was subjected to a criminal proscecution under the specific Act not whether he was subject to the colregs. The question as to whether the Act should be changed, or a Leisure shipping Act introduced is another one completely! As most leisure boating criminal proscutions are brought for byelaw infringements and colreg 'arguments' can be settled under civil law (in extreme cases only I would hope!) there doesn't seem a huge case for change here either.
TwoStroke
Well-Known Member
After reading it - I find it barmy. If it goes on the water - like the highway code - you must abide by the rules of the water. Full stop.
When are the judges going to use common sense here???
When are the judges going to use common sense here???
boatone
Well-Known Member
If you read Paragraph 45 I think that is what tyhey are doing.
The courst judge cases on the basis of the charges and the legislation under which those charges are brought. It is not uncommon for cases to fail because the wrong legislation was used as the basis for the charge.
Para 45 seems to be suggesting that this might be the case here (i think).
The courst judge cases on the basis of the charges and the legislation under which those charges are brought. It is not uncommon for cases to fail because the wrong legislation was used as the basis for the charge.
Para 45 seems to be suggesting that this might be the case here (i think).
