Poor Show

[rhinorhino]

Every time there is a question about the col regs on this forum (such as the one on fishing below), I am amazed by the number of people who post with the wrong answer. It seems most worrying to me that so many people out there have no or a very poor grasp of the regulations.
Is there a case for more training and/or forced training or is a detailed knowledge of the regs really not needed to sail safely? I know there are alot of people who operate on the keep out of the way of anything bigger than me principle.
Before I am flamed out can I make two pionts; one, I am not claiming I am always right. Two, there are pionts in the regulations which are unclear or a matter for debate.
Comments?

 

[Jacket]

Its not just yachties that have a poor grasp of the Colregs. Most fishing boats fly their fishing dayshapes all the time (indeed, many of them have them permanently welded to the mast!) and so they are claiming to be fishing all of the time, no matter what they're up to.

Even larger ships rarely fly the correct dayshapes, while at night they all have so many deck lights on that you can't even see their bow lights, let alone any special lights they may be showing.

I know most of my lights and shapes (I had them beaten into me as a kid in the RN cadets) but can only think of a handful of times when the knowledge of them has been even marginally useful. The "everyones bigger than me so I'll keep out of their way" approach, combined with a bit of common sense seems to be much more usefull for keeping a yacht out of trouble than does strict adherance to the colregs.

Having said that, I do think that everyone should have a good working knowledge of the rules for the rare occasions when you can't keep well clear of larger boats.

 

[milltech]

My policy is to give way to everyone bigger than me, it's worked so far!

John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[byron]

On the Bridge of every ship there's a copy of Lights, Sounds & Signals. Why? Because even Masters, Mates and the rest of the Deck Officers cannot remember them all. Furthermore many signals were decided upon when vessels merely carried oil lamps. Now-a-days with the profusion of lights all over a vessel.... need I say more?

http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk

 

[Guest]

the danger in the "keep away from anything bigger"approach is that the colregs are designed to work two ways. They tell you what to do, and they also tell the other boat what you should be doing. So its possible to imagine a sitaution in which you are the stand on vessel, but you decide to adjust course anyway, the other boat changes course as it was supposed to do, and a collision is made more likely rather than less. The magazine of the CA reports just such an alleged event in their latest issue.

Mind you, I still take this route myself on many occasions.

 

[Adrian]

I agree with most posts in that i try to "Avoid" bigger ships, my only concern is if i was involved in a collision, how any following court case, Inquest (God Forbid), or insurance investigation would look on my actions having not followed the correct procedure

Adrian
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.kydproducts.co.uk>http://www.kydproducts.co.uk</A>

 

[richardandtracy]

Overburden of Regulation

As in all things these days, the regulations so complex that they can only be intended to make everyone into criminals. That way, those in power can stamp on you when they feel like it and claim they were justified - after all, you were breaking the rules put there "for your own safety".

Cynical? Yes. Justified? Definitely.

We need lots of de-regulation in all walks of life. I try to stick to all the rules. However, when they change so often, have stupid and un-necessary details, and are so fiendishly complex I often feel like saying "take the French Approach" (ie ignore everything that patently stupid or un-necessary).

We also need to take more responsibility for our own actions. Instead of saying "That vessel was incorrectly marked, which is why I ran into it", say "I mustn't hit anything - if I do, my seamanship's at fault".

Regards

Richard.

 

[Jacket]

Re: Overburden of Regulation

>Instead of saying "That vessel was incorrectly marked, which is why I ran into it", say "I mustn't hit anything - if I do, my seamanship's at fault".

Umm, the COLREGS already state that.

I agree that there are too many regulations in the world, but can we really say that a set of rules that stop us all running into each other are unnecessary?

I can't help feeling that the real problem is not that the COLREGS are complicated, but that they're rarely presented in an easy to understand way. Unfortunately most of us try and learn the rules by reading the COLREGS (this is how the RYA teaches it). This is silly. the regs are complicated to read- they are legal documents, designed to stand up in a court of law, and so are bound to be.

But if all the technical jargon is removed, they are all fairly basic and easy to understand- after all, much of it just common sense.

 

[richardandtracy]

Re: Overburden of Regulation

".....but can we really say that a set of rules that stop us all running into each other are unnecessary?"

Yes.
It is ridiculous to encode the blindingly, stunningly obvious.
So don't.

Regards

Richard

 

[tcm]

Hurrah for Richardandtracy

i totally and utterly agree. 100 years ago uk controlled an empire with 10,00 civil servants. These days, Camden Council alone employs 70,000. wow.

Since the point of your posts was to promote a cut in unnecessary regulation and e waffle, I'll stop now.

 

[Guest]

Re: Overburden of Regulation

it is really dim to regard the colregs as an unnecessary set of beurocratic rules. there are no white lines on the sea, no signposts, and the traffic lanes arent marked by kerbs. without the regs, how would you know, when facing another oncoming boat, which way to turn to avoid a collision?

the colregs exist to guide your actions and to let the other guy know what you are likely to do as well. they really arent like the stupid levels of over regulation that we have elsewhere.

 

[Jacket]

Re: Overburden of Regulation

Are you being serious, or have you just got no imagination?

I'm sure you've been in the situation where you've been walking along the pavement and there's been someone coming towards you. You've moved to your left to avoid them, they've moved to their right, and so you're both still heading towards each other. So, to avoid them, you move to your right. Unfortunately they move to their left at the same time. We've all done it.

Now imagine the same situation, but with two supertankers on the sea instead of people. Thats one hell of a big crunch, and a very nasty oil spil to clean up. Thats why we need COLREGS.

I'd have thought the need was blindingly, stunningly obvious?

 

[halcyon]

Re: Overburden of Regulation

Puzzeled at the problem with col regs, logical and if you read the RYA handbook they explain each one that is relevant in plain english.
The problem arises when people try and interpret regs to a silly level, ie people fishing in punts, should they show a shape.


Brian

 

[VMALLOWS]

I wish the Lymington-Yarmouth ferry had realised this when he forced me to make an emergency jibe on a full run. I suppose he didn't realise the tide was running 4 knots and I was doing 6 thru the water in the same direction..................


(sorry, just spotted you're in Bilbao....don't know if you are familiar with the Solent).

 

[Guest]

not particularly familiar with the solent - try to avoid it if poss, bit like i try to avoid driving in london.

nevertheless, i know what you mean. i guess the ferry skippers take a similar attitude to the colregs as black taxi drivers do to the highway code.

 

[richardandtracy]

Re: Overburden of Regulation

In some ways I do agree with you.

But... My instinctive, knee jerk, reaction is to say do away with everything and just be nice & conciderate to all other users. I also feel that with regulation, less is better and nothing is best - that way everyone can easily know everything off by heart.

Regards

Richard