Some thoughts on the Colregs - what Rules would you change?

I have a small power boat, No.
I have a small Bermuda rigged sloop sail boat, not square rigger. No

Why? Partly because I am an old dog who doesn't want to learn new tricks:)
I think I mentioned Cockroft once. You pointed out he was a big proponent of changing to rule 19 all the time.

I have heard (not a stat I can prove, or even provide a reference to) "Most collisions happen in clear visability good weather in open water with little traffic". This may be an urban legend.

Even so lots of collisions in occur in fog. Often those collisions are additionally referred to as RADAR assisted collisions. There have been VHF assisted collisions. I would not be surprised if there have been AIS assisted collisions.
So I am not convinced going to a full time rule 19 would improve the situation. We would just have more Rule 19 collisions.

My other concern, Might be more controversial. Autonomous vessels. I don't like the idea. If the rules are changed. Visual reference will not be different to Electronic reference only making the introduction of autonomous vessels easier. By eliminating rule 18 requirements. Autonomous vessels would not have to identify the type of vessel.

When it comes to autonomous vessels I am a proud say I am a luddite. Partly I don't like to see job loss. Partly I sail a small boat which might not be electronically detected. I don't want to be tracked. or be trackable. I don't want to be legislated into fitting AIS or active RADAR or GPS or ECDIS which may be required.

Adding modern tech to rule 6 may be ok. My concern will be a legal stamp of approval or acceptance of a practical reduction of safety already in practice. (How many commercial vessels actually reduce speed in restricted visibility)

One area I would suggest requires clarification is the requirement not to impede. I think a requirement to give way would be clearer. The size of some commercial vessels has increased dramatically while the no of large sailing vessels has not. Many Ports have already implemented local regulations in practice.

As a small boat mingling with big boats, I personally prefer being give way to stand on.

I would also eliminate fishing in TSS and narrow channels. Partly to simplify collision regulations also by eliminating fishing in TSS you create a conservation area.

Otherwise leave them alone.
 
Last edited:
I found the history of the succession of regs. interesting, so thanks for that. (I'd like to know more if anyone can point me to some accessible info on it.)

I think the advantage of having a 'stand on' vessel is that it gives clear responsibility to one vessel to make a change in course/speed that is 'enough' to resolve the situation. If both vessels have to take action, the question becomes how much action. There will usually be a temptation to minimise action, so each vessel will be making an assumption of how much action the other will take. I fear there could be a game of chicken in every crossing situation.

My other reason for attachment to having a 'stand on' vessel, is as a frequent single-hander I can use it to give myself time to deal with the various boat and domestic demands that can't be met at the helm (while, of course, keeping an eye out by all available means (i.e. popping head out of the hatch) for the various superior exceptions).

I like the idea of resolving the different stages where you can/can't/must change course, but I'm struggling to think how that could be done.

Certainly many mariners' lives have been lost over the years, but I'm doubting whether a very significant proportion of those result from the problems identified in the article. I get the impression that most accidents are the result of failure to follow the regs., rather than problems with the regs themselves.

But the concerns above don't mean that I am opposed to changes to the regs. - there's usually plenty of improvements that can and should be made to any system. (Though there's usually lots of inertia and/or vested interests preventing them ever being fully addressed, and I've got the scars to prove it!).
 
I’m not convinced by his argument that the concept and introduction of ‘stand on’ was from the way square rigged sailing ships behave.

There may be reason to look at IRPCS because of the advent of modern technology, but you’d have to have exemptions in the rules for when a vessel meets another vessel without all the electronics. A new day shape for ‘my AIS and VHF aren’t working?’

It’s a provocative article and not to be taken too seriously IMHO.
 
It occurs to me to compare the colregs with racing rules.
Racing rules deal much more explicitly with three things.
When the stand on vessel is altering course/is allowed to alter course
Multi-vessel situations
changing situations

Whereas colregs are built around the concept of two vessels coming over each others horizon mid ocean, in splendid isolation from anything else.
 
Is it time to scrap the separate rules for sail (mainly rules 12 and 18a), which often seem poorly understood? Crossing situations can be covered quite adequately by the simpler rules 14 and 15, same as for power.

After all, virtually all sea-going saiIboats have auxilliary power. I once asked a ship's captain why in the Dover Straights TSS, ships invariably treat sailing yachts the same as if they were motoring. (That is, stand on if approaching from the yacht's starboard side). "If they are not running their engine in a TSS, then they should not be out there. So we respond assuming they are under power." was the reply.

While on the subject of TSS's, I'd like to see Rule 10 changed so that vessels entering or crossing a TSS are invariably the give-way vessel to those proceeding along the TSS. This would have avoided some very nasty incidents around Dover, and make life a lot easier for yachts crossing between Dover and Calais - avoiding the nerve-wracking experience of having stand-on responsibility in the path of a ship (complicated by the difficulty of knowing whether or not we are 'impeding' it, rule 10j).
 
Last edited:
Certainly many mariners' lives have been lost over the years, but I'm doubting whether a very significant proportion of those result from the problems identified in the article. I get the impression that most accidents are the result of failure to follow the regs., rather than problems with the regs themselves.

I agree. All the same, the rules are, perhaps, unnecessarily complicated.

I'd like to see a reinforcement of the requirement to navigate at a safe speed in reduced visibility. Travelling at 35 knots on the Normandie Express in, maybe, 100 yards visibility recently gave food for thought to the skipper of a small boat that might not show up well on radar...

Not a change to Colregs, but related: keeping an adequate lookout seems to be a major issue with most collisions and groundings. Maybe a bridge alarm that can't be turned off when the engine's driving the ship should be compulsory for all vessels over a certain size or speed. That way, if you doze off, you get woken up and, unless you're completely irresponsible, will have a look round. The alarms are fitted to most ships, but collisions and groundings occur because they are turned off.

Personally, I've always assumed that the requirement not to impede trumps any stand on situation and makes me the give way vessel.

Finally, there's a fundamental disconnect between the world of big ships travelling at 20 knots + and small sailing boats travelling at, maybe 5 knots or less. How do you protect the hedgehogs without closing the M25? Maybe a vessel under 100 tons should automatically be the give way vessel when meeting a bigjob?
 
>I'd like to see a reinforcement of the requirement to navigate at a safe speed in reduced visibility.

I agree. We were passing off Dover in thick fog and on the radar there was a speed boat at full speed on a parallel course in the opposite direction.
 
Stemar said:
I'd like to see a reinforcement of the requirement to navigate at a safe speed in reduced visibility. Travelling at 35 knots on the Normandie Express in, maybe, 100 yards visibility recently gave food for thought to the skipper of a small boat that might not show up well on radar...

Not a change to Colregs, but related: keeping an adequate lookout seems to be a major issue with most collisions and groundings. Maybe a bridge alarm that can't be turned off when the engine's driving the ship should be compulsory for all vessels over a certain size or speed. That way, if you doze off, you get woken up and, unless you're completely irresponsible, will have a look round. The alarms are fitted to most ships, but collisions and groundings occur because they are turned off.

Personally, I've always assumed that the requirement not to impede trumps any stand on situation and makes me the give way vessel.

Finally, there's a fundamental disconnect between the world of big ships travelling at 20 knots + and small sailing boats travelling at, maybe 5 knots or less. How do you protect the hedgehogs without closing the M25? Maybe a vessel under 100 tons should automatically be the give way vessel when meeting a bigjob?
Click to expand...
The safe speed one is interesting - these days technology is good enough (GPS, AIS, RADAR) that commercial vessels could navigate safely without visibility but that doesn't apply to small vessels. It seems a bit hard on ferries etc to have to slow down because leisure sailors don't have the equipment but I am not sure what we do about it.

I think the "not to impede" rule needs re-writing, too many people are confused by it. It clearly does not mean give way but many seem to think it does.

The problem with changing the rules so that the smaller vessel was always give way is that it would make crossing shipping lanes very tricky. In practice it is not difficult for a big ship to avoid crossing yacht by making a small course change - it is much harder for a sailing vessel to cross a busy shipping lane as give way. The whole point of the rules is that the more manoeuvreable / faster vessel gives way to the less.
 
How about another small one (or two). When will they stop referring to a "mast head" light, when it's a steaming light, which doesn't need to be at the mast head?
And why the need to show an anchor ball in daylight in a recognised anchorage? Fair enough, show a ball if you're anchored out in a fairway, but often you're anchored somewhere where there are boats moored next to you, with no need to show a ball.
 
capnsensible said:
How about a minor one. Bin the motor sailing cone?
Click to expand...

Surely that has already been done. cant remember the last time I saw one. But then most rag and stick merchants seem to think you can pick and choose what regs to follow.
 
NormanS said:
How about another small one (or two). When will they stop referring to a "mast head" light, when it's a steaming light, which doesn't need to be at the mast head?
Click to expand...

"Masthead light" is perhaps a slight misnomer since it doesn't have to be right at the very top of the mast, but "steaming light" is even worse since it's nothing whatsoever to do with steam.

About the only improvement I can think of is something like "under-way light", and that's not so obviously better that it ought to replace the longstanding well-understood term for lights which, in practice, are usually near the top of most vessels' masts.

Pete
 
I should like to see a rule that obliges a vessel travelling at, say, three times the speed of another vessel to be obliged to regard itself as give-way vessel. The other day, a small catamaran came out of nowhere in a fleet of dinghies and while sailing at something like fifteen knots across the channel appeared to be surprised that my five tons of boat motoring at five knots was unable to leap out of his path or come to an abrupt halt.
 
capnsensible said:
How about a minor one. Bin the motor sailing cone?

The rest I can live with!
Click to expand...

Dons tin helmet and flack jacket!

Agree, I have always thought the motor sailing cone illogical - regularly gets caught up in the foresail and is invisible (behind aforesaid foresaill) to those closing with the sailor in the yacht's path.

I work on the principle that a yacht with sails deployed is under sail and react accordingly.

To be pedantic, I believe a yacht motor sailing is only required to observe the power rules when it is under power? So just whipping the engine into neutral and the power sailor has become a pure sailor.

All too confusing so easier to just avoid.

OK I know the IRPSCs says the stand-on vessel should maintain course but they also say it is the responsibility of all vessels to avoid the risk of collision.

So I go ugly early!
 
Last edited:
prv said:
"Masthead light" is perhaps a slight misnomer since it doesn't have to be right at the very top of the mast, but "steaming light" is even worse since it's nothing whatsoever to do with steam.

About the only improvement I can think of is something like "under-way light", and that's not so obviously better that it ought to replace the longstanding well-understood term for lights which, in practice, are usually near the top of most vessels' masts.

Pete
Click to expand...

And with respect, it's quite a bit worse, isn't it? A sailing yacht under way should not have what you would call an 'under-way light'. Change 'steaming' for 'motoring', by all means, but I'd suggest that this passé term is hardly the greatest source of confusion or hazard in the ColRegs.
 
nortada said:
....

To be pedantic, I believe a yacht motor sailing is only required to observe the power rules when it is under power? So just whipping the engine into neutral and the power sailor has become a pure sailor.
....
Click to expand...
To be pedantic, if you are the give way vessel due to motoring when you first come into sight of the sailing vessel, you remain so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top