Strobes again

[ QUOTE ]
I see that that our Pilots safety gear includes strobes on their lifejackets.

So we have a conundrum. Do we keep away from them, or head towards?

Perhaps the best thing to do is report the strobe sighting to Coastguard and ask for guidance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strobes and lights on Life-jackets ... praticularly when it comes to a Pilot is a different ball-game all together ... why ? The Pilot is proceeding to / from a vessel while wearing it. If he goes in and light starts up - all the people already know what it is - it's our bl***y pilot gone for a swim.

In the case of a yacht out there and has a strobe - that IMHO is not same and also not part of my inventory to fit. I'm against as there are too many issues with it.
If I was in trouble and made a distress or urgency call .... advising I was going to activate one - then again that's a different ball game and IMHO acceptable ... but to sail normally with one on ? Wasn't a certain Round World boat recently carved up by a fishing boat - didn't he have a strobe ?
 
"If I was in trouble and made a distress or urgency call .... advising I was going to activate one - then again that's a different ball game and IMHO acceptable ... but to sail normally with one on ?"

A friend of mine was in fear of being run down and switched all, ALL, his lights on; the ship saw him and altered course.
His lights were at that point in time breaking the Rules: Tric, steaming light, anchor light etc all on. But it worked - this is the situation I see a strobe being used- not all the time.

Rule 17 (b) " ....she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

Surely a strobe would be 'allowed' at this point and an Admiralty court or insurers would see it in that light ?
 
Sorry but Rule 17 is really about being able to manoeuvre to avoid collision even though stand-on vessel. A stand-on vessel is required to maintain course and speed wherever possible and to not confuse the situation. It enables give-way vessel to plot and conclude an action to comply.
In the event his action is insufficient in the view of stand-on vessel - Rulke 17 allows Stand-on vessel to take action to best aid to avoid collision or at least lessen.

It really has no intention to imply use of lights or strobes. It really is a manoeuvring rule.

This brings me back to memories of classroom debates in Maritime College when studying the ColRegs in depth for tickets !

Final comment - please don't bring Ouzo into this - it only starts fantasy posts of peoples own opinions and versions of a sad event ...
 
The nearest miss we had in recent years was with a fishing boat in the Western English Channel lanes east of Ushant TSS that was using a flashing yellow amidst a mass of deck floodlights. It was a crystal clear night but windy and we were headed towards him occasionally surfing at 10.5kts. I had NO idea initially if he was close or several miles away but the radar showed 4 mls. We tried to go clear astern of his apparent couse leaving about half a mile or more, but as we got closer he apparently turned 180 reversing his course. We finally cleared him (just) but not before he was directing a searchlight our way as well - we had NO real idea which way the thing was going because his proper nav lights were completely invisible behind the floodlights and very bright flashing yellow strobe. Even when he could have almost thrown us a fish he was difficult to identify in terms of which way he was actually pointing/going.

He was certainly conspicuous!

Please keep your strobes to yourself - somebody with real expertise and responsible for Colregs has examined all the pros and cons and said DON'T.
 
[ QUOTE ]
SAE140, I don't follow your logic. Surely the reason strobes are being discussed here is because their proponents do see them as a means of attracting attention. In which case the Rules clearly prohibit their use.

[/ QUOTE ]
No - the rules do not PROHIBIT their use - the wording is "shall
be avoided", which is not the same thing at all. In my lexicon "shall be avoided" implies "not for normal use, but maybe in exceptional circumstances." If Colregs wished to specify "NEVER, under any circumstances whatsoever" (bearing in mind of course, Rule 1 (b,c,e) ), then presumably they would have said so.
But regardless of how we here may interpret the wording of Colregs, the fact of the matter is that a small number of people ARE employing strobes on the High Seas.
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly the day might come when ColRegs are modified to include strobes, but until then we have to accept the rules as they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think Colregs works like that. Unless some event or activity prods the committee into making an amendment, then the Rules will continue to stay the same. Colregs does not precede or initiate, but follows.
I believe the last amendment was to do with rights of way and restricted ability to manoeuvre (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) - ergo, the problem was already in existence, and Colregs added amended rules in direct response to an existing problem.
[ QUOTE ]
As has already been said, we should not make personal selections of which rules we choose to obey and which we choose to disregard.

[/ QUOTE ]
People use strobes, not out of sheer bloody-mindedness, or a cavalier attitude towards safety, but because there is a perceived benefit - especially for the single-hander off-soundings who may not be keeping an adequate watch. In this instance it becomes the lesser of two evils - either you break the Colregs watchkeeping rule, or the lighting rule. In this case, there is indeed a need to choose which rule to obey.

Don't misunderstand me, I would HATE to see weekend sailors strobing their way around the coast on a jolly - to my mind nothing could be worse - but for trans-ocean single-handing I think their use makes good sense, providing that doing so doesn't endanger or inconvenience other shipping in the process.

You say that you don't follow my logic - well, I'm not surprised - what some of us were attempting to do in this thread was identify some means by which strobes, or at least flashing lights, could somehow be deployed within the existing Colregs wording. We were 'looking for a loophole' if you prefer.
The best on offer was perhaps to flash 5 short whites, as there is nothing within Colregs to prevent a flashing navigational light being used, providing it cannot be confused with any other navigational aid. Unfortunately there are a few examples of 5 short whites already in use, which is a pity.

Whether I was clear or not, I was attempting to draw a distinction between a signal which is intended purely and soley as an unambiguous "Signal to Attract Attention", such as a white flare, torch being shone towards a bridge and suchlike, which is a discrete and abrupt event intended to establish a one-to-one communication between the signal-maker and one specific vessel, and the more general use of a strobe being used as a means of alerting all shipping within visual range of the signalling craft of it's existence. In this second case, the strobe is being used first and foremost as a navigational light signal, and although such a strobe will most certainly attract attention, it's primary function is one of navigation, rather than of attracting attention in the sense of an immediate warning.
I would be the first to agree that my logic here is somewhat thin (to say the least), but as I've already said, the purpose here was to try and find some means of incorporating a flashing light within the existing Colregs wording.

And this presents a challenge.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Please keep your strobes to yourself - somebody with real expertise and responsible for Colregs has examined all the pros and cons and said DON'T.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't waste your time. Once people have decided it suits them, mere proof that it is illegal, dangerous or confusing to others won't change their minds just as you'll never persuade bikers not to dazzle you with their full headlamp beams or dissuade those who think they're safer using fog lights in clear weather.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I believe the last amendment was to do with rights of way and restricted ability to manoeuvre (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) .

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to disappoint - you're wrong!

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs)
Adoption: 20 October 1972
Entry into force: 15 July 1977

The 1981 amendments - rule 10 amended
The 1987 amendments - crossing traffic lanes
The 1989 amendments - inshore traffic zone
The 1993 amendments - positioning of lights
The 2001 amendments - WIG craft
 
[ QUOTE ]
the purpose here was to try and find some means

[/ QUOTE ]

Fully agree. It's certainly appropriate for peeps on a forum like this to examine perceived problems and possible solutions for 'best fit'. The IMO does not have a strong record of consulting yotties on what's troubling us, although - if memory serves - there is some desultory communication between the IMO and the RYA, which probably amounts to a liquid lunch in the Royal Thames or a similar congenial London watering hole every so often.

Debate - discuss - deliberate...... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe the last amendment was to do with rights of way and restricted ability to manoeuvre (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) .

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to disappoint - you're wrong!

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs)
Adoption: 20 October 1972
Entry into force: 15 July 1977

The 1981 amendments - rule 10 amended
The 1987 amendments - crossing traffic lanes
The 1989 amendments - inshore traffic zone
The 1993 amendments - positioning of lights
The 2001 amendments - WIG craft

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for that ! The restricted ability to manoeuvre thing was way back in 1987 - how time flies ...

So - nothing since 2001 then ? 'bout time we woke the buggers up ....
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the purpose here was to try and find some means

[/ QUOTE ]

Fully agree. It's certainly appropriate for peeps on a forum like this to examine perceived problems and possible solutions for 'best fit'. The IMO does not have a strong record of consulting yotties on what's troubling us, although - if memory serves - there is some desultory communication between the IMO and the RYA, which probably amounts to a liquid lunch in the Royal Thames or a similar congenial London watering hole every so often.

Debate - discuss - deliberate...... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Bilbo ... but not strictly true. I personally know one of the guys who sits on IMO who is specifically there from Yachting. He's even written a book on Ocean racing Rules etc. etc. ....
I would give his name privately, if you PM me .. but feel a public forum is not place to bandy his name around.
 
IMO is a gathering of governments -- including some that have no coastline, no ports, and no ships.

Some are represented by civil servants, some by politicians, some by professional consultants, and some by lawyers. Whether any of them possess any nautical expertise is a matter of pure luck. Those that do are almost certainly a tiny minority.

Those with the real expertise -- the bodies that represent professional seafarers, shipping companies, etc. -- are limited to "observer" status. Yachtsmen have "observer" status, represented by ISAF.

Unfortunately there are many other bodies that also have observer status, whose expertise and interests may have nothing to do with ships or boats, and more to do with protecting the love life of whelks or some such.

But having said that, the colregs work amazingly well. The times when they don't work, by and large, are when some idiot unilaterally decides that he is a special case and that some particular rule shouldn't apply to him -- whether it's a yottie who decides he wants to show the wrong lights or a ship's watchkeeper who can't be bothered to look out of the bridge windows.

BTW, whoever had a pop at motorcyclists for keeping our headlights on: (a) it's perfectly legal (b) we are advised to do it. If car drivers used their eyes and wing mirrors more, and their mobile phones less, we might not need to do so.
 
The problem with bikers' lights is not the use of a headlight on dip - that's entirely sensible and makes the bike much more visible - and is, indeed, advised. The problem is the tw@ts that use full beam - which causes a dazzle nuisance which can, by masking other objects, be dangerous.
 
I raised the question on here asking why biker's felt it was OK to have full heads on but if car drivers do the same they get a 2-fingered salute. Quite a few bikers replied, most saying words to the effect of 'I think it makes me safer and nothing you say will make me more considerate'.
 
Putting the Colregs issue to one side for a moment, although I'm in favour 'in principle' of the use of strobes off-shore, especially for sleepy single-handers where we're looking at the lesser of two evils, I'm also concerned about what reaction sighting a strobe might evoke in other traffic.

So - if, when hundreds of miles from land, a commercial vessel spots a strobe on the horizon, what action is likely to be taken in practice ? Would the strobe be ignored, simply logged, or is it likely that the vessel will change course to investigate ?

If anyone here is, or was, a commercial skipper, or knows of one to ask about this, I think knowing how our actions might affect others would be mighty useful.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with bikers' lights is not the use of a headlight on dip - that's entirely sensible and makes the bike much more visible - and is, indeed, advised. The problem is the tw@ts that use full beam - which causes a dazzle nuisance which can, by masking other objects, be dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

AND they tend to sit on that back corner of the car where it's a blind spot.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Putting the Colregs issue to one side for a moment, although I'm in favour 'in principle' of the use of strobes off-shore, especially for sleepy single-handers where we're looking at the lesser of two evils, I'm also concerned about what reaction sighting a strobe might evoke in other traffic.

So - if, when hundreds of miles from land, a commercial vessel spots a strobe on the horizon, what action is likely to be taken in practice ? Would the strobe be ignored, simply logged, or is it likely that the vessel will change course to investigate ?

If anyone here is, or was, a commercial skipper, or knows of one to ask about this, I think knowing how our actions might affect others would be mighty useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

We deal and work on ships every day ... so I'll see if one of my inpectors can ask OOW as well as master ...
 
There are twats on bikes just as there are in cars... but I have a theory that having a tin box around them tends to make the twats in cars think rather less than their counterparts on bikes!

But I am at a loss to see how we can be accused of simultaneously "sitting in a blind spot" whilst at the same time dazzling? This seems to suggest that it is possible to be dazzled by a light that you can't see!

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that bikes have a shorter wheelbase than cars, so they pitch more on bumpy roads, and they are more noticeably affected by weight. My bike has an adjuster on the dash to lower the headlamp beam when carrying a pillion -- but it's not common.

But back to strobes:
I would suggest that strobes are excluded by rule 36, because they are not required to indicate your presence, nor your heading, nor your status. The only conceivable reason for having one is to draw attention to yourself -- which brings it squarely into the remit of Rule 36.

And I suspect that the reason they are discouraged is because it is difficult to take a bearing or estimate the range of a flashing light. So I cannot imagine anyone altering course to go and investigate. After all, from the point of view of a ship's watchkeeper, a strobe is not a distress signal; there 's no way of knowing exactly where it is, and no reason to want to get involved with whatever it is.
 
You misunderstand me - I don't mention sitting on blind spot as reason for headlights !! I was remarking about the daft action of some bikers who do sit on the blind corner of cars.

Over here - you can imagine that bikers don't come out in winter, they move to 4 wheels. Come summer and ice disappears - 2 wheels appear again - with disastrous results. My wife and friends worked in the local hospital .. friends still do. The number of bikers who are brought in because 4 wheel drivers didn't see the bike is a large % and the most common is that blind spot at rear corner. Not trying to dissuade biker from showing headlights ... in fact over here we all incl. cars, vans, trucks etc. have to have dipped headlights on 24hrs a day when using vehicle (nicknamed swedish lights).

In terms of lights - the ones I would ban are the rear high intensity lights that car drivers insist on having on regardless of clear weather and particularly in rain ! Talk about can't see naff all else !! when following one. Far worse than any biker headlight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top