What Now Skip? If I Ruled the World

[Observer]

I agree, a very generalised and what could be viewed as a slightly worrying statement

Hmm. Then:

In these situations I feel that the yachtsman deserves everything he/she gets.

That's a particularly worrying statement from a professional seaman. Your attitude appears to be that anyone who makes a mistake, or inteprets the rules differently to you, can 'go hang'.

You don't appear to appreciate that the discussion with regard to Rule 17 is not about situations (such as the one you described later) where a small vessel has been totally oblivious of a collision risk, but the quite frequently occurring situations where a small vessel's watch keeper has to decide whether strict obervance of the rule carries a greater potential threat to his own safety than early action 'not-strictly-in-accordance-with-Colregs' that avoids a real risk of collision developing.

I have said before, and I think it's worth repeating, that there is a 'golden rule', which (as far as I am concerned) trumps colregs. That is "never allow your own safety to depend upon the actions of others".

 

[calamitys38]

Hmm. Then:

That's a particularly worrying statement from a professional seaman. Your attitude appears to be that anyone who makes a mistake, or inteprets the rules differently to you, can 'go hang'.

[/b][/i].

Not true. If you read what I said in the context of what I said, then I hope you would understand that what it was not aimed at those who may make a mistake or, make an incorrect decision based on their interpretation of the rules at the critical moment etc. We are all human and we all make mistakes occasionally and sometimes these can be catastrophic. There's a number of times I could look back and say "there but for the grace of God!!!"

My words werre aimed more specifically at those who willingly missinterpret the Rules and/or cannot be bothered to even read them and/or if they do read them, cannot be bothered to try and understand them or seek advice on their meaning. I have personal experience of meeting some people who have got as far as reading "Power gives way to Sail" and stop there - thinking it applies in all situations everywhere (well it does I guess if you understand what "shall not impede the passage or safe passge" terms).

I'm not some kind of facist who thinks that all yotties (incl powerboaters) should be shot (or run over) on sight. But I am very keen to try and raise professional standards amongst the "professional" seagoing community as well as leisure users and consequently get a bot hot under the collar sometimes.

Anyway

Happy sailing

 

[jfm]

jfm,First, with regard to "shall not be deemed to exist" cf "shall be deemed not to exist", I was specifically (I'm not sure whether it should be exclusively?) seeking to counter the effect of rule 7(d)(i):

Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change

because that is the rule that locks a vessel, that would be 'stand on' if the risk of collision (by reason of the not-appreciably-changing compass bearing) is deemed to exist, into holding course and speed when the circumstances would permit (or dictate) taking some pre-emptive action that avoids 17(a)(i) from coming into play. Therefore, I felt "shall not be deemed to exist" was more correct (although I'm open to further discussion and correction).

Continuing nerdiness...! This is tricky. "Not deemed to exist" merely switches off the deeming provision in the constant-bearing sentence you quote. It does nothing about any real (as opposed to deemed) risk. If there is a real risk as well (which generally there would be on constant bearing), then the agile boat is still the stand on vessel and may not make the turn to port that you are seeking to permit. Your switching off of the deeming provision doesn't make the agile boat not stand on anymore. In contrast, my drafting deems there not to be a risk (even if actually there IS a risk) so relieving the agile vessel of his stand on duty and permitting him to turn to port. Happy to be challenged/corrected, but hope you get my drift as to where I was coming from

A problem here Observer is we're starting with lousy drafting. I mean what does the work "risk" mean? To me (and I might have spent too long in t'City!) "risk" is the possibility of different outcomes. If I buy some Microsoft shares they could go up or down, ie different outcomes possible, and that is risk. If my boat is on constant compass bearing to a crossing boat, there isn't risk of collision (prior to the taking of aoiding action by one of the boats), there is certainty. Hence trying to draft add-ons to the Colregs is a tricky task. I'd prefer to lose all mention of "risk" in these crossing situations and define a term like "collision situation" to mean circumstances where if neither boat takes avoiding action they will collide. "Risk" of collison might belong elsewhere as a term, but in different contexts, eg whenever 2 boats are close there is risk of collision eg an ill-judged turn/human error by one of them could cause collison, and that's a "risk".

I dont think I've fully answered all your points, just typing fast and it's late. Will look again later

 

[timbartlett]

A problem here Observer is we're starting with lousy drafting.

How about taking advantage of the fact that this is a purely hypothetical exercise? Dump the lousy drafting of the original, and rewrite from a blank screen.
For instance:-
"A potential collision situation shall be deemed to exist if
(a) a vessel is within <insert number> miles of another
and
(b) the range of the other vessel is reducing
and
(c) the compass bearing of the other vessel does not appreciably (?) change over a period of <insert number> minutes"

 

[tcm]

Market Forces Colregs - all problems solved

Rule 1 : Let L be the length of each vessel in metres. Under new colregs, all boats must carry L X £100 in cash, ready to hand over if they clonk into another boat. If another boat hits you astern or port side or you were at anchor, it's their fault unless you didn't have the correct lights or dayshapes, so all pretty straightforward really, bit like car crash rules except for the port side issue, and no need for any other rules.

(above might need jfm/observer to scrutinize for commas etc)
*****

Explanation with examples.

Thus, if frinstance your 10metre power or sailing vessel gets smashed up the backside by that ferry, your boat gets destroyed and you might be injured or worse. You get immediate payout of £10k if the ferry is 100m long. So they'll have incentive not to hit you astern or on port side, of course - else it costs them £10k. But it doesn't cost them to hit your starboard side! So best not to mess with them at all really, see? Your medical/life insurance pays out, so it's not that bad.

On the other hand, you whamming into a laser dinghy -oops!- (or a whole racing fleet) will cost you about a grand apiece, or £2k apiece if you're a 65 footer, which again is about right. They'll all have to tack sharpish to make sure you hittem astern to get the cash, of course, and if they can't manage that, well, they won't have the money to buy another boat so there's a very good incentive for proper training too, which current colregs don't address at all.

Note that MF colregs still means you still turn to starboard, as before, but goes much further - it helps the struggling boat industry with everyone being darn sure about their lights and spare bulbs, plus massive new sales of anchor balls and motoring cones. If you see another boat at anchor without an anchor ball, well, no problem at all to politely mention it, and if they just shrug their shoulders rudely, well, you can just glide over and crunch them with your anchor, a bit. That'll learnem! So the system is self-policing too, the hallmark of the very best sets of rules.

MFColregs also brilliantly solves the agile/non-agle boats issue too, as some crabbity old wrecks might possibly *want* to get hit and win a few quid, and it's the job of a speedier or nippier boat to avoid them.

And of course, taking revenge on other boats is also catered for *provided* you have got readies. So any shouty types in a rowing boat are gonna have pipe down or get run down by a RIB, which will only cost the RIB about £300 and often well worth it. Some people might even club together to pay for nastier individuals to have their boat removed from the marina in bits, hurrah!

 

[jfm]

Tim, are you really wishing to deem a collision situation to exist, or are you specifying the conditions that mean one actually exists? I'm using the word "deem" in its precise sense, the way it is used universally in the drafting of laws etc

 

[Observer]

jfm and Tim,

Wrt the meaning of "risk", let's just agree that it means that circumstances exist where there is a possibility of a future event occurring (in this case, collision) with >0% probability. If two vessels are on intersecting courses such that, if each maintains its current course and speed, a collision will occur, then there is a theoretical risk of collision. In reality, depending upon range, manoeuvrability, preparedness to take action (and other considerations), the real risk of collision may vary between virtually nil and 100%.

Rule 7(d)(i) stipulates that the collision risk is deemed to exist by virtue of the unchanged bearing of an approaching vessel, As a consequence, the stand on vessel is required to hold course and speed regardless of the actual risk of collision. As stated above, the actual risk of collision is dependent upon other factors as mentioned. Of these, the most significant factual circumstance is range, but manoeuvrability (in terms of course and speed) is highly relevant from the perspective of the watch keeper who is assessing the risk. In any given situation, the perception of risk (and the reality of actual risk) can vary enormously between different vessels.

The problem created by rule 7(d)(i) is that it eliminates (or at least severely limits) the elasticity of interpretation (Tim, that was an excellent choice of word to convey what I was trying to capture with my reference to "grey area") that is a feature of Colregs, which I think is critical to their overall efficacy. The need for elasticity is, I think, self-evident. The perception (and reality) of risk of collision, and the range of alternative actions that are available and appropriate to avoid the risk materialising into actual collision, is necessarily quite different in different circumstances and the rules need to accommodate those varying perspectives and alternatives.

So going back to jfm's point about disabling the deeming provision in rule 7(d)(i), that's all I that I think is necessary. Because then the natural elasticity of the meaning of "risk of collision" is allowed to work (within a sensible range) and, if applicable, the 'vessel-that-would-be-stand-on' may take pre-emptive avoiding action, if that can be done before the time at which it is reasonable to expect that the 'vessel-that-would-be-give-way' will commence its own action. "Time at which it is reasonable to expect" is itself elastic, as it needs to be to accommodate (for example) the difference between open waters and restricted waters situations.

Tim, I think your re-draft of rule 17(a) is workable and admirably succinct, although it rather departs from the present drafting style of Colregs. I would disagree about the need for "earliest" (I am not sure how attached you are to it) because it unnecessarily limits the elasticity that I was trying to create/restore. The reasoning I follow in concluding it is unnecessary is this.

Looking at the alternatives and outcomes (I use "stand on" and "give way" in the sense that the relevant vessel would become 'stand on' or (as the case may be) 'give way' if no action precluding the risk of collision was taken):

(i) clearly (and I think it is unnecessary to state) the stand on vessel is not permitted to take pre-emptive action after the give way vessel has commenced its own action (why would it do so anyway?);

(ii) if the stand on vessel takes pre-emptive action before the give way vessel commences its own action, then the collision risk doesn't develop (or reduces) and both go about their own business;

(iii) if the stand on vessel chooses to stand on, the give way vessel is obliged to take action in accordance with rule 16 (and the stand on vessel is bound by rule 17);

(iv) if the stand on vessel (by a reasonably tall co-incidence) takes pre-emptive action at the same time as the give way vessel, then the give way vessel's action may be nullified by the stand on vessel's pre-emptive action. However, unless "the time at which it is reasonable to expect" has been very unreasonably interpreted, there would still be ample time for appropriate action in accordance with the applicable rule. This is the only circumstance in which the modification of 7(d)(i) could give rise to a problem.

In reality, I would expect vessels of roughly equivalent size, manned by commercially qualified watch-keepers, to ignore the new rule. The benefit is (probably) mostly for small vessels who are, at present, unnecessarily constrained by rule 17(a)(i) to stand on in circumstances when simple common sense dictates simply 'keeping out of the way'.

I repeat the the words I emphasised above - my purpose is that the natural elasticity of the meaning of "risk of collision" should be allowed to work because, as I see it, that is all I that the proposed change should and needs to achieve.

 

[Observer]

How about taking advantage of the fact that this is a purely hypothetical exercise? Dump the lousy drafting of the original, and rewrite from a blank screen.
For instance:-
"A potential collision situation shall be deemed to exist if
(a) a vessel is within <insert number> miles of another
and
(b) the range of the other vessel is reducing
and
(c) the compass bearing of the other vessel does not appreciably (?) change over a period of <insert number> minutes"

That approach will not be universally 'workable' - e.g. it may work in open waters but not in restricted waters.

I think jfm is (deliberately) overstating the "lousy drafting". There are some inconsistencies but, on the whole, as a body of 'law', Colregs works.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim, are you really wishing to deem a collision situation to exist, or are you specifying the conditions that mean one actually exists? I'm using the word "deem" in its precise sense, the way it is used universally in the drafting of laws etc

I'm not quite sure how the precise sense differs from the common sense (no pun intended) but I would say that those are the essential conditions that distinguish most collision situations, and that if they exist, then one should assume that a risk of collision exists and act accordingly.
If "deem" is the wrong word, then I'd be quite happy to go for "A potential collision situation exists if..."!

...it rather departs from the present drafting style of Colregs.

Thank you! That's rather what I was hoping to achieve!

I would disagree about the need for "earliest" (I am not sure how attached you are to it) because it unnecessarily limits the elasticity that I was trying to create/restore.

My concern is that -- based on the recent discussion on Scuttlebut, amongst other things -- many recreational sailors seem to believe that it is OK to ignore a developing collision situation until they are within about two or three miles, and then to say -- Oh dear, he's not going to alter course for me, so it's "common sense" for me to take my own avoiding action.

So far as a largish ship is concerned, that is just about the worst moment they could choose, because the ship -- having got a consistent ARPA lock on the yacht at about 4-5 miles and taken a couple of minutes to check out the situation -- begins to alter course at a range of about three miles. Then, just after the rudder has been applied the yottie -- who did absolutely nothing about the developing situation for the past twenty minutes or more -- suddenly decides that if he doesn't do something right now, it is tantamount to suicide. So he jinks to port, just as the ship's bows start to swing to starboard.

At various times in the past, the colregs have included a lot of guidance -- things that were part of the rules, but which gave advice rather than defining actions. I'm think ing of things such as the note on how to interpret "shall not impede" that explained what it meant far better than the "rule" which replaced it. Personally, I'd like to see more of that kind of thing reinstated -- fewer rules and more guidance. Amongst it might be a simple data table of the handling characteristics of typical ships and boats. My guess is that it might come as a revelation to professionals and amateurs alike!

That approach will not be universally 'workable' - e.g. it may work in open waters but not in restricted waters.

I'm not wedded to it: it was just an idea thrown into the pot, rather late at night! But I confess I don't see what's wrong with it, even in restricted waters.

I think jfm is (deliberately) overstating the "lousy drafting". There are some inconsistencies but, on the whole, as a body of 'law', Colregs works.

Indeed it does -- and better than most. But I am concerned that there are plenty of instances where the rules are less clear than they might be, particularly to a simple sailor who has to make important decisions in quick time, adverse conditions, and with minimal support. This seems to be particularly true of the more recent changes and additions. The Victorian rules generally work well: it's the late 20th century ones that are the problem!

 

[benjenbav]

For me the fundamental issue is that the colregs apply equally to things which are not merely qauntitatively, but qualitatively, different.

Indulge me a moment, here, given that the law now deems a bodyboard to be the same as an ULCC.

The highway code comparison is much used but, frankly, we are looking at the interface between a 44-tonne artic and a kid on roller skates. Which one keeps out of the way - and lives?

That is what we leisure boaters are: the equivalent of a kid on roller skates. We can stop and turn on a sixpence. Sure, the ULCC can turn and stop too but not in the same time or distance frame.

As Samuel L Jackson's character Jules observed in Pulp Fiction, when comparing and contrasting various activities of an intimate nature, they are not merely not in the same ballpark; they are not even the same sport.

So, I'd be all for an easing of R17 along the observer/jfm lines. But I would prefer a clear requirement on leisure boaters to keep out of the way of anything that's big, made of steel, looks like it's carrying a cargo and has a bunch of matelots earning a living out of it.

 

[timbartlett]

I would prefer a clear requirement on leisure boaters to keep out of the way of anything that's big, made of steel, looks like it's carrying a cargo and has a bunch of matelots earning a living out of it.

Now that we are not discussing the actual rules, but the fictitious rules-as-we-might-like-them-to-be, that's a perfectly valid opinion, very lucidly put. But I would love to have someone flesh out the detail of a "tonnage rule" or a "pro-am rule" (or a combined rule that includes both)

Is a 300m cruise liner -- on which 75% of those on board are there purely for pleasure -- fundamentally different from a 10m vessel on a yachtmaster course, with a professional instructor, and three students on a residential professional training course? Or a superyacht, 50m long, with ten paid crew pandering to the whims of eight guests?

What happens when a 24-metre motor yacht, whose (amateur) skipper has a yachtmaster commercial ticket meets an 8-metre commercial ferry whose licensed by the local authority to carry not more than 12 persons, whose skipper has a Boatman's licence valid for one particular river

Does a 30m steel ex trawler on charter to a diving club have to give way to a 6m RIB on charter to a police diving team on an "exercise"?

And how do we identify which category each one falls into at a distance of several miles?
And does speed matter? (How can a sailing dinghy, becalmed and with only a single paddle for propulsion, give way to a 40-knot catamaran ferry?)

Please -- give me something to support the argument and I promise I will use it. But I can't use it if no-one comes up with it!

 

[Observer]

I'm not wedded to it: it was just an idea thrown into the pot, rather late at night! But I confess I don't see what's wrong with it, even in restricted waters.

I'll think a bit more about the rest of your response but, on this particular point, the rules have to work to regulate small vessel to small vessel, ship to ship, ship to small vessel and all other encounters. Also, restricted waters may include harbours and estuaries and other situations where the time available for action is measured in seconds rather than minutes (for example the entrance to a harbour where there is traffic entering and leaving and crossing as well). A fixed distance threshold (say 2 or 3 miles) and/or time threshold (x minutes) may work in open waters but it won't work in dense traffic where an avoidance manoeuvre may be required a dozen times in the space of a few minutes.

 

[Observer]

So far as a largish ship is concerned, that is just about the worst moment they could choose, because the ship -- having got a consistent ARPA lock on the yacht at about 4-5 miles and taken a couple of minutes to check out the situation -- begins to alter course at a range of about three miles. Then, just after the rudder has been applied the yottie -- who did absolutely nothing about the developing situation for the past twenty minutes or more -- suddenly decides that if he doesn't do something right now, it is tantamount to suicide. So he jinks to port, just as the ship's bows start to swing to starboard.

Hmm. I don't think this illustration helps your case.

1. Do you mean "yottie" as in sailing vessel or pleasure craft generally? If the former, then, going by what the MAIB thinks happened to Ouzo, the yottie would be well advised not to assume he'd been seen.

2. If rule 7(d)(i) did not exist in the form it does, possibly the yottie would have changed course earlier. It is quite possibly the 'inelasticity' of the 'deemed collision risk' that discourages a yottie from making a sound judgment to get out of the way sooner rather than later.

(p.s. I don't think expressions like "jinking around" are accurate or helpful, although admittedly it's less extreme than "rabbits in headlights".)

 

[timbartlett]

Hmm. I don't think this illustration helps your case.

I wasn't aware that I was making a "case", other than one for clarification of Rule 17 in general, which is clearly open to at least two very different interpretations.

1. Do you mean "yottie" as in sailing vessel or pleasure craft generally?

A "yacht", in my book, is a craft built for pleasure, regardless of its motive power.

If the former, then, going by what the MAIB thinks happened to Ouzo, the yottie would be well advised not to assume he'd been seen.

Ouzo was quite a rare exception, in many ways. One could equally quote the Wahkuna incident, in which the ship saw the yacht on radar, and assumed her to be passing clear. It would have been a near miss (rather than a collision) if only the yacht hadn't decided to "give way" by stopping in the path of the oncoming container ship.

2. If rule 7(d)(i) did not exist in the form it does, possibly the yottie would have changed course earlier.

The problem is that case law has already set a precedent that allows the "stand on" vessel to disengage so long as she does it at more than six miles. But for several people in that earlier discussion, six miles is clearly too far, and I was left with the impression that the favourite range for stand-on yachts to alter course was 2-3 miles. In fact, I got the very strong impression that many of them felt that they should be allowed to alter course in order to disengage early at any stage up to and including the point at which they were allowed to alter course because the give way vessel had left it too late!

(p.s. I don't think expressions like "jinking around" are accurate or helpful, although admittedly it's less extreme than "rabbits in headlights".)

I'm sorry if you are offended by that expression. But rather than retreading an old thread that has already shed far more heat on the subject than light, could we go back to the more constructive discussion about how we might *like* the colregs to look?

 

[Observer]

Ouzo was quite a rare exception, in many ways. One could equally quote the Wahkuna incident, in which the ship saw the yacht on radar, and assumed her to be passing clear. It would have been a near miss (rather than a collision) if only the yacht hadn't decided to "give way" by stopping in the path of the oncoming container ship.

Ouzo: rare exception no doubt but who want to be the "exception that proves the rule"?

Wahkuna: you imply that stopping to give way was in some way an incorrect action under Colregs. I disagree. First it was foggy, so no stand on principle applied anyway; second, her action was completely appropriate in accordance with rules 8(e) and 19(e). It was just unfortunate that (a) she misread/mis-operated her radar, so stopped in the path of the ship; and (b) the ship accepted a smaller than advisable CPA (and also had incorrect radar setting IIRC). The action to stop would have been entirely correct and well-judged, in the circumstances, if the ship had actually been where Wahkuna thought she was.

The problem is that case law has already set a precedent that allows the "stand on" vessel to disengage so long as she does it at more than six miles. But for several people in that earlier discussion, six miles is clearly too far, and I was left with the impression that the favourite range for stand-on yachts to alter course was 2-3 miles. In fact, I got the very strong impression that many of them felt that they should be allowed to alter course in order to disengage early at any stage up to and including the point at which they were allowed to alter course because the give way vessel had left it too late!

This is the meat of the issue. You assert that the legal precedent binds future actions of all vessels. I disagree on the grounds that it is (clearly imo) possible to distinguish the situations we're discussing (in short, small vessel to ship interactions) from the decided case. Nevertheless, a modification of the rules, such as the one we've been discussing, would give the "but the law is the law" advocates something to hang their hat on in justifying what I consider to be the practical, common sense interpretation of a set of rules that was not designed or adapted to cope with small vessels. I may have to change my view when a small vessel skipper is prosecuted and convicted for not having a collision with a container ship; or when the reasonably judged, pre-emptive avoiding action taken by a small vessel actually causes a collision that wouldn't have happened in the absence of such action, but I don't think either of those is going to happen any time soon.

I'm sorry if you are offended by that expression. But rather than retreading an old thread that has already shed far more heat on the subject than light, could we go back to the more constructive discussion about how we might *like* the colregs to look?

Not offended. But, like you, I sometimes indulge my sense of mischief by having 'a little 'dig'.

 

[calamitys38]

Now that we are not discussing the actual rules, but the fictitious rules-as-we-might-like-them-to-be, that's a perfectly valid opinion, very lucidly put. But I would love to have someone flesh out the detail of a "tonnage rule" or a "pro-am rule" (or a combined rule that includes both)

Is a 300m cruise liner -- on which 75% of those on board are there purely for pleasure -- fundamentally different from a 10m vessel on a yachtmaster course, with a professional instructor, and three students on a residential professional training course? Or a superyacht, 50m long, with ten paid crew pandering to the whims of eight guests?

What happens when a 24-metre motor yacht, whose (amateur) skipper has a yachtmaster commercial ticket meets an 8-metre commercial ferry whose licensed by the local authority to carry not more than 12 persons, whose skipper has a Boatman's licence valid for one particular river

Does a 30m steel ex trawler on charter to a diving club have to give way to a 6m RIB on charter to a police diving team on an "exercise"?

And how do we identify which category each one falls into at a distance of several miles?
And does speed matter? (How can a sailing dinghy, becalmed and with only a single paddle for propulsion, give way to a 40-knot catamaran ferry?)

Please -- give me something to support the argument and I promise I will use it. But I can't use it if no-one comes up with it!

Tim

All due respect, but I think you are at the nub of the problem. I personally think that in the main (there are some exceptions to the actual wording of some rules I grant you), but the Rules as they stand are pretty comprehensive, all inclusive and flexible for all users to be able to adhere and obey them.

For Example: All collision avoidance actions should result in passing at a safe distance. Should we try and define exactly what this diistance is? On my motorboat, I would be pretty happy passing a few hundred yards off another vessel because of my speed and manouervrability. The OOW on the other vessel may not be happy with this (unless on a similar sort of craft) and we're back to an argument of "if it's a large commercial vessel, a safe distance is (say) 3 miles, if a mediium sized (say) 2 miles etc." Now you will addittionally have to define, "large, medium and small craft" - no can do, as the damned things keep changing (just look at the new generation of containerships as a case in point.

Another Example: All vessels should proceed at a Safe Speed. What's this speed then? Again, should it be defined as 6 knots in rivers, 10 knots in harbours and whatever you want in the open sea - unless the visibility is restricted - then it should be (say) 10 knots. So how restricted does the visibilty have to be to make this bit come into force (less than (say) a mile for large commercial vessels and less than (say) 200 yards for leisure boats and.......we're back to what is a large commercial vessel and when is a leisure boat a leisure boat as per your own example with cruise liners and chartered yachts.

The main problem as I see it, is trying to take one rule at a time and trying to re-write that one. All the rules interlock in one way and another and changing one means a change to another, which in turn, has another knock on effect on another linked Rule.

Sitting down with a blank piece of paper would I think, just bring up the same Rules (with a bit of changing of wording here and there) and perhaps written in a slightly different order. For example, it beats me why "Definitions" are in Rule 3, when Rules 1 and 2 have already waxed lyrical about vessels etc., and it is only by the time you get to Rule 3 that you actually learn what a vessel is.

I really think you may have set yourself an impossible task - although full marks for trying and raising the discussion.

 

[benjenbav]

Is a 300m cruise liner -- on which 75% of those on board are there purely for pleasure -- fundamentally different from a 10m vessel on a yachtmaster course, with a professional instructor, and three students on a residential professional training course? Or a superyacht, 50m long, with ten paid crew pandering to the whims of eight guests?

In these examples in my preferred world I'd keep out of the way of the 300m cruise liner; I would want the existing colregs to apply between me and the 10metre training vessel. The superyacht is a bit marginal for my liking!

What happens when a 24-metre motor yacht, whose (amateur) skipper has a yachtmaster commercial ticket meets an 8-metre commercial ferry whose licensed by the local authority to carry not more than 12 persons, whose skipper has a Boatman's licence valid for one particular river

Here, the colregs are likely to be displaced by local rules for the river, which generally seem to work.

Does a 30m steel ex trawler on charter to a diving club have to give way to a 6m RIB on charter to a police diving team on an "exercise"?

Well, fishing boats don't give way to anyone so far as I'm aware so I wouldn't expect an ex-trawler to do so.

The rules in my fictional leisure boater's world might perhaps be summed up thus:

If to starboard red appear,
'tis your duty to keep clear,
But if to port, a rusty hulk,
Save your vessel; yield to bulk.

 

[timbartlett]

I would want the existing colregs to apply between me and the 10metre training vessel.

But it's only a few posts ago that you wanted commercial to have right of way over recreational!

Here, the colregs are likely to be displaced by local rules for the river, which generally seem to work.

and which usually give priority to large craft following the main channel -- so in this case the amateur recreational has precedence over the commercial

Well, fishing boats don't give way to anyone so far as I'm aware so I wouldn't expect an ex-trawler to do so.

I'm not sure that this is either true or logical! I used to ride an ex-police motorcycle, but I never imagined that its past life gave me immunity from prosecution!

I'm sure there must be more merit in the tonnage rules or pro-am rules than I am seeing -- come on guys, help me out here!

 

[MapisM]

I'm sure there must be more merit in the tonnage rules or pro-am rules than I am seeing

Well, the main merit of these non existing rules is that they already work just fine in real world, in spite of (and against) the existing rule.
From the previous replies, I reckon that most if not all of us, when on a collision course with something real big that's supposed to give way, just steer to port regardless - and we're all still here to debate that...

 

[Observer]

I think Mapis probably does represent the view of a substantial majority. He, like most sensible, thinking yotties, takes responsibility for his own safety. A set of rules, unthinkingly applied, won't and can't keep you safe. Thinking about what you're doing and how you're doing it, guided by a code of behaviour, sensibly and responsibly interpreted (due regard), will.