Which colregs should we ignore?

  • Thread starter Thread starter timbartlett
  • Start date Start date

Which Colregs should small craft skippers be encouraged to ignore?

  • Rule2: the ordinary practice of seamen

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Rule 5: Lookout

    Votes: 11 10.3%

  • Rule 6: Safe speed

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Rule 8: Action to avoid collision

    Votes: 9 8.4%

  • Rules 9 and 10: Narrow channels and separation schemes

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Rules 12-16: the everyday steering and sailing rules

    Votes: 11 10.3%

  • Rule 17: Action by stand-on vessel

    Votes: 14 13.1%

  • Rule 18: the pecking order

    Votes: 16 15.0%

  • Part C -- lights and shapes

    Votes: 11 10.3%

  • None of the above: We should obey all of them

    Votes: 87 81.3%
  • Total voters
    107
T

timbartlett

Guest
There seems to be a body of opinion that the world would be a safer place if small craft ignored the colregs.
Pick as many as you like!
(PS forum technology only allows ten options, but there are 38 rules and four annexes, so it's not possible to list every rule individually)
 
Last edited:
Didn't realise there were regulations as to how ships were allowed to collide ??
 
Last edited:
Explanation re ColRegs

Sandyman said:
What are colregs ???
Click to expand...

Regs that have to be obeyed by every person afloat unless your "racing", in that case they don't apply, especially if you can shout "we're racing" just before the impact!!!
If a collision is just avoided then you need to shout "you F*%^&*ing idiot couldn't you see we were racing".

Peter.
 
Why not ignore all of the rules, because from some of the confusing and convolted threads that have been on here in the past. I suspect that a large number of people do not understand the rules in the first place.
 
There's a Peyton cartoon that was published ~1997

It has two pictures:

1st picture is of a gin palace with an enormous bowwave bearing down on a man in a smock helming a clinker laid gaffer. The bearded man in the smock is pointing to his tan sail and is shouting towards the gin palace "Sail"

The 2nd picture is the skipper of the mobo on the topmost deck with a bullhorn at his mouth tapping his bridge parapet shouting towards the slowly sailing gaffer, "STEEL !!!!'

IMO, Colregs are there for a single simple purpose.

Many of us here ride motorbikes. We all appreciate that regardless of the Highway Code that if somebody ahead of us makes a significant shift to the left and maintains it then that is a signal that we have been spotted and are cleared to overtake etc.

I think that the same applies to Colregs. If a stand-on sailboat sailing with AIS and a critical CPA makes a significant change to his course and maintains it then it is a signal to any other boat within eyeballing distance or beyond the visible horizon (or murk) with radar or with AIS that the situation may have changed.

If we all follow the same rules then assuming that we know them and have them at our fingertips then there should be no problems. How many 'Ouzo's have there been in say the last 10 years --- There was the yacht crossing the North Sea .... I can't offhand think of any more apart from the Bramble Bush chain ferry running down a racing boat - but that was a completely different set of circumstances.

I think that prior to dashing off one liners and damming Colregs outright, we ought to think about what is happening on the commercial vessels that are detecting and monitoring us - They (assumed) are professional seamen who will be assessing our radar reflection (assuming 1: that we have an effective radar reflector and 2: are not broadcasting AIS info) and are hoping that we will be complying with Colregs ..... It's when we make up the rules as we go along that causes commercial seamen to throw their arms in the air and curse bloody stoopid yotties!

IMO, It doesn't take much nouce to learn and apply Colregs .... Yes, AIS_over_the_horizon CPA's of 0.01nm are close encouters of the 4th kind!
 
mortehoe said:
Many of us here ride motorbikes. We all appreciate that regardless of the Highway Code that if somebody ahead of us makes a significant shift to the left and maintains it then that is a signal that we have been spotted and are cleared to overtake etc.
Click to expand...
I am one of those who does (a battered old Pan European). But if somebody ahead of me makes a significant shift to the left and maintains it then I tend to be wary of the possibility that it is a signal that his/her mobile phone has just gone off, and (s)he is rummaging through her handbag/his briefcase on the passenger seat in order to answer it!

But in all other respects, well said!
 
Now provided that you don't actually collide with anyone then you are free as a bird to ignore as many of the rules as you see fit.

Once the collision has taken place then you refer to the rules to see who was wrong. Which in every case will be both parties. Simples.
 
timbartlett said:
There seems to be a body of opinion that the world would be a safer place if small craft ignored the colregs.
Pick as many as you like!
(PS forum technology only allows ten options, but there are 38 rules and four annexes, so it's not possible to list every rule individually)
Click to expand...
I am surprised that such an experienced skipper should even ask such a question, or are you another makee learnee Tim Bartlett I do not know?
 
Woodlouse said:
Now provided that you don't actually collide with anyone then you are free as a bird to ignore as many of the rules as you see fit.

Once the collision has taken place then you refer to the rules to see who was wrong. Which in every case will be both parties. Simples.
Click to expand...

The more I think about this the truer it gets! Good post.

I also wonder how many people carry enough day shapes to go aground? I suspect few so the majority ignore at least one col reg.

I also love bikes. The idea of a sensible reaction to a hazard being to hold course and speed is a joke.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
I also love bikes. The idea of a sensible reaction to a hazard being to hold course and speed is a joke.
Click to expand...
I don't know where this suggestion came from. But if you are implying that the best way to stay out of trouble on a bike is to ignore the highway code, then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
And if you are suggesting that it would be sensible to stop on a roundabout to give way to a lorry that was waiting to enter the roundabout from your left, then I'm afraid I disagree about that one, too.
 
timbartlett said:
I don't know where this suggestion came from. But if you are implying that the best way to stay out of trouble on a bike is to ignore the highway code, then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the highway code has no equivalent of rule 17. Are you saying it does? If it doesn't are you saying it should?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top