Which colregs should we ignore?

[timbartlett]

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?

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post in which you wrote

I also love bikes. The idea of a sensible reaction to a hazard being to hold course and speed is a joke.

as being an allusion to Rule 17, but no, AFAIK the highway code doesn't have an equivalent to Rule 17, nor am I suggesting that it should it have. The Code is framed in quite a different way, to cope with situation in which (for instance) dotted lines at road junctions resolve the question of who gives way to who.

But there are many instances in which it would be wrong -- and potentially dangerous -- for the "Right of Way" vehicle to arbitrarily concede right of way to a vehicle that is supposed to give way. I mentioned one of them (the roundabout), but there are plenty of others.

BTW, it's also true that the highway code includes nothing that says small vehicles should always give way to large ones, or that private vehicles should always give way to commercial ones!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

But there are many instances in which it would be wrong -- and potentially dangerous -- for the "Right of Way" vehicle to arbitrarily concede right of way to a vehicle that is supposed to give way.

...and you're saying there are none where it would be right to give way in such circumstances?

BTW, it's also true that the highway code includes nothing that says small vehicles should always give way to large ones, or that private vehicles should always give way to commercial ones!

As far as I know, and you have conceded, there is nothing whatsoever in the highway code to stop me slowing if I am on the main carriageway and a lorry is ticking over at a giveway sign. It may not be 'apparent' that he hasn't seen me but I'm still allowed to slow down, stop or do whatever I like. I'm happy enough with that.

 

[timbartlett]

Stop press.

I just saw this:
http://www.timbartlett.co.uk/Colregs book.jpg

So as an expert (and I mean that sincerely) can you say exactly what the definition of 'apparent' is in Rule 17, and back it up with some evidence?

Thanks for the plug for the book!

The trouble is that it's not a simple question, nor a simple answer, and I can't offer any evidence, other than to refer you to expert opinion such as Cockroft and Lameijer (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Colli...2-2157250?ie=UTF8&qid=1255285503&sr=8-1-spell)

So far as a stand on vessel is concerned, a potential collision can be split into four phases:
No risk of collision = >6 miles apart (set by legal precedent)
Compulsory stand on = 6-2 miles (for ships in open water, according to Cockroft and Lameijer)
Option to give way = 2 miles to 12xownship lengths (according to Cockroft and Lameijer)
Compulsory avoid = <12 ownship lengths (according to Cockroft and Lameijer)

The most critical distance for Scuttlebut readers is probably the boundary between compulsory stand-on and optional give-way -- set by Cockroft and Lameijer at about 2 miles. In my book, I've said "For ship-on-ship encounters in open water, this is likely to be when the two vessels are two or three miles apart, but in confined waters, or for small or very manoeuvrable vessels, it may be considerably less. This is the point at which many ships’ watchkeepers reach for the whistle or the VHF, and start trying to contact the other vessel."

I've also said:-
"The very highly respected professional textbook “A Guide to the Collision Regulations” suggests that “in the open sea it is suggested that a stand-on vessel should not allow a give-way vessel to approach to a distance of less than about twelve times her own length in a crossing situation without taking avoiding action.”
This is not strictly logical, because the point at which action by the stand on vessel becomes compulsory depends on the manoeuvrability of the give way vessel, so it cannot possibly be linked to the length of the stand-on vessel. But it is a good indication of what is regarded as “best practice” amongst those who earn their livings at sea.

This is a bit convoluted, but I hope it answers the question!

 

[timbartlett]

...and you're saying there are none where it would be right to give way in such circumstances?

No. But there is no equivalent to Rule 17 in the Highway code.
The Highway code gives some vehicles rights ("right of way")
Rule 17 imposes an obligation ("the stand on vessel")

As far as I know, and you have conceded, there is nothing whatsoever in the highway code to stop me slowing if I am on the main carriageway and a lorry is ticking over at a giveway sign. It may not be 'apparent' that he hasn't seen me but I'm still allowed to slow down, stop or do whatever I like. I'm happy enough with that.

Yep, you are allowed to slow down, but why on earth would you do it? I can understand why, in some circumstances, you might be particularly wary, but in general rule, if I am in free-flowing traffic on a major road, I wouldn't dream of stopping to let vehicles out of every side-road that I pass. If I did, the one or two that I'd have given way to might be grateful, but the hundreds that would be stuck in the traffic jams behind me certainly wouldn't be -- least of all the guy immediately behind me who lost his licence because he was using his mobile phone when he rammed me up the back

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

SNIP

So all your angst is aimed at people tacking off at more then three miles, but less than six?

Get a life!

 

[timbartlett]

So all your angst is aimed at people tacking off at more then three miles, but less than six?
Get a life!

"All this angst" as you call it, was me spending a chunk of my Sunday evening trying to give you a proper answer to what I thought was a serious question.
It seems I was wasting my time.
Get some manners!

 

[bilbobaggins]

I haven't come across 'Cockroft and Lameijer' before. I intend to remedy that....

Here's my take on all this. I'm not 'risk averse' - no-one with any insight into some of the daft things I've been entangled with over the years will entertain that idea - but rather it's about 'risk management'.

When a ship comes 'hull up' over the horizon, I classify it as a hazard until it's 'hull down' again. It carries a potential risk of collision with me.

I assess that 'risk of collision'. I assess which of us has which responsibilities under whatever Rules apply. If there are uncertainties re responsibilities, I turn them into clear-cut certainties by referring to a guide to the ColRegs which I keep handy ( like Reeds Skippers Handbook ), for we all get tired sometimes, or by altering the relationship by speed and/or course.

Rule 17a,ii, really matters. It is not studied nearly enough. The same applies to Rule 17b.

I decide, in advance, where and when each of those 'decision points' will occur, what I will do when I get there - and act accordingly.

It's a process, not a panic.

 

[timbartlett]

I haven't come across 'Cockroft and Lameijer' before. I intend to remedy that....

It ain't cheap, (about £50) and it isn't light reading (200-odd pages) but it's probably the definitive colregs book. When researching my own book, I contacted the MCA for the official interpretation of a couple of points, and what came back were immediately recognisable as direct quotes from C&L!

It's a process, not a panic.

That's the advantage of having a standard pattern of behaviour to which most vesssels can be expected to conform.

 

[bilbobaggins]

Y'know, try as I might, I can't find all that much to disagree with in the Blessed Bartlett's utterings.

But that's not going to stop me trying.....

 

[Cornishman]

A col is just another word for a valley, so why would it need regulating?

It is also a "saddleback" region of low pressure situated between two areas of high pressure, and that would be hard to regulate as well.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

"All this angst" as you call it, was me spending a chunk of my Sunday evening trying to give you a proper answer to what I thought was a serious question.

So it took you time to look this stuff up? You didn't already know it?

So you have also been previously ignoring rule 17?

FWIW I do appreciate your answer and I did read it and spend some time considering it. I can't reconcile strict distances with the word "apparent" or 'risk of collision'. Is it really true that outside 6 miles there's no risk of collision? Is it really true that it's *never* apparent at three miles plus that a give way vessel isn't going to turn... I really don't think this is a clear and simple as you claim. If it isn't clear and simple I can't see how can have such a big problem with others who choose to apply common sense and avoid putting themselves in danger in the first place.

 

[Observer]

As far as I am concerned, there is no exact science to interpreting and applying Colregs and I am sceptical of any attempt to make it so. Colregs is littered with phrases such as "if the circumstances of the case admit" and "so far as possible", which permit, or require, a considerable degree of subjectivity in interpretation.

For me, Tim's prescriptive distances taken from Cockcroft and Lamejer may be a useful guide to expected behaviour as between 'peers' (two merchant vessels) but are almost totally irrelevant to (say) a 20kts + powerboat against a 'large' vessel and totally irrelevant again to a typical sailing boat against the same 'large' vessel.

Colregs is prescriptive (rules 7(a) and 7(d)(i)) about when a "risk of collision" should be deemed to exist, but I believe these rules must still be applied with a measure of common sense. In my opinion, the test to apply, as a stand on, highly manoeuvrable pleasure vessel, to whether and at what point to stand on under rule 17(a)(i) or to take action under rule 17(a)(ii) is simply this - (a) the earliest point at which I may, if I choose, take action to avoid a real risk of collision developing is (self-evidently) as soon as I perceive that the risk may materialise; (b) the latest point at which I must take action is the point at which I am sure that, by my manoeuvre alone, I can avoid collision. Between (a) and (b), I may choose to take action to at any time PROVIDED THAT I am reasonably sure that the action I take (i) will not materially inconvenience the other vessel; or (ii) cause it to be unsure of my intentions.

The same applies, in my opinion, between a vessel under sail and a 'large' vessel, with the qualification that point (b) will occur earlier in the development of the potential close quarters situation.

p.s. comparison with the Highway Code and actions expected of road vehicles are, I believe, unhelpful because there is simply no equivalence between driving on a road and navigating on the sea, except, perhaps, in the case of a narrow channel, but special rules apply there anyway.

 

[timbartlett]

So it took you time to look this stuff up? You didn't already know it?

I know what's in my own book, but I can't quote from it verbatim without looking it up. And although I have studied Cockroft and Lameijer, I haven't learned every word by heart. So yes, I had to look them up. And my typing speed isn't infinite, either.

So you have also been previously ignoring rule 17?

No

FWIW I do appreciate your answer and I did read it and spend some time considering it. I can't reconcile strict distances with the word "apparent" or 'risk of collision'. Is it really true that outside 6 miles there's no risk of collision?

No, I don't think it is true, and in my book I make the point that for large, fast moving vessels, 6 miles is uncomfortably close. But the judgement in the Banshee-Kildare case in 1887 said 6 miles, and set a legal precedent that has not yet been overturned.

Is it really true that it's *never* apparent at three miles plus that a give way vessel isn't going to turn...

Yes, I believe it is true. You (a generic "you", not "you" personally) might well start to feel a little apprehensive at three miles, but you cannot be certain until the range has closed to less than the distance at which you would normally expect a vessel of that type to alter course. In open water, and for ship-ship encounters, Cockroft and Lameijer suggests two miles -- which broadly tallies with my own experience in ships, and with several research papers published in the Journal of Navigation etc.

I really don't think this is a clear and simple as you claim. If it isn't clear and simple I can't see how can have such a big problem with others who choose to apply common sense and avoid putting themselves in danger in the first place.

I don't think I ever suggested that it is clear and simple. If I gave that impression, I am sorry. I have always been of the opinion that the interpretation of Rule 17 puts far more responsibility on the shoulders of the watchkeeper in the stand-on vessel than on the give-way vessel.
But I very much disagree that it is "common sense" or "avoid putting themselves in danger" to flout Rule 17, any more than it would be commonsense to ignore rules 5, or 6, or any of the others.
(1)It is very difficult, if not impossible, to be certain whether an approaching vessel has altered course or not when it is more than two or three miles away, particularly as it might have altered course by five or ten degrees while it was six miles away, without you even noticing!
(2)The great virtue of the colregs is that they give us a standard pattern of behaviour. We (recreational craft) already have a reputation for behaving unpredictably, so watchkeepers on approaching vessels don't know what we are likely to do. So they are discouraged from making early alterations of course or speed.
(3) From the ship's point of view, our unpredictable behaviour makes trying to avoid a recreational vessel a bit like trying to avoid a rabbit on the road. It would be easy if the damn things sat still, or always did the same thing. But when you don't know which way it's going to run, trying to avoid it becomes a lottery.

 

[timbartlett]

As far as I am concerned, there is no exact science to interpreting and applying Colregs

Exactly so.

I am sceptical of any attempt to make it so.

The trouble is that everyone -- at least initially -- wants some sort of guidance as to what does it mean by "early and substantial" etc.etc. That, I think is all that is going on here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that at 2.001 miles you must not alter course but that at 1.999 miles it is OK. How the hell would you measure it that accurately, anyway?

For me, Tim's prescriptive distances taken from Cockcroft and Lamejer may be a useful guide to expected behaviour as between 'peers' (two merchant vessels) but are almost totally irrelevant to (say) a 20kts + powerboat against a 'large' vessel and totally irrelevant again to a typical sailing boat against the same 'large' vessel.

I'd be inclined to agree, except that I would say that if a vessel is more manoeuvrable, that would tend to reduce the distance at which manoeuvres need to be carried out, rather than increasing them.

In my opinion...(a) the earliest point at which I may, if I choose, take action to avoid a real risk of collision developing is (self-evidently) as soon as I perceive that the risk may materialise;

I'm sorry, but although that may be your sincerely-held opinion (as it clearly is for many others) it is not what the rule says. The rule requires you to stand on until it becomes apparent that the other vessel is not giving way in accordance with the rules.

(b) the latest point at which I must take action is the point at which I am sure that, by my manoeuvre alone, I can avoid collision.

I presume this is a typo, because there is no "latest point" -- the time for compulsory action begins when collision cannot be prevented by action by the give way vessel alone, and (I presume, although it's not specified) that it continues until the two vessels have separated after the impact!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

SNIP

Someone said:

on a practical level small leisure vessels should keep out of the way of shipping at all times (ie sail and power), irrespective of the strict letter of the colregs, and most sensible ones do.

This drove you into a fit of hysteria to the point where you actually started a new thread mockng this view.

Now it transpires a) In practice you yourself behave *exactly* as this person suggests and keep well clear of shipping b) By your own admission you don't actually have a clear idea what rule 17 (the relevant rule here) means. Indeed without a definition of 'apparent' nobody does.

Common sense rules: pomposity is pricked and I rest my case.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at 2.001 miles you must not alter course but that at 1.999 miles it is OK. How the hell would you measure it that accurately, anyway?

You brought the idea of distance into it, nobody else. As far as I can tell the rule has nothing to do with distance - I think it all hangs on the defintion of "apparent".

 

[peterb]

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.

Only if that majority sail boats 12 metres long or more. Rule 30(f) says that vessels less than 12m long are not required to show signals when aground.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Only if that majority sail boats 12 metres long or more. Rule 30(f) says that vessels less than 12m long are not required to show signals when aground.

Yeah thanks for that, I had forgotten. Thanks also to Tim who offered the same correction.

 

[timbartlett]

You brought the idea of distance into it, nobody else. As far as I can tell the rule has nothing to do with distance - I think it all hangs on the defintion of "apparent".

If you do not understand the meaning of the word apparent, I can only suggest that you go and look it up in a dictionary. I'm afraid I can't be bothered to argue over it.

I didn't post the poll in a fit of hysteria, nor to mock anyone's point of view: I started it to find out whether the opinion was as widely held as it appeared to be. In transpires that it is not, that nearly 80% of scuttlebutters regard the colregs with respect, and that only a small but significant minority believe that RUle 17 should be ignored.

I cannot see where you get the idea that I flout Rule 17, nor that I don't know what it means.

I presume you are accusing me of pomposity, but I really don't see why. I have done my best to provide polite and accurate answers to your questions.

 

[saltwater_gypsy]

I would ADD one more.
Overtaking should preferably take place on the port side of the vessel being overtaken so that this vessel can turn to starboard if required to do so by a crossing "right of way" vessel.
This deals with a situation which I have been in several times when I have been "trapped" by a slowly overtaking vessel to starboard who clearly disagrees that a course alteration is required to avert a collision with a vessel crossing from starboard. Slowing down and passing behind the overtaker is the only safe option (I think)