Right of way question

[Gunni]

Realtime account from the busy boat -crowded Ches Bay : Years ago my little brother was crewing a sailboat with a more experienced captain. In a crossing approach with another sailboat on port tack, brother on starboard tack, the give-way boat did not adjust course to avoid a projected collision. Captain called for a steady course as the CPA closed. My brother noted that the crew was not on deck. As the captain blew a signal my brother sailed their boat into a collision. A large hole was driven into the boat at the hull-deck joint by the give-way sailboat. Their sailing week was over. Upon arrival back at port statements were taken by the authorities. The determination was made that there was equal liability between the parties to the collision. The give-way vessel was in violation of Navigation Rule 5 and 16; and the stand-on vessel was in violation of Navigation Rule 17b. Captain of my brothers boat idenfied a imminent collision and when all actions to alert and secure safe crossing did not take action to avoid a collision. He was the last party to the incident who could have avoided the collision. This example is offered to illustrate that avoiding collision is the point of the Rules, not establishing right of way liability for the purpose of litigation. Repair costs to my brother's boat were equally divided with the owner of the give-way vessel. The captain requested that his insurer contest the opposing insurer, an attorney for his insurer sent him a negative with the admonistion that he better acquaint himself with the Navigation Rules.

 

[Captn Scotty]

That is a prime example Gunni, thankyou!

 

[BayMan]

Thanks Guni, but It is an example of a capt that "stood on" when he had the last chance to avoid a collision. That capt obviously read the stand on rule but not all of the rules. That is THE problem. I see no reason to believe he stood on and collided because someone told him their was a set of rules discusing rights of way or rules of the road.

 

[jwing]

...If the electrical experts on this forum use Ampere-hours (amp-hours, Ah)) to describe battery capacity, instead of amps (A, unit if current, not energy), the uninitiated would use it, as well (one of my pet-peeves). The difference between Ah and the Colregs is that there is not much harm done, if you use the incorrect term for describing the battery capacity.
mdz

The misuse of battery capacity units is an excellent illustration of improper terminology leading to misunderstanding of what one is talking about, and a suitable analogy in this discussion. And one of my pet-peeves, too.

 

[Maine Sail]

At the risk of proving your point about the last word...
The USCG refers to COLREGS alternatively as COLREGS, Navigation Rules, Rules of the Road and Right of Way Rules. I am happy to be aligned with them. The counter argument puts form over substance.

Other than the repeating of a FAQ request (a question that was sent into the USCG by someone), I'd love to see a case other than (Inland Rule 9) where the USCG refers to the rules as "Right of way Rules"..

It is common to repeat the "question" when answering the question, as the USCG has done in their FAQ..

Boater Question: "Who has the "right of way" on the water?"

USCG Answer: "The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)). Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10). The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances; no Rule exonerates any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2). Neglect, among other things, could be not maintaining a proper look-out (Rule 5), use of improper speed (Rule 6), not taking the appropriate actions to determine and avoid collision (Rule 7 & 8) or completely ignoring your responsibilities under the Rules."


"The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities"

Using the term "rights" or "right of way" insinuates "privileges" the exact thing the USCG is trying to avoid. It is a dangerous slope for beginners to hear repeated over and over especially by folks who should know better.

 

[Kings Gambit]

This is from a document I have from the USNI (US Naval Institute):

"First, back in the day, vessels were designated as "privileged" and "burdened." The privileged boat would hold her course and speed and the burdened boat would take "early and substantial" action to avoid the collision. What the Coast Guard noticed through court cases though was that skippers involved in collisions would claim that they had "the right of way" or that they had "privileges." This implied something that doesn’t exist in The Rules – that you have no affirmative obligation to avoid a collision at sea, no matter how much "in the right" you are. So, The Rules were changed to remove this unintended subtlety. Just about every reference to the term "right of way" was removed from The Rules and the terms "privileged" and "burdened" were changed to "stand-on" and "give-way," respectively."

I think privileged-burdened are the best terms and too bad they are no longer used. In a crossing situation one vessel, by convention or by rule, assumes the privilege of proceeding first whereas the other is burdened "to keep clear" of that privileged vessel. Of course, now-a-days it appears that the distinction between a right and a privilege is all but lost in everyday thinking. A privilege can be "rescinded" or "suspended" at any moment (as in imminent collision, etc.), but a "right" is something that one takes to the grave, or to "The Locker." Stand-on" versus "give-way" sounds more like "right" to proceed versus a requirement to yield; MORE like automobile driving than the concept of privileged versus burdened.

 

[Stu Jackson]

It is a dangerous slope for beginners to hear repeated over and over especially by folks who should know better.

And who actually DO know better and continue to argue about semantics.

Calling a spade a shovel is always the wrong approach.

 

[Maine Sail]

The misuse of battery capacity units is an excellent illustration of improper terminology leading to misunderstanding of what one is talking about, and a suitable analogy in this discussion. And one of my pet-peeves, too.

I've nearly given up on that fight. "I use 100 amps per day." Course mixing up Amps for ampere hours is not going to cause an accident but I know far to many newbs who have assumed stand-on is a "right"... RPM's is another one....

 

[Maine Sail]

I think privileged-burdened are the best terms and too bad they are no longer used. In a crossing situation one vessel, by convention or by rule, assumes the privilege of proceeding first whereas the other is burdened "to keep clear" of that privileged vessel. Of course, now-a-days it appears that the distinction between a right and a privilege is all but lost in everyday thinking. Stand-on versus give-way sounds more like "right" to proceed versus required to yield; MORE like automobile driving than privileged versus burdened.

The IMO and the authoring board of the COLREGS determined that the word "privileged" led to too many people assuming it meant "rights" thus it was changed. Apparently it did not work..........

 

[Kings Gambit]

The IMO and the authoring board of the COLREGS determined that the word "privileged" led to too many people assuming it meant "rights" thus it was changed. Apparently it did not work..........

I understand--but as I now say in my edited #125, a privilege is something that can be "rescinded" or "suspended" based on circumstances, a "right", however, is something that cannot be taken away or rescinded. Threat of imminent collision is enough for an immediate suspension or rescinding of the privilege to proceed first and the subsequent undertaking of collision avoidance. So, the responsibility to avoid collision is reflected in the use of the word, or term, privileged; whereas, it is not so reflected in the terms "right" or "stand on."

 

[BayMan]

Well the capt in Gunni's example knew he was the stand on boat (so he didnt stop at a misleading title) but thought being the stand on boat meant he could stand on no matter what. Your God given inalienable right to keep on example. Does that mean "stand on" is misleading and should be changed? Or does it mean people should read all the rules before exercising any?

BTW, the USCG administers these rules and repeatedly calls them the Rules of the Road. They are comfortable with names/descriptions other than COLREGS. I have yet to sail on a road and if I am as misled as you think could stop reading after that title because the rules about roads don't apply to a boat. That is what you suggest with Right of Way Rules and I simply don't buy it. Again, finding myself un agreement with the USCG is enough for me.

 

[BayMan]

And who actually DO know better and continue to argue about semantics..

Yes, let's get past semantics and focus on the substance of the rules.

 

[zeehag]

when in doubt, come about.

 

[Gunni]

I see no reason to believe he stood on and collided because someone told him their was a set of rules discusing rights of way or rules of the road.

I don't know where he (captain) came up with the notion that he had "right of way", probably from any one of the same shoddy sources you cite as supporting the relevance of the terms, but that is exactly what he was claiming during the approach instructions to the helm, and latter in his statements to investigators. And in his ignorant fixation on preserving his "rights", he violated Navigation Rules, endangered his crew, and incurred liability.

So I had the same no-nonsense conversation with my brother we are having here illustrated by his hard experience with the consequences of ignorance. He wanted to argue about it too.

 

[woodster]

Calling a spade a shovel is always the wrong approach.

shovel is what you use after you are done with the muckrake

 

[sailnewbie]

Maybe this helps

 

[Gunni]

Well the capt in Gunni's example knew he was the stand on boat (so he didnt stop at a misleading title)

Objection! Facts not in evidence!

 

[BayMan]

I don't know where he (captain) came up with the notion that he had "right of way", probably from any one of the same shoddy sources you cite as supporting the relevance of the terms, but that is exactly what he was claiming during the approach instructions to the helm, and latter in his statements to investigators. And in his ignorant fixation on preserving his "rights", he violated Navigation Rules, endangered his crew, and incurred liability.

So I had the same no-nonsense conversation with my brother we are having here illustrated by his hard experience with the consequences of ignorance. He wanted to argue about it too.

He could not have invented the concept of Stand On for the starboard tack boat - could he? Pretty smart if he did. No , he read the stand on rule but failed to read other rules.

For all of you who believe Right of Way should never be uttered in connection with the COLREGS, didn't we already all agree that the COLREGS provide for right of way in one situation? (see above) But because it does not provide that right of way in all situations, you want to ban what is clearly a widely used descriptor/title for rules that actually must be read?

 

[BayMan]

I think its time we let this thread die and we all go re-read our copy of the rules. Maybe each get one more sailor to read his copy too.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Except in a couple of specialized examples defined in COLREGS, there are NO RIGHTS OF WAY on the water by the conventional understanding of the word "RIGHT", as in legal rights. There are only provisional "rights" or "privileges" to aid initially in situations when two vessels meet as to which has the expectation to cross first, or ahead, and which has the expectation to keep clear. That's it. If it does not go that way, then BOTH VESSELS are burdened and must keep clear of each other. So, I agree, there is nothing to be gained in edification with continued defense of the use of misleading and inaccurate terms, irrespective of who has authored them.