Right of way question
- Thread starter gettinthere
- Start date
They are called the "Maritime Rules" or "Maritime Rules of the Road" or the "COLREGS" they are only called "Right of Way Rules" by authors who are under-educated on the topic. Yes this list would include organizations such as Boat US, who does a horrible job going against the intent of the IMO and USCG on the term "right of way".. The words privileged and burdened were physically changed/edited to stand-on and give-way because too many folks thought "privileged" meant you had a "right" and they wanted to avoid this incorrect assumption..
I suppose we could also argue that:
"Prolly" is also acceptable for "Probably"
“Supposably” is also acceptable for “Supposedly”
“Samwich” is also acceptable for “Sandwich”
“Aksed” is also acceptable for “Asked”
“Expecially” is also acceptable for “Especially”
“Mischievious” is also acceptable for “Mischievous”
"Expresso" is also acceptable for "Espresso"
I suppose to some this is a mute point....
It's really "moot point" but seeing as we are all into distorting meanings...
BTW I have NEVER once had a blank stare from anyone who's actually studied and understood the rules when I used the terms COLREGS or Maritime Rules. If you do get a blank stare on that, it is a prime indication the person you are talking to has not a clue in the world about safe navigation or the rules behind safe navigation........
I know everyone is getting tired of this but... Rule 12 just refers to stand on or give way vessel, which from the op seems to be A(2). Then it reverts to Rule 16(action by give way vessel). The stand on vessel is still obliged to take action if necessary, as per Rule 17(b). There is very little room for interpretations in the rules, pretty cut and dry.
Where is this Vernacular common? I ask because in both the COLREGS and the USCG Navigation Rules the term 'Right of Way' is not used.
I think we should change "Stand On" because those who have not read the rules may think it means they need only stand on deck. Give way is terribly mislesding. Give what away? Or, we could do our best to educate people on the actual meaning of the rules. I don't care if you call them Timbuktu so long as you know and follow them.
when does common sense come in to all of this......stand on = don't change....giveway = alter course..... nowhere in that is there someone's rights ...it's an obligation..... not a right....and if stand on fails to perform their obligation the giveway has to get extra busy...and vice versa
Two sailors enter a bar
#1: I saw you make a quick tack back there, why?
#2 : You had right of way, so I tacked.
#1: Did you say right of way?
#2: Yeah.
#1: Well, you were correct to tack but I will file a protest over your use of Right of Way.
Its the rules not what you call them.
#1: I saw you make a quick tack back there, why?
#2 : You had right of way, so I tacked.
#1: Did you say right of way?
#2: Yeah.
#1: Well, you were correct to tack but I will file a protest over your use of Right of Way.
Its the rules not what you call them.
From DHS website FAQ:
Where can I get a copy of the Navigation Rules?
The DHS is within the federal government and we know they are beyond reproach! Sorry, I could not resist. I apologize. Really.
Bayman is now really out!
Where can I get a copy of the Navigation Rules?
The DHS is within the federal government and we know they are beyond reproach!
Sorry, I could not resist. I apologize. Really.Bayman is now really out!
Ummm. If you click the link, it really goes against your use of ROW and backs up the Stand on/give way crowd.
"Who has the "right of way" on the water? The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in oneparticular 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 ..."
Bingo! A FAQ means frequently asked questions so some one unfamiliar with the rules asked about "right of way". The USCG response clearly explains why there is no "right of way"...
No it doesn't at all. Yes, the substance of the rule explains it. Even though DHS refers to it in the same way that they recognize many others do, as ROW. That is my point. The substance of the rule is important, not what we call the body of rules. You actually proved my point.
Is everyone done now? I made a living out of arguing and could go on forever. As I have said before, we have a difference of opinion but ONLY AS TO HOW IMPORTANT IS THE NAME OF THE RULES, not the rules themselves. There is nothing new being said by anyone on this thread.
Is everyone done now? I made a living out of arguing and could go on forever. As I have said before, we have a difference of opinion but ONLY AS TO HOW IMPORTANT IS THE NAME OF THE RULES, not the rules themselves. There is nothing new being said by anyone on this thread.
Being married to an attorney, I have found that the people that argue for a living become good at arguing, not necessarily convincing people of anything. They do however, develop a pronounced tendency to want to get in the last word, which is why they can go on forever.
I really fail to see how the use of a misleading term to describe a body of regulations can do anything but perpetuate an incorrect and potentially dangerous manner of thinking. Why use the term "right of way" when no one (except in the specific case noted above) actually has a right of way? Why not instead actively assert that the term should never be used, for fear of confusion or misinformation?
For the vast majority of the population, an automobile is the only vehicle for which someone has control. The ingrained mindset, muscle memories, information processing, and decision making for most vehicle operators is that of driving a car. So the problem is this: If you sit a first time credit card captain down at the rental desk before he/she takes out your brand new 2017 SuperSailer, and say "Let me talk to you about the Rules of the Road out there", the response will most likely NOT be "there are roads out there"? There is not much danger of the phrase being taken literally, and the renter therefore looking for floating pavement. But if you say "Let me talk to you about the Right of Way out there", that captain will likely automatically swing into the context of his/her driving. If they are concientious, the response might be "Ok, so there will be times I have the right of way and times that other folks do, I need to pay attention here in this briefing", but it's already too late, they are functioning within a context that does not exist. They've already been set up. Perhaps that damage can be undone by having the next words out of your mouth be "on the water, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY", but why take that chance? And why set yourself up for their response: "If no one has the right of way, then why do you call it the right of way rules?"
Air travelers are sometimes heard to say "the plane hit an air pocket". Well there is no such thing in the atmosphere. Yet the terminology persists, likely because we pilots (or physicists, or meteorologists) don't actively work to discourage its usage. Luckily, misuse of the term "air pocket" can't lead to property damage or loss of life.
I really fail to see how the use of a misleading term to describe a body of regulations can do anything but perpetuate an incorrect and potentially dangerous manner of thinking. Why use the term "right of way" when no one (except in the specific case noted above) actually has a right of way? Why not instead actively assert that the term should never be used, for fear of confusion or misinformation?
For the vast majority of the population, an automobile is the only vehicle for which someone has control. The ingrained mindset, muscle memories, information processing, and decision making for most vehicle operators is that of driving a car. So the problem is this: If you sit a first time credit card captain down at the rental desk before he/she takes out your brand new 2017 SuperSailer, and say "Let me talk to you about the Rules of the Road out there", the response will most likely NOT be "there are roads out there"? There is not much danger of the phrase being taken literally, and the renter therefore looking for floating pavement. But if you say "Let me talk to you about the Right of Way out there", that captain will likely automatically swing into the context of his/her driving. If they are concientious, the response might be "Ok, so there will be times I have the right of way and times that other folks do, I need to pay attention here in this briefing", but it's already too late, they are functioning within a context that does not exist. They've already been set up. Perhaps that damage can be undone by having the next words out of your mouth be "on the water, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY", but why take that chance? And why set yourself up for their response: "If no one has the right of way, then why do you call it the right of way rules?"
Air travelers are sometimes heard to say "the plane hit an air pocket". Well there is no such thing in the atmosphere. Yet the terminology persists, likely because we pilots (or physicists, or meteorologists) don't actively work to discourage its usage. Luckily, misuse of the term "air pocket" can't lead to property damage or loss of life.
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.
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.
I guess that depends on whether you believe that severity of consequences falls under form, or substance.
I'll refrain from any political comment about being happy to be aligned with the government's tendency to call one thing by many different confusing and conflicting names, but it doesn't add merit to your side of this discussion.
However, in the spirit of civility and friendship, it appears that we just agree to disagree. I'll now respectfully allow you the last word...
I'll refrain from any political comment about being happy to be aligned with the government's tendency to call one thing by many different confusing and conflicting names, but it doesn't add merit to your side of this discussion.
However, in the spirit of civility and friendship, it appears that we just agree to disagree. I'll now respectfully allow you the last word...
We can argue about the use of particular phrase correctly or not, but as sailors we (I think) agree that it make sense to call a halyard - halyard and a sheet a sheet. I know I am pushing this a bit to the extreme, but i hope this helps to make the point. One could argue that there is no harm done in calling a halyard - a "red rope on the mast" and a sheet a "blue rope on the side". Or even calling a line used for raising the sail a "sheet" and the one for controlling it a "halyard". Probably, especially, if you sail with the same crew (e.g. your spouse or your family), you could use any name for anything on the boat (and not only on the boat). However, over the years the sailors developed a language with specific meanings for specific things. Not to have fun or to baffle the uninitiated, but because it was critical to know what each line was used for, what each device or piece of gear was for etc. This was critical, because in an emergency there is no time to figure out the ambiguities of what one wants to tel the others.
This is why some of the authors on this forum are arguing and appealing to the rest of us to use the correct terms. If the wise and experienced sailors use the correct terms, the chances are than the new ones, the ones who just join the sport, will start using the correct terms, as well.
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
This is why some of the authors on this forum are arguing and appealing to the rest of us to use the correct terms. If the wise and experienced sailors use the correct terms, the chances are than the new ones, the ones who just join the sport, will start using the correct terms, as well.
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