Right of way question
- Thread starter gettinthere
- Start date
All of this discussion, and one only needs to refer to post #7
For semantics, even per the CA Motor Vehicle Code, in cases where you actually DO have the right of way, a driver is "negligent if they fail to use the degree of care expected to avoid accidents". -similar to COLREGS.
So using the term "right of way", while incorrect, does not empower a skipper to plow his boat into another out of arrogantly spiteful righteous indignation.
For semantics, even per the CA Motor Vehicle Code, in cases where you actually DO have the right of way, a driver is "negligent if they fail to use the degree of care expected to avoid accidents". -similar to COLREGS.
So using the term "right of way", while incorrect, does not empower a skipper to plow his boat into another out of arrogantly spiteful righteous indignation.
Believe it or not!
I read each and every post and their links (enough to get the link's gist).
I am the Captain of my boat and thus by title and action...
Responsible for the SAFETY of the PEOPLE aboard. Then the boat comes second!
I will STOP, HEAVE TO, VEER OFF COURSE, STAND DOWN, YIELD and any other term to...
AVOID A COLLISION!
Then I smile, wave (with all FIVE fingers), and mutter under by breath.
Captain Jim...
PS: One Memorial Day Weekend I had a great big smile as I watched the DMR and Sheriff patrols ( they had 6 patrol boats) pull over and ticket the violators by the dozen.
I read each and every post and their links (enough to get the link's gist).
I am the Captain of my boat and thus by title and action...
Responsible for the SAFETY of the PEOPLE aboard. Then the boat comes second!
I will STOP, HEAVE TO, VEER OFF COURSE, STAND DOWN, YIELD and any other term to...
AVOID A COLLISION!
Then I smile, wave (with all FIVE fingers
), and mutter under by breath.Captain Jim...
PS: One Memorial Day Weekend I had a great big smile as I watched the DMR and Sheriff patrols ( they had 6 patrol boats) pull over and ticket the violators by the dozen.
This is a misinterpretation of the rule. The 'privileged,' or stand-on vessel is not granted the privilege to proceed first, nor granted any other privilege. Instead, by rule, it is obligated to stand-on its course. This is specifically so that the give-way vessel can accurately predict what the stand-on vessel will do and can thereby make adjustment to avoid collision. The stand-on vessel has no privilege to adjust course until the intentions of the give-way vessel are made clear. If it is clear that the give-way vessel will not or cannot give way, or has made a course change that will not avoid a collision, then the stand-on vessel has the responsibility to make a course correction. And that is why we use these specific terms, to connote a specific set of rules that are meant to be understood and followed by all, with little room for misinterpretation.
Last edited:
If you are the captain of the stand-on vessel and you disregard your responsibility of holding your course, you might veer into the course that the give-way vessel is adjusting to. That is why the rule specifically puts the responsibility of the stand-on vehicle to stay on its course, and not make unpredictable adjustments.
Shall we now resume the discussion of whether or not states should have mandatory boater safety education?
I'd have to agree with BayMan that the term "Stand On" is at least equally as nebulous as "right of way". If taken outside the context of the rest of the COLREGS (just as the argument is made against the term "right of way") "Stand On" can just as easily imply that your responsibility is to maintain consistent course right up to the point of collision. In fact, many of the skippers in this forum have clearly stated that they believe that "stand on" is a responsibility to convey to the other closing skipper that your intentions are clear and you are not going to just wander around (see the comment above?). Well, when do you give up on your clear intention and just get the hell out of the way for the sake of collision avoidance? The concept is no different than thinking about your position as a "right of way".
I'm guessing that the only purpose for separating the term "right of way" from "stand on" is to provide cover for any large commercial vessel that runs over a smaller recreational vessel where draft is constrained. The authorities can then clearly say the commercial vessel had "right of way" and doesn't have any responsibility for the damage to your boat (or the loss of your wife and children). In the case of 2 sailboats colliding, the authorities can say, well, that guy was "stand on" and this guy was "give way" but you 2 dufusses are supposed to avoid each other no matter what so you both are idiots and you both are at fault. So in the end, "stand on" and "give way" are essentially meaningless because the courts have more important things to do than get in the middle of ridiculous disputes over "right of way" between yachties on the water, whether they be rag wavers or stink pots.
I've read all the comments and I'm beginning to think that the argument is just a "tempest in a teapot". I think it is absurd to believe that changing the term is going to change the behavior of weekend warriors and other yachties on the water.
I'm guessing that the only purpose for separating the term "right of way" from "stand on" is to provide cover for any large commercial vessel that runs over a smaller recreational vessel where draft is constrained. The authorities can then clearly say the commercial vessel had "right of way" and doesn't have any responsibility for the damage to your boat (or the loss of your wife and children
). In the case of 2 sailboats colliding, the authorities can say, well, that guy was "stand on" and this guy was "give way" but you 2 dufusses are supposed to avoid each other no matter what so you both are idiots and you both are at fault. So in the end, "stand on" and "give way" are essentially meaningless because the courts have more important things to do than get in the middle of ridiculous disputes over "right of way" between yachties on the water, whether they be rag wavers or stink pots.I've read all the comments and I'm beginning to think that the argument is just a "tempest in a teapot". I think it is absurd to believe that changing the term is going to change the behavior of weekend warriors and other yachties on the water.
This is what I mean about pedantia.
Does anyone REALLY believe having "right of way" entitles them to do anything? Or do they understand (like I do) that having the "right of way" means the SAME thing as "stand-on". Just because the word "right" is used doesn't mean you have Universal Right to do whatever you like - I look at it as I have a "right" to my "way" and my "way" is MY CURRENT COURSE AND SPEED. Not ANY "way". And I think just about everyone understands that. So... I don't see a problem using "right of way".
I mean, if you really want to get LITERAL: "stand-on" means... well, to stand on the deck. I don't know what that has to do with avoiding a collision - maybe you can see better if you're standing?
Interesting that the same people who go off their nut when someone uses "right of way" instead of "stand-on" are ok with using the term "Pacific Northwest" when referring to BC's West Coast. Equally incorrect, but "everyone knows what I mean..."
druid
Does anyone REALLY believe having "right of way" entitles them to do anything? Or do they understand (like I do) that having the "right of way" means the SAME thing as "stand-on". Just because the word "right" is used doesn't mean you have Universal Right to do whatever you like - I look at it as I have a "right" to my "way" and my "way" is MY CURRENT COURSE AND SPEED. Not ANY "way". And I think just about everyone understands that. So... I don't see a problem using "right of way".
I mean, if you really want to get LITERAL: "stand-on" means... well, to stand on the deck. I don't know what that has to do with avoiding a collision - maybe you can see better if you're standing?
Interesting that the same people who go off their nut when someone uses "right of way" instead of "stand-on" are ok with using the term "Pacific Northwest" when referring to BC's West Coast. Equally incorrect, but "everyone knows what I mean..."
druid
I am probably going to regret jumping back in but ..
Yes and Yes to Scott and Druid. Anyone confused by Right of Way will be equally confused by Stand On and the confusion is being caused solely by the failure to read the rest of the rules. So rather than have many, many people (not to mention respected sailing organizations and even the USCG - and a lot of posters here who have freely used ROW but now all of a sudden have changed) who know the rules change common expressions, why don't we insist that those who haven't read the rules, READ THE RULES.
Yes and Yes to Scott and Druid. Anyone confused by Right of Way will be equally confused by Stand On and the confusion is being caused solely by the failure to read the rest of the rules. So rather than have many, many people (not to mention respected sailing organizations and even the USCG - and a lot of posters here who have freely used ROW but now all of a sudden have changed) who know the rules change common expressions, why don't we insist that those who haven't read the rules, READ THE RULES.
I think my point is that the actual RULES (ie if you're on port tack and on a collision course with someone on a stbd tack, get out of their way!) are FAR more important than whether you call it "right of way" or "stand-on".
So.... if a Casual Person, or someone new to boating, asks the question: "Who has right of way?" and you answer "the downwind boat", he understands (more or less - enough to keep him out of a collision). But if you go on and on about there being NO "right of way" and that downwind vessel is "stand-on" he's going to:
1. Think "OMG - I have to learn a whole new set of jargon that pertains ONLY to boating to be safe on the water!", and
2. never ask a question about "right of way" again.
Both are very unfortunate, and tend to keep him from learning the "Rules of the Road" for boating.
druid
So.... if a Casual Person, or someone new to boating, asks the question: "Who has right of way?" and you answer "the downwind boat", he understands (more or less - enough to keep him out of a collision). But if you go on and on about there being NO "right of way" and that downwind vessel is "stand-on" he's going to:
1. Think "OMG - I have to learn a whole new set of jargon that pertains ONLY to boating to be safe on the water!", and
2. never ask a question about "right of way" again.
Both are very unfortunate, and tend to keep him from learning the "Rules of the Road" for boating.
druid
Last edited:
That's the point, Druid. When someone asks and you say the downwind boat has right of way, (if they are a newbie) you then go on and explain what stand on means and what last chance to avoid a collision means and requires. I don't think any of us just says, don't worry you have ROW you can just ignore the other boat. So, again, ROW may start the discussion but it ends with either a discussion of the actual rules or the person continues on and reads the actual rules. I am not embarrassed to have that conversation.
In case any of you missed it, I'd like to stand on my earlier statement.
I don't mean that right is right, what I mean is that right is right.
Got it?
I'm so amped up over this, thanks guys.
I don't mean that right is right, what I mean is that right is right.
Got it?
I'm so amped up over this, thanks guys.
I never assume the other sailor or boater knows anything. I have been chased in circles, crossed, cut off by boaters in pontoon boats and sailors of 40 ft sailboats who had no knowlege of the regs. I try not to let it bother me. If I have the chance, I will inform the other boater of the Rules of Navigation and how other boaters may be expecting him / her to maneuver.. when we are safely on the dock. I don't blow horns at people who have no intention of following or knowledge of rules. I think, "that could be me having a confused, bad moment." I have had many. We have not boated long if we haven't been challenged.