rearview mirror...

[Herschel]

Love this topic. Yes, I still have my rearview mirrors. They are the same ones I use on my bicycles, so they work for me both on the road and on the water. I have one on each side of the boat attached to the Bimini supports. They do crowd the cover for the Bimini when folded up and securing the Bimini, but it works.

[Be Free]

I don’t know Canadian maritime law, but in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels.

Good point. Things are never so simple.

Boating in Toronto Harbour
"Beyond the usual rules of giving the right-of-way to sailboats, special preference should be given to commercial ships coming in and out of the port, as they aren’t afforded the same level of agility as a smaller pleasure craft. Float planes should also be given the right-of-way as they are committed to a specific flight path which they cannot deviate from. This also goes for the ferry travelling to and from Billy Bishop airport. Causing the ferry to change its course will not bode well for your enjoyment of the day."
https://www.autotrader.ca/editorial/202 ... o-harbour/

A lotta "should"s in there...


Also, I thought they had deprecated the term "right-of-way". To make it clear that no vessel has a "right" to right-of-way.

I always remember rule zero: "Thou shalt not collide with another vessel, nor through inaction, allow a collision to occur."
Both vessels must do everything in their power to avoid a collision.

Dave,
While there is some truth to be found in the source you quoted the author tends to be overly broad in his statements. It appears to be aimed at helping a power boater to understand his responsibilities in a very broad sense but it is by no means a comprehensive commentary on the interlocking and sometimes changing relationships of vessels under way. I have no knowledge of the local regulations that may or may not govern interactions with the ferry for the Billy Bishop Airport.

You are correct that there are a lot of "shoulds" in a very short article. The actual rules (both international and US specific) that govern the interactions of vessels in order to prevent collisions contains the word "should" only 6 times. None of them address any significant subject. On the other hand it has 605 "shalls" and 21 "musts". That is more words than are contained in the entire editorial.

You are also correct that the term "right of way" has been deprecated. It is currently used twice in reference to traffic on the Great Lakes and Western Rivers of the US. It is used once to explain that lights designating vessels engaged in public safety activities (read: water cops) nor the exigency of their mission give them any precedence or right of way.

Your "rule zero" is a creative parody of Asimov's Rules of Robotics and does a pretty good job of summarizing the desired results. It does not introduce anything wrong but "the devil is in the details". Think about applying "rule zero" to driving a motor vehicle. Everything it tells you to do is correct but it tells you nothing about how to accomplish it.

I think another good rule of thumb would be not to put too much faith in the ability of a short editorial in the Autotrader to train anyone in safe boating. I recommend all US boaters become familiar with https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/defau ... vrules.pdf. I do not know what the authoritative sites in other countries are but I recommend members in other countries find and document them. Beware of summaries or compilations on non-authoritative sites. Those I have seen I've found to be of dubious accuracy and often demonstrably incorrect. That includes sites that purport to provide boater education and official "boater's handbooks" produced by government agencies.

In my opinion: any site that advocates any variation of "rule of tonnage", "just use your common sense", or any doggerel mentioning the final resting place of someone whose name rhymes with "right of way" should be "taken with a large pinch of salt".

[NiceAft]

Dave,

I don’t know Canadian maritime law, but in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels.

For those who have never tried to have a leisurely cruise on a busy large city harbor, it can be quite an experience. Up close those large tankers are intimidating. They are upon you quickly.

Can you please cite your source for the statement that "in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels"?

Give me a moment.

It has been close to twenty years since I took the Coast Guard Auxiliary Sailing and Safety Course.

[NiceAft]

Dave,

I don’t know Canadian maritime law, but in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels.

For those who have never tried to have a leisurely cruise on a busy large city harbor, it can be quite an experience. Up close those large tankers are intimidating. They are upon you quickly.

Can you please cite your source for the statement that "in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels"?

Be Free,

Not avoiding responding to your request.

As I said, I took the Coast Guard Auxillary Sailing and Safety course twenty years ago. I forgot that it is the “Sailing and Seamanship” course. Anyway, I was taught what I said about sailboats being the stand on vessels.

Since I have not been able to dig out the lesson pages, I decide to call the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard auxiliary. I have not been able to get return calls to a variety of messages. I tried e-mailing, and still no replies. Today I drove down to the Coast Guard Office in Philadelphia. I arrived at 2:30 on a Friday, and was told the offices were empty; everyone left for the weekend. They took my number and said I would receive a call.

I am trying, and I am not giving up.

Before I left, my wife said to call first. I responded, “This is the Coast guard, they don’t close!” Yeh, right.

[Be Free]

Ray,
I know how frustrating it can be getting an answer out of any type of bureaucracy and adding a military component to it can sometimes make it even harder.

When you do get someone to answer please ask that they can cite an authoritative source as well. They should be able to cite rule, regulation, or statute to back up their answer.

I have the greatest respect for the CG and the Auxiliary, but I have heard (second hand) of more than one instructor teaching the very lessons I mentioned above: the "rule of tonnage", "just use your common sense", or doggerel mentioning the final resting place of someone whose name rhymes with "right of way". Less-than-accurate ideas often slip into less-formal teaching environments.

I've tried hard to think of one, but I am not aware of any part of COLREGS that requires any consideration of the commercial or recreational status of a vessel when determining the stand-on status of either vessel.

I have heard that in some localities there may be local ordinances covering interactions with (for example) high speed ferries but those regulations are extremely limited geographically and are very much the exception rather than the rule.

Perhaps there is (or was) something like that in the area where you took your course. If that were the case then it would be an important fact to convey to your class since it would be an uncommon, local exception that could affect the students.

Bill

[NiceAft]

Be Free posted:

When you do get someone to answer please ask that they can cite an authoritative source as well. They should be able to cite rule, regulation, or statute to back up their answer.

This is the goal.

I once had a situation on the Delaware River when a large freighter came upon me silently and quickly. I wasn’t aware until a very loud fog horn blew astern. I started the motor and moved out of its way quickly. I now have AIS.

[DaveC426913]

Think about applying "rule zero" to driving a motor vehicle. Everything it tells you to do is correct but it tells you nothing about how to accomplish it.

• Sure it does. The entire rule books of both motoring and boating are expressly a summary of how to accomplish the task of not crashing into other vehicles. It's their one job.
• The point of rule zero is that it is overarching. All other procedures are secondary to avoiding a collision, and that too is direction for solutions. To-wit: do anything necessary - that implicitly includes breaking other minor rules. (For example, if, say, veering into a restricted area is the only way to avoid a collision, you are obliged to do so.) That's direction to a solution.
• The other function of rule zero is to ensure you cannot use "I had right-of-way" as a defense. If a collision occurs, and your defense is "I had right-of-way", you are still at-fault. You are obliged to take any action necessary to avoid collision.

[Be Free]

Think about applying "rule zero" to driving a motor vehicle. Everything it tells you to do is correct but it tells you nothing about how to accomplish it.

• Sure it does. The entire rule books of both motoring and boating are expressly a summary of how to accomplish the task of not crashing into other vehicles. It's their one job.
• The point of rule zero is that it is overarching. All other procedures are secondary to avoiding a collision, and that too is direction for solutions. To-wit: do anything necessary - that implicitly includes breaking other minor rules. (For example, if, say, veering into a restricted area is the only way to avoid a collision, you are obliged to do so.) That's direction to a solution.
• The other function of rule zero is to ensure you cannot use "I had right-of-way" as a defense. If a collision occurs, and your defense is "I had right-of-way", you are still at-fault. You are obliged to take any action necessary to avoid collision.

Dave,
I think we are talking past one another here. I don't disagree that "rule zero" summarizes the intent and heart of both the motor vehicle and marine regulations regarding avoiding collisions. My contentions is that the statement, "Thou shalt not collide with another vessel, nor through inaction, allow a collision to occur" is not enough. It only provides the goal; it gives no instructions as to how the goal is to be achieved.

As you pointed out, it summarizes entire rule books of both motoring and boating regulations but surely you don't suggest that it is sufficient to replace them. While I would agree that some concepts are almost self-evident, like "don't steer directly into other vessels or objects" there is nothing intuitive (for instance) about what direction you should turn when you find yourself head-on to another vessel. We've all found ourselves in an impromptu "dance" on the sidewalk when meeting someone who does not follow local conventions. What is often a comic performance between pedestrians can be catastrophic when dealing with multi-ton vessels. If something like "rule zero" were sufficient then COLREGS and local motor vehicle regulations would not be needed.

Think about four-way stops. I will stipulate that it is obvious vehicles should not hit one another (rule zero) but is it obvious how that is to be accomplished? Should the the biggest vehicle go first (rule of tonnage) or maybe commercial vehicles go before private vehicles. What if everyone just tries to communicate with hand signals until they come to a consensus as to who should go? Maybe there could be a previously agreed upon procedure that vehicles should enter the intersection in the order they arrived and in the special case of two vehicles arriving at the same time the one on the right side should go first?

Jumping ahead to your last point, we are 100% in agreement. In the marine setting there is no concept of "right of way" and there is no defense based on it. COLREGS Rule 2 and Rule 17 effectively cover "Rule Zero".

I do have to take issue with your second point though. The various sections of COLREGS are not secondary to avoiding collision; their only purpose is to avoid collisions. What is usually referred to as COLREGS is the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (emphasis mine) became effective on July 15, 1977. The Rules (commonly called 72 COLREGS) are part of the Convention, and vessels flying the flags of states ratifying the treaty are bound to the Rules.

Ideally, everyone knows the rules and follows them. If only one vessel does so then collisions can still usually be avoided but its a lot easier if everyone is playing by the same rules and acting in a predictable manner. When there are no other rules even if everyone is attempting to implement "Rule Zero", if "every man does what is right in his own eyes" meeting that goal is going to be a lot harder.

Rule Zero always applies, but without other rules in place it may literally be a hit-or-miss proposition to accomplish it.

[DaveC426913]

I think we are talking past one another here. I don't disagree that "rule zero" summarizes the intent and heart of both the motor vehicle and marine regulations regarding avoiding collisions. My contentions is that the statement, "Thou shalt not collide with another vessel, nor through inaction, allow a collision to occur" is not enough. It only provides the goal; it gives no instructions as to how the goal is to be achieved.

OK, here is Rule zero, spelled out (in my interpretation):

No set of rules - no rulebook, no matter how thick - can keep you safe in all circumstances. Your primary responsibility is to use your brain to cope with situational factors that no rulebook can foresee. It is not up to a book to tell you how to avoid collision at all costs when things are changing rapidly; it is up to you as an intelligent, licensed, responsible person to decide which are the best actions to take (or ignore) for the best outcome.

And anyone who can't or won't take ultimate responsibility for their actions - who says "I was following the rules!" as their defense - has no business operating a vehicle.

The "how" you ask for is "You must use your brain intelligently to sort good-time-to-follow-that-rule from bad-time-to-follow-that-rule."

I do have to take issue with your second point though. The various sections of COLREGS are not secondary to avoiding collision; their only purpose is to avoid collisions.

Disagree. I can refute that with any situation where rule zero and any other rule are in conflict.

Just one of an unlimited number of examples:

COLREGS (in this hemisphere) tell you that you should stay on the right side of a channel and pass with red marker on your right when going upstream. That's what you're supposed to do according to COLREGs.

But - if that puts you on a collision course with another vessel, and you had no other way to avoid it except to break the above rule - you are to break the above rule - even moving into the left side of the channel and putting the red marker on your left. If not, you will surely be considered at least partially at-fault.

This is true of virtually any safety rule in the book. It follows inevitably that any-and-all-rules are secondary to rule zero.


The only exception I can think of (and it's not really an exception) is when you have to choose between two outcomes, both of which are a direct and immediate risk to safety. (For example, say you are assisting a downed skier at the transom of your boat and another boat is approaching on a collision course. Perhaps, you could avoid a collision by throwing your motor in gear and getting out the way - but only at the much greater risk of injuring the skier in the water.)

Yeah?

[NiceAft]

The Cliff Notes version is; There Is An Exception To Every Rule, except this one.

P.S. I still am on the hunt for an answer. I may have to purchase the regulations. I should have a copy on hand anyway.

[Herschel]

Dave,

I don’t know Canadian maritime law, but in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels.

For those who have never tried to have a leisurely cruise on a busy large city harbor, it can be quite an experience. Up close those large tankers are intimidating. They are upon you quickly.

Can you please cite your source for the statement that "in the U.S. you are not the stand on vessel when it comes to commercial vessels"?

Be Free,

Not avoiding responding to your request.

As I said, I took the Coast Guard Auxillary Sailing and Safety course twenty years ago. I forgot that it is the “Sailing and Seamanship” course. Anyway, I was taught what I said about sailboats being the stand on vessels.

Since I have not been able to dig out the lesson pages, I decide to call the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard auxiliary. I have not been able to get return calls to a variety of messages. I tried e-mailing, and still no replies. Today I drove down to the Coast Guard Office in Philadelphia. I arrived at 2:30 on a Friday, and was told the offices were empty; everyone left for the weekend. They took my number and said I would receive a call.

I am trying, and I am not giving up.

Before I left, my wife said to call first. I responded, “This is the Coast guard, they don’t close!” Yeh, right.

You guys might find this podcast about recent Coast guard cuts interesting:

[Be Free]

Sorry folks, this is going to be a long one...

Dave,
Question: can you think of a circumstance that that is not covered by one or more portions of COLREGS? I can't but I would honestly like to know if one exists. The entire purpose for their existence is to inform mariners how they are expected to respond in every foreseeable circumstance.

And anyone who can't or won't take ultimate responsibility for their actions - who says "I was following the rules!" as their defense - has no business operating a vehicle.

I hope that I've not given you the impression that I subscribe to the attitude above.

The "how" you ask for is "You must use your brain intelligently to sort good-time-to-follow-that-rule from bad-time-to-follow-that-rule."

This may be getting close to the heart of our differences. I would say that the "how" is "You must use your brain intelligently to sort which rule to apply in the current circumstances.."

Disagree. I can refute that with any situation where rule zero and any other rule are in conflict.

I don't believe that there is any part of COLREGS that conflicts with "rule zero". They both have the same goal, "don't collide with stuff". There is no conflict.

Just one of an unlimited number of examples:

COLREGS (in this hemisphere) tell you that you should stay on the right side of a channel and pass with red marker on your right when going upstream. That's what you're supposed to do according to COLREGs.

But - if that puts you on a collision course with another vessel, and you had no other way to avoid it except to break the above rule - you are to break the above rule - even moving into the left side of the channel and putting the red marker on your left. If not, you will surely be considered at least partially at-fault.

This is true of virtually any safety rule in the book. It follows inevitably that any-and-all-rules are secondary to rule zero.

We are almost in agreement here. You are supposed to sort-of break the rules sometimes, but that is because the rules specifically allow you to vary from the norm under certain, specified circumstances. But is that technically breaking them? You can't just jump from "I'm on a collision course" to "there is nothing to do but break the rules" without giving the rules time to work.

Your example has Boat A on on the right side of a channel on a collision course with Boat B. I'm going to stick to power driven vessels just to keep it shorter but it works with any mix of vessels.

Scenario 1: Boat A is overtaking Boat B and will collide with Boat B if nothing is done. If it's not a narrow channel the pass him on the left.

The first rule that applies is Rule 13

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I
and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the
vessel being overtaken.
(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with
another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that
is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at
night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither
of her sidelights.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she if overtaking another,
she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.
(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not
make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these
Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until
she is finally past and clear.

Just passing on the left is boring so let's make it a narrow channel. If Rule 13 cannot be followed without the help of the Boat B then you move on to

Rule 9(e)
(i)In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking can take place only
if the vessel to be overtaken has to take action to permit safe passing,
the vessel intending to overtake shall indicate her intention by sounding
the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(i). The vessel to be
overtaken shall, if in agreement, sound the appropriate signal
prescribed in Rule 34(c)(ii) and take steps to permit safe passing. If in
doubt she may sound the signals prescribed in Rule 34(d).
(ii) This Rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation
under Rule 13.

If Boat B cannot or will not help then you fall back to rule 13: Boat A must stay out of the way of Boat B.


Scenario 2: Boat A is in a crossing situation with Boat B

Rule 15
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of
collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall
keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid
crossing ahead of the other vessel.

Rule 16
Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel
shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

Rule 17
(a)
(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall
keep her course and speed.

If the Boat B is on the starboard side of Boat A then Boat A stays out of the way and Boat B continues on its course. Boat A has full control of the situation.

If the situation is reversed the Boat A continues on its course and Boat B stays out of the way. Now Boat B has control of the solution.

The boat that is required to stay out of the way has full control of the situation. The boat that is required to maintain course and speed does so to allow the other vessel to resolve the potential collision. If boat vessels are changing speed or course at the same time it complicates the situation.

If the other boat cannot or will not do as they are required to do then the rest of Rule 17 applies.

Rule 17
(a)(ii) The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her
maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel
required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in
compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and
speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of
the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to
avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in
accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with
another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit,
not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep
out of the way.

Scenario 3: Head on
Rule 14
(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly
reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her
course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.
(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other
ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of
the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she
observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she
shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

Again, if the other boat cannot or will not do as they are required to do then the rest of Rule 17 applies as before.

And a couple of my favorites:
Rule 2
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply
with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required
by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the
case.
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had
to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances,
including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a
departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Rule 8
(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with
the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be
positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good
seamanship.
(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the
circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to
another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small
alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.
(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is
made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-
quarters situation.
(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to
result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be
carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the
situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or
reversing her means of propulsion.
(f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the
circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of
another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other
vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action,
have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this
part.
(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully
obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are
approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

The only exception I can think of (and it's not really an exception) is when you have to choose between two outcomes, both of which are a direct and immediate risk to safety. (For example, say you are assisting a downed skier at the transom of your boat and another boat is approaching on a collision course. Perhaps, you could avoid a collision by throwing your motor in gear and getting out the way - but only at the much greater risk of injuring the skier in the water.)

Yeah?

I will concede that if you find yourself in a situation where either through malice or negligence another vessel is threatening you and due to circumstances you are incapable of any action that can improve the situation there is nothing you can do (by definition).

In your example, I would suggest attempting to get the other driver's attention. The official sound signal if 5 short blasts (so you see there is a rule that applies) but it is still up to the other driver to resolve the situation alone.

[Be Free]

The Cliff Notes version is; There Is An Exception To Every Rule, except this one.

P.S. I still am on the hunt for an answer. I may have to purchase the regulations. I should have a copy on hand anyway.

Ray,
No need to purchase a copy. This is an official document: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/defau ... vrules.pdf. It covers the international rules and the US inland rules.

It is a good idea to be familiar with them. They are incorporated in most state boating laws in whole or in essence.

[DaveC426913]

Your example has Boat A on on the right side of a channel on a collision course with Boat B. I'm going to stick to power driven vessels just to keep it shorter but it works with any mix of vessels.

Scenario 1: Boat A is overtaking Boat B and will collide with Boat B if nothing is done. If it's not a narrow channel the pass him on the left.

I was thinking more in terms of Boat B coming downstream and, for whatever reason, not where he's supposed to be (maybe he's accidentally put it in gear and gunned it out of his slip). It doesn't matter because Boat A has no time to assess what Boat B is doing or what it should be doing or even where it's going next . All he knows is that, if he doesn't veer into the oncoming traffic, he's going to collide.

[NiceAft]

It is a good idea to be familiar with them. They are incorporated in most state boating laws in whole or in essence.

Absolutely correct. That is why I am trying to acquire the printed version. I believe everyone should take the Coast Guard course. I know what I was taught, and since Be Free disagrees with that, it’s important to see what is written. We both can’t be correct.

Gotta love this site. No bellicose hot heads.