You’re right, 2b specifically lists maneuverablity,

Rule 2 was two rules at one time. Rule 2(a) was at the beginning, mariners can’t neglect any precaution which may be required…

Rule 2b was a separate rule at the end, special circumstances…which may make departure necessary

So what is the point you are trying to make?


Specifically my point is that in collision avoidance the size/maneuverability of the vessels has to be taken into account.

In general my point is that you do not know what you are talking about.

1 Like

You are quoting an interpretation from llana.
Show me anything in the COLREGs text.

Rule 2(a) "any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seaman, or by the special circumstances of the case."

In The case "The Queen Mary " the court wrote: "a solemn warning that compliance with the rules does not terminate with the ever present duty of using reasonable skill and care."

You are going around in circles.
We were discussing the issue of size of the vessels.
My argument was that the size of the vessel is not a factor when taking action to avoid a collision. Every vessel must be treated equally, irrespective of the size ( unless a vessel is entitled to special consideration…such as a fishing vessel, NUC, RAM, CBD etc).
How does Rule 2 impact this discussion directly?
You may like to break Rule 2 into sub-clauses and read it again. It is hard sometimes for people to understand subordinate clauses properly. That is a ‘grammar’ thing.

Actually @Kennebec_Captain, I’d go with Rule 2(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.”

The “limitations of the vessels involved” includes the relative size, and thus maneuverability, of the vessels involved.

Pikeman = man with pointy stick:
Is he trying to take up the slack from c.captain??? I though that was my job, minus the stick.
(Not much use of the “point stick” lately, though. Has he mellowed in his old age??)

BTW; Pikeman should know his stuff, given his many years of experience as Master in the China trade.

That’s the governing clause.

Only to avoid immediate danger. NOT NORMALLY!

Once again you revert to personal attacks. This won’t help you understand COLREGs.
It would be better if you spend more time in reading professional texts rather than googling the origins of nom de plumes.

Of course it is, rule 2: “precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen”

Take for example a ship with the engine stopped a few miles from the pilot station waiting for a pilot

. In one case there is on the stbd bow a VLCC with CPA = 0 TCP = 10 minutes

Second case same ship with engine stopped but a jet ski on the stbd bow CPA=0 TCP= 10 minutes.

Are you saying the the COLREGS require that each case be considered as the same?


1 Like



Completely fucking false.

No fucking duh!!! No one is saying it is required you dense fuck-wit.

1 Like

Abuse is a poor way of ending a discussion.

You should open your copy of COLREGs and try to see where each of the above situation fits. That’s the only way you can come to a rational conclusion.

Can you refer to COLREGs and determine if this vessel is entitled to any special consideration?


She has to follow the rules and take whatever action necessary to avoid a collision.

I’m familiar with the COLREGS and exactly how they apply in each of the above situations. You’re wrong…


Can you quote the relevant rules in support of your argument?

Also y’all need to study some case law rather than put your own spin on everything. You will be very surprised to see how strictly the courts apply the COLREGS when judging navigational incidents.

Here’s one to start with:
(a) Rules in this Part shall be complied with in all weathers.
(b) The Rules concerning lights shall be complied with from sunset to sunrise, and during such times no other lights shall be exhibited, except such lights as cannot be mistaken for the lights specified in these Rules or do not impair their visibility or distinctive character, or interfere with the keeping of a proper look-out.

Pretty certain most sailors can tell cruise ship “pretty boat” lights from nav lights…

Handbook of the Nautical Rules of the Road by Llana & Wisneskey

Once you have detected and tracked another vessel in your vicinity, how do you judge whether risk of collision exists? What, in fact, is “risk of collision”? The Rules do not say. Risk of collision certainly exists for two vessels whose paths would take them to the same spot in two minutes. On the other hand, risk of collision would not exist for two slow-moving vessels 20 miles apart heading for the same spot of water, nor would it practically exist for two vessels passing a half mile apart in a busy harbor. What might be the risk of collision for two large ships would probably not be risk of collision for two small vessels in the same situation.

A number of factors are involved in such an assessment:

Closest distance of approach
Type of waterway
**Vessel size and maneuverability**
Distance out from closest point of approach
Relative bearings

Never heard of Manjit Handa.
Why don’t you come back to the point of discussion?
Have you figured out Rule 2 yet?
You will require a text book on English grammar on the side too.