Although I have described the responses to Scenario 2 of the Colregs questionnaire as ‘eye-opening’, I must confess that it came as no personal surprise to myself that such a high proportion exhibited confusion concerning the rules governing this situation. Having taught at all certificate levels since 1986, it has been apparent to me for a long time that the whole proposition of ‘not to impede’ has never taken hold. The current Colregs, in which the concept was incorporated for the first time, can hardly be described as new as they have been in existence since 1976, but even after 27 years, very few it would seem, either know the rule exists or fully understand its meaning.

Why is this? Has it been badly taught? Have authorities failed to test candidates fully in certificate examinations? Or perhaps, is it a concept that mariners have difficulty coming to terms with and therefore ignore?

Originally my personal feeling was that such radical changes to the rules needed to be promulgated in a far more arresting way than by simply circulating a closely-typed memo, which invariably is only read in a cursory manner before being filed away in the appropriate folder. No doubt such changes would have a greater impact if they were ‘marketed’ in the form of eye-catching bridge posters or similar. This minimal impact theory may explain why so many of the more senior people seem oblivious to the whole idea of not impeding. However it does not explain why those who have gone to sea since 1976, and attended courses as part of their career progression, should also be pretty much equally ignorant.

Now I am beginning to suspect that it is the concept itself that is either not understood or, at best, regarded as not commensurate with common sense, and therefore avoided. The implications of Rule 8f require potentially incompatible manoeuvres by both vessels and tend to be contradictory to the general tenor of the Steering and Sailing Rules, in which one vessel maintains course and speed while the other takes avoiding action.

‘Not to impede’and Rule 8(f)

What does ‘not to impede’ mean? How does it differ from the statement ‘shall keep out of the way’? For example in the crossing situation Rule 15: ‘The vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way…’, whereas in Rule 10 governing conduct in traffic separation schemes: ‘A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane.’ One would assume that the fishing vessel in the act of ‘not impeding’ is also ‘keeping out of the way’, so what is the difference?

Simply stated, in the first instance of crossing, this rule only applies when risk of collision exists and then one of the two vessels is instructed to take decisive action to avoid it. In the second, risk of collision does not yet exist and the fishing vessel is, in effect, being asked to take early action to avoid such a risk developing.

Rule 8(f) consists of three sub-clauses and it might be useful to examine each in turn and try to explain it in clearer language:

This says that our fishing vessel in the Rule 10 case above, or in fact the crossing vessel in Scenario 2, must take ‘early action’ to give the other vessel sufficient sea-room. The implication is that this action is required long before a risk of collision begins to exist.

What this means is that even if risk of collision already exists, and we are assuming in Scenario 2 that this is the case, the non-impeding vessel is not relieved of the obligation to keep out of the way. The important thing here is that this overrides any stand-on action required by any other rule.

This paragraph now addresses the conduct of the ‘not to be impeded’ vessel and clearly states that this vessel must obey the rules of this part. The part referred to is Part B, the Steering and Sailing Rules, which means in this case our own vessel in Scenario 2 must obey Rule 15, regardless of whether she is restricted by her deep draft or not.

Here we have a situation where both vessels are expected to make an alteration. This is why the latter part of (f)(ii) warns the crossing vessel that if there is a potential collision the other vessel is also obliged to take action.

Scenario 2

Looking now more specifically at the scenario (Figure 1), the description states that the own ship can only navigate within the channel so we must assume that she will be displaying the signals prescribed in Rule 28. Consequently, this situation is governed by Rule 18(d)(i) and the crossing target vessel is instructed to avoid impeding the transiting vessel. In this case, the conduct of both own and target ship is prescribed by the requirements of Rule 8(f).

There is a possible argument that this is a narrow channel and therefore Rule 9 applies, not Rule 18. This is largely irrelevant, as regardless of which rule applies here, the obligation of the crossing vessel not to impede remains the same and both vessels clearly fall under the requirements of Rule 8(f).

To sum up:

• Own ship will alter to starboard as per Rule 8(f)(iii) and Rule 15 (when it is clear the target vessel is honouring her obligations under Rule 8(f)(i) and (ii), and altering to avoid impeding, own ship can return to her original course).
• Target ship will obey Rule 8(f) and either slow down, stop or alter to starboard. She cannot go to port, as this would be in direct contravention of Rule 8(f)(ii).

This equates to 2.2, 2.4 or 2.5 on the answer code as described in the August Colregs feature in Seaways.

(Author's Correction)

Response

As can be seen from the answer spectrum (Figure 2), Scenario 2 clearly caused the most difficulty and it would seem that very few understand the provisions of Rule 8(f), regardless of background or experience. No one, in fact, picked the requisite actions and although some (39) opted correctly for own ship to alter to starboard, this was in conjunction with expecting the target ship to standon. These few clearly viewed this as a simple crossing situation under Rule 15.

Looking at the results on a certificate issuing country basis (Figure 3), it would appear that there is no difference between any nation. Whether because of ignorance or disobedience, the phenomenon is global.

This graph also introduces the concept of ineffective actions. An ineffective action is any manoeuvre which does not solve a particular collision situation but merely postpones it. For example, opting for both vessels to slow down or stop is an ineffective manoeuvre.

Such an action can also be viewed as a possible convenient solution to someone who is unsure of the Colregs and choses to slow, for instance, as a way of doing nothing illegal. In other words, it does nothing to contravene the Colregs but equally it does nothing to demonstrate the respondent’s understanding of the rules. After all, what we are trying to establish here is not whether the respondent chooses a safe option but whether he or she has a clear conception of what is required by the Colregs.

If, therefore, ineffective actions are considered an indication of ignorance and included with the obviously illegal, we are left with those options strictly not contravening the rules. However even then, as no one picked the positive actions in regard to the Rule outlined above, this cannot be said necessarily to demonstrate a clear comprehension.

The overall response to more complex situations such as this and the poor visibility example in Scenario 3 (to be reviewed in December) indicate that a very high proportion of seafarers are either unaware of the relevant rules or simply ignore them, possibly because ‘everyone else does’.

Talking to current masters, a common viewpoint emerges that because of the perceived high prevalence of rule contravention, it is a matter of self-preservation to alter very early and in a fairly conventional manner. Most follow the simple provisions of the clear visibility rules, Rules 13, 14 and 15, whatever the circumstances. The inescapable conclusion is that the whole concept of ‘not to impede’, regardless of its apparent logic or how well deliberated and drafted, simply does not appear to work in practice.