Rule 2: responsibility.

What does COLREGs Rule 2 say?

Rule 2(a): the rules are no shield. A vessel, and her owner, master or crew, still answer for any failure to comply with them, and for neglecting any precaution called for by 'the ordinary practice of seamen' or by 'the special circumstances of the case'.

Rule 2(b): the rules are read and applied with regard to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances, 'including the limitations of the vessels involved', that may make departing from them 'necessary to avoid immediate danger'.

Why does Rule 2 matter in every scenario?

Because it frames how all the other rules are applied. Rule 2(a) means doing what the rules literally say is not enough if ordinary seamanship called for more. Rule 2(b) means the rules are applied with the actual dangers and the actual vessels in mind — and allows a departure, but only where it is necessary to avoid immediate danger.

As we read it, the two paragraphs pull in the same direction: avoid collision by applying the rules with judgement, and never use the letter of a rule as a reason to stand into danger.

What does 'the ordinary practice of seamen' mean?

The rule does not list it. It means the precautions a competent seafarer would take in the circumstances, whether or not a specific rule demands them. Rule 8(a) points the same way: action to avoid collision must be taken with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

In practice that covers things like calling the master in good time, posting an extra look-out when traffic builds, giving a vessel towing or working a wide berth, and slowing down early rather than late. None of these is spelt out step by step, and Rule 2(a) says the rules do not exonerate anyone from the consequences of neglecting them.

Who does Rule 2(a) hold responsible?

The vessel, and her 'owner, master or crew'. Responsibility is not limited to the officer of the watch, and it is not limited to breaking a specific rule — neglecting a precaution that seamanship or the special circumstances required counts too.

If I followed the rules exactly, am I in the clear?

Not necessarily. Rule 2(a) says the rules do not exonerate anyone from the consequences of neglecting a precaution required by seamanship or by the special circumstances of the case. Compliance with the letter of a rule does not excuse a failure of ordinary care.

The stand-on vessel is the classic example. Rule 17(a)(i) requires her to keep her course and speed, but Rule 17(b) requires her, when she finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, to take 'such action as will best aid to avoid collision'. Holding on into a collision breaks Rule 17(b) and neglects the ordinary practice of seamen; 'I kept my course and speed' is no defence once 17(b) applies.

When may you depart from the COLREGs?

Only when a departure is 'necessary to avoid immediate danger', having had due regard to the dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved. All three parts carry weight: there must be special circumstances or dangers, the departure must be necessary, and the danger must be immediate.

It is not a general licence to do what seems better, or to set a rule aside because it is inconvenient. As we read it, if complying with the rules would keep you safe, there is no departure to make.

What are 'special circumstances'?

The rule names one kind — 'the limitations of the vessels involved' — and otherwise leaves it open. In practice, two situations come up most:

Several vessels at once — for example, where you are give-way to one vessel and stand-on to another. Rule 16 asks you to take early and substantial action for the first, while Rule 17(a)(i) asks you to keep your course and speed for the second, and both cannot be obeyed to the letter. Look first for an action that keeps clear of both, often a substantial reduction of speed (Rule 8(e)). Where every action the rules call for would lead into immediate danger with one of the vessels, that is a special circumstance under 2(b).

The limits of a vessel or of the water. Rule 14(a) requires two power-driven vessels meeting head-on to each alter course to starboard. If shoal water close on your starboard side, together with your own draught, means a full alteration to starboard would put you aground, 2(b) requires you to have regard to that danger. The departure is to alter less to starboard, or not at all, and to slow down or stop (Rule 8(e)). It is not to alter to port: if she alters to starboard as Rule 14 requires, a port alteration turns you into her. Make your manoeuvre clear early with the sound signals of Rule 34.

Can the stand-on vessel use Rule 2(b) to alter early?

Not as a matter of choice. Rule 17 already says what the stand-on vessel may and must do: keep her course and speed (17(a)(i)); she may act by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent that the give-way vessel is 'not taking appropriate action' (17(a)(ii)); and she must act when collision cannot be avoided by the give-way vessel alone (17(b)).

As we read it, a stand-on vessel acting under Rule 17, or any vessel slowing down under Rule 8(e), needs no departure — the rules already provide for it. Rule 2(b) is for the case where complying with a rule would itself lead into immediate danger — and a departure is still judged under 2(a), so it must be a seamanlike one.

How might Rule 2 come up in an MCA oral?

It may come up on its own, or as the follow-up to a scenario — 'and if that doesn't work?'. Examples of the kind of question to be ready for:

“What does Rule 2 say?”

“You followed the rules exactly and there was still a collision. Are you in the clear?”

“When may you depart from the rules?”

“Give an example of special circumstances.”

“You're the stand-on vessel and the give-way vessel isn't acting. Do you need Rule 2 to take action?”

Where do candidates go wrong on Rule 2?

The common slips: describing Rule 2(b) as permission to break the rules whenever it seems sensible, and leaving out 'necessary to avoid immediate danger'; quoting Rule 2 to justify a stand-on vessel acting, when Rule 17 is the rule that governs it; forgetting that 2(a) names the owner, master and crew; and treating 'I complied with the rules' as a complete defence. Explaining both paragraphs in your own words matters more than reciting them.