A FEW REMARKS ON THE “RULE OF THE ROAD," AND SUGGESTIONS FOR ITS AMENDMENT.

By Captain CHARLES CURME, R. N.

Having been kindly granted permission, I wish to make a few remarks on what we sailors call the "Rule of the Road," and to offer one or two suggestions for its amendment in particulars which I think urgently demand it. I must, in deference to you and justice to myself, observe that I do not for a moment suppose that I am going to say anything new on the subject, for I am fully aware that it has occupied the earnest attention of many men more fitted and able than myself to deal with it; but it is a branch of our profession that I have always been attentive to, and have lately been called upon to go closely into. I think the discussions of the last two meetings have plainly shown that we are all agreed as to the great value of any system of lights that would enable a ship at night to ascertain not only the position of another ship she may be meeting, but the course that ship is steering, her own being indicated in the same manner; but I am sure you will agree with me that the most accurate knowledge of their mutual courses will be of little value to the officers in charge of the navigation of those ships, unless they are furnished with a clear, distinct, and generally applicable rule of the road.

Undoubtedly the principle that should govern the movements of two ships meeting, should be the keeping or getting out of each other's way · by the shortest and most expeditious route-in the case of an impending collision every second of time saved being of the utmost importance. Now in the case of ships meeting each other "end on”—i. e., all masts in one, or showing each other both side lights, or "crossing" each other under such conditions as to make it indifferent in point of time which side they should pass each other on, or which ship should give way to the other-it is manifest that an arbitrary and conventional rule is necessary, and this is furnished by the regulations, which provide that in the one case the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall give way to the other; and in the other, that the helms of both shall be put to port, so that each ship may pass on the port side of the other. So far so good. But when we come to cases under other conditions, I venture to assert, that on investigation it will be found that in many instances collisions have been caused by the officer in charge of one of

the meeting ships, without the least reference to the particular circumstances of the case, putting his helm to port, and comforting himself with the reflection that, as he was obeying the "written law," so he was placing himself beyond the reach of blame, happen what might; for be it observed that Article 14, while directing which ship is to give way, makes no mention of how it is to be done, and I know that the opinion has been, and still is, widely prevalent, that it must be done by porting the helm; it can easily be shown that in some cases such a course would be a dangerous, and in many others a long and circuitous one. The officer of the other ship takes what perhaps I may be allowed to call the common sense" view of the case, puts his helm to starboard, or, it may be, holds on, and the consequences are such as are unfortunately too familiar to us all. Cases can be given in which ships have sighted each other at a distance of several miles, but by perseverance in a course similar to the foregoing, have succeeded in running foul of each other.

As it stands first I will, however, return to the article governing the case of ships "meeting," as it is called (Article 13,) and in it I object to the use of the expression "nearly end on," as vague and indefinite, and, as may be easily proved, productive of much dangerous doubt and misconception. I propose that Article 13 shall run thus: "If two ships. under steam are meeting end on―i. e., so as to show each other all masts in one or both side lights—the helms of both shall be put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other." It will be observed that this applies only to the case of ships meeting each other in exactly opposite courses.

Again, in Article 14, which provides for the case of ships under steam "crossing," it is laid down that "the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall give way to the other," but does not direct how it is to be done. Now no doubt it will be said at once, "any sailor will see at a glance how it is to be done, and there is not the slightest occasion for any written rule on the point;" but I assert, and can bring ample proof in support, that it is often attempted in the wrong way, and not only that, but on reading the reports of cases of collisions that have been tried, it will be found that a ship putting her helm to starboard, has in some cases been held to be in the right, and in others, under apparently precisely similar conditions, has been held to be wrong, for not porting her helm "according to the statute," and I am convinced that, clear as the cases in which the starboard helm is necessary and proper, may appear to you, or to any men thoroughly up to their work, there are a very large number of men for whom a clear imperative direction is required, and I venture to suggest that Article 14 should stand as follows: "If two ships under steam are approaching each other in any other direction, so as to involve

risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own starboard hand shall give way to the other, which she shall do by putting her helm to port, if she has not reached the other's line of keel and sees her red side light only, but by putting her helm to starboard if she is on the other ship's line of keel and sees both the other ship's side lights, or has crossed her line of keel and sees her green side light only." For the convenience and ready reference of captains and officers in charge of the navigation of ships, I propose that a table such as that given hereafter, showing all the different conditions under which ships may meet, with risk of collision, should be placed near the bridge and wheel, and to facilitate the use of it, the lookout men should be instructed to make their reports in one regular form, thus: "Green light right ahead; red and green light on starboard bow; red light on port bow;" and so on, the officer in charge, at a glance at the table, sees at once what is to be done.

I wish to say a few words more about the expression "nearly end on." I have consulted with several of the most experienced officers I know, and all are agreed that it is dangerously indefinite, and indeed can only be stated arbitrarily to mean, a direction not differing more than a point or two from an exactly opposite course. Under the present system of lighting it is evident that we are utterly unable to ascertain this at night; a system such as the excellent one proposed by Captain Heathcote, would enable us to do so with a great degree of accuracy, but as things are, and as the regulations are at present worded, it is evident that an officer is left in doubt as to whether he is to obey the rule for meeting or crossing; I venture to say that the wording I have suggested for the Articles 13 and 14 does away with the uncertainty; the relative position of the masts in the day time, and the seeing particular side lights at night, will give unmistakable indications as to which rule should be followed. I will not take up more of your time by quoting any particular cases, but several may be found which clearly illustrate what I have said as to the misconception and consequent wrongdoing which appear to result from the present regulations, of which I should say that they clearly recognize and admit the necessity of legislation, but do not carry it sufficiently far. It is for your consideration whether what I suggest goes far enough without being impracticably and mischievously minute. Since I first took up this subject I have obtained a pamphlet published in 1857—but who the author is I do not know—which contains a letter from the Admiralty, dated December 11, 1854, addressed to Messrs. G. McTear & Co., of the Steam Packet Office at Belfast, and as it bears directly on our present subject, and is moreover strongly confirmatory of my own views, I will quote it, observing that in paragraph 2 of Messrs. McTear's statement, a small, alteration is necessary in detail but not in principle, in consequence of

the regulation pointing out which ship of two crossing is to give way, being of a date long subsequent to that correspondence.

Correspondence between Messrs. McTear, of Belfast, and the Admiralty on the subject of the Instructions relating to Steamers' Lights.

Messrs. McTear say:

"Supposing two steamers from nearly opposite points of the compass to be approaching each other with the masthead and green lights ONLY of each visible from the other, we wish to know what should be done should each continue her course, or rather put the helm a little to starboard than otherwise, or should each port and cross the bows of the other?

"On the other hand, supposing the masthead and red lights ONLY of each visible from the other, should each continue her course; or, if anything, port a little, not starboard?

"There is an opinion prevalent amongst captains that, when two steamers are meeting one another, the helms of both should be PORTED, without reference to what lights are visible from each; but, as there are some who think otherwise, we feel anxious to know which is correct, and shall be glad to have your opinion on the subject.

"1. The interpretation of the latter is, that in the first situation, as shown by your diagrams, where A sees only the masthead and red lights of B, but B sees all the lights of A, each vessel should port her helm; or, B continuing her course. A should certainly port, and pass astern of B.

*"2. That, in the second situation, where A sees B's masthead and green lights only, but B sees A's three lights, each vessel should starboard her helm; or, B continuing her course, A should starboard, and pass astern of B.

"3. That, in the third situation, where A and B see but each other's masthead and red lights, they should continue their respective courses; or, if any change be made in the helm, it should be in the PORT direction.

"4. That, in the fourth situation, where A and B see but each other's masthead and green lights, they should continue their respective courses; or, if any change be made in the helm, it should be in the starboard direction; and lastly,

"5. That, in the fifth situation, where A and B see all the lights of. each, the helm should be ported in both.

“We shall feel obliged by your informing us, at your earliest convenience, if the interpretation herein given be correct; or, if not, what is the proper explanation of the diagrams.”

*As, according to the latest regulations, "the ship having the other on her own starboard side is to give way to the other," this should be substituted-"or A continuing her course, B should starboard and pass ahead of A." It will be observed that this does not affect the principle of the use of the starboard helm in certain cases.-C.C.

The following is the reply of the Admiralty:

"ADMIRALTY, Dec. 11, 1854. "GENTLEMEN: Referring to your letter of the 17th ult., upon the subject of the interpretation of the Circular No. 107, relative to lights to prevent collision, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that the opinion which you allege obtains among masters of steam vessels, that when two steamers meet one another the helm of both is to be ported, without reference to which lights are visible from either vessel, is erroneous, and founded upon a misconception; indeed, their Lordships are of opinion that such a course would not only be a violation of the established regulations, but might lead to very disastrous

consequences.

"In conclusion, I am commanded to acquaint you that the interpretation given in your letter of the several diagrams illustrative of the established regulations which is opposed to the misconception is perfectly

Thus it appears that the interpretations in the paragraphs which are marked 1 to 5 contain a correct view of the intended regulations.

The diagrams they refer to are to be found, I believe, in any of the copies of the "Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea," issued by the Board of Trade. I particularly wish to point out to you that, although this correspondence so clearly establishes the fact of the existence of the misconception on the subject of the obligatory use of the porthelm on all occasions, and their Lordships so strongly express their disapproval of that interpretation, and their concurrence with the one set forth by Messrs. McTear & Co., yet, so far as I am aware, that approval has never been made generally known, and I am asking for nothing more now than that the principle therein recognized, shall be put in a clear, imperative form, so that in case of collision there may at all events be less than the present difficulty in deciding who shall bear the burden and penalty of wrongdoing, and that the hesitating and, perhaps, inexperienced, may be relieved from much anxious and painful indecision.

In conclusion and explanation of the table, I should like to observe that although it is intended to include all the cases in which collision is possible, they all may be reduced under the two heads of ships meeting each other "end on," when each ports her helm; and meeting each other