Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Safety First—A Critical Examination of the Lights and Shapes
in COLREGs
Wenhai Dong 1, * , Pengfei Zhang 2
Citation: Dong, W.; Zhang, P.; Li, J.
Safety First—A Critical Examination
of the Lights and Shapes in
COLREGs. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11,
1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse11081508
Academic Editor: Sergei Chernyi
Received: 12 July 2023
Revised: 26 July 2023
Accepted: 28 July 2023
Published: 29 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11081508
and Jie Li 1
1 Merchant Marine College, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 201306, China; lijie@shmtu.edu.cn
2 Navigation College, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China; shippinglaw@163.com
* Correspondence: whdong@shmtu.edu.cn
Abstract: According to The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, ships can
only determine their collision avoidance responsibilities in accordance with the rules of “Conduct of
Vessels in Sight of One Another” if the dynamic and category of the target ship is identified to be
using lights and/or shapes during encounters at sea. Then, appropriate actions can be taken, and the
effectiveness of the collision avoidance actions can be checked during the subsequent maneuvering
process. In order to analyze and solve the problems related to lights and shapes and to adapt to
the development of ship size, speed, and intelligence, this paper firstly reviews the development
history and revision process of lights and shapes. Furthermore, it explains the collision avoidance
responsibility of ships in sight of one another, analyzes the role of lights and shapes in the collision
avoidance process, and summarizes the lights and shapes displayed by different categories of ships.
Next, through qualitative and quantitative analysis, the relationship between the visibility distance
of lights and shapes and the timing of ship avoidance actions is examined. Finally, the paper points
out current problems related to lights and shapes, including: (1) non-uniform visibility distance of
lights, (2) insufficient visibility distance of lights, and (3) small size of shapes, and proposes solutions
to these problems from theoretical and practical perspectives, including: (1) unifying the visibility
distance of masthead light, sidelights, and sternlight to 6 nautical miles, (2) unifying the visibility
distance of the sternlight to 3 nautical miles, and (3) unifying the diameter size of shapes and the
vertical distance between shapes to 1.8 m.
Keywords: COLREGs; lights and shapes; collision avoidance; safety; suggestions
1. Introduction
As a key aspect of maritime regulatory framework of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) [1], the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972,
(COLREGs) not only provides guidance for seafarers in collision avoidance but also in
resolving disputes related to ship collisions at sea. Chapter II of the COLREGs, on Steering
and Sailing Rules, is the core guidance for seafarers in collision avoidance. It sets out two
sets of different action rules based on whether ships are in sight of one another: “Conduct
of Vessels in Sight of One Another” and “Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility”. Under
the action rules in sight of one another, the general principles and framework for dividing
collision avoidance responsibilities between ships are determined based on the category of
ships and their mutual position relationship. This includes, “the vessel that is overtaking
another vessel shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken, the vessel with the
better maneuverability shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is less maneuverable,
and when vessels are of the same maneuverability, the give-way vessel shall be determined
based on their mutual position.”
Therefore, when ships are navigating at sea, they need to first identify the category
and/or mutual position relationship of the other ship(s) to determine the collision avoid-
ance responsibilities between them, and the ship categories and mutual position relation-
ships are primarily determined by lights and shapes. According to the COLREGs, the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 2 of 15

minimum visibility range for lights varies depending on the type of lights and the size of
the ship. For example, the masthead light used to identify the category of ship and the
sidelights used to determine the mutual position relationship have a maximum range of
3 nautical miles. The size of shapes is uniformly set at a diameter of no less than 0.6 m.
While these ranges and sizes may be effective for collision avoidance between small and
slow-moving vessels, they may not be sufficient for large and fast-moving vessels of today,
as waiting until the distance is within 3 nautical miles may already be too late for safe
maneuvering, thereby posing a great risk to navigation safety. Therefore, adjusting the
rules for lights and shapes to adapt to the development of larger, faster, and smarter ships
has become a key issue that needs to be addressed.
As a result, this paper will first introduce the historical evolution of lights and shapes;
then, according to the “Steering and Sailing Rules” and the technical characteristics of lights
and shapes, it will analyze the main problems faced by lights and shapes in application.
Finally, from the perspective of the navigational practices of seafarers and the ship’s
maneuvering characteristics, it will propose specific recommendations for adjusting the
rules for lights and shapes, aiming to provide technical support for the subsequent revision
of the COLREGs.

2. The Development History of Lights and Shapes

Lights and shapes are devices used to indicate a ship’s position, category, and move-
ment, facilitating recognition by other vessels [2,3]. The regulations concerning lights and
shapes that ships had to comply with date back to 1838, when the United States passed
an act requiring ships to display appropriate lights from sunset to sunrise to be identified
by other vessels and prevent collisions. The United Kingdom followed suit in 1848 and
established regulations for steamships to display lights during navigation at sea. In 1889,
the United States initiated the development of international rules for preventing collisions
at sea, which included requirements for lights and shapes [4]. In the 20th century, the
Titanic disaster led to the establishment of the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS). At the Second International Conference of SOLAS in 1929, the revised
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea were adopted as an annex to
the SOLAS Convention, and the rules for lights and shapes were included as a part of the
Regulations which were revised three times in 1948, 1960, and 1972, and were separated
from the SOLAS Convention in 1972. Since then, the IMO, formerly known as the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), has revised the Regulations
seven times as amendments, including four revisions related to lights and shapes [5], as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Revision of COLREGs concerning lights and shapes since 1972.

IMO Resolution No. Revised Provisions Concerning

No. Date of Revision Date of Entry into Force
of Revision Lights and Shapes
1 19 November 1981 Res.A.464(XII) 1 June 1983 Rule 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30; Annex I
2 19 November 1987 Res.A.626(15) 19 November 1989 Annex I
3 19 October 1989 Res.A.678(16) 19 April 1991 Nil
4 4 November 1993 Res.A.736(18) 4 November 1995 Rule 26, Annex I
5 29 November 2001 Res.A.910(22) 29 November 2003 Rule 23, 31; Annex I
6 29 November 2007 Res.A.1004(25) 1 December 2009 Nil
7 4 December 2013 Res.A.1085(28) 1 January 2016 Nil

The four revisions related to lights and shapes mentioned in Table 1 mainly involved
minor changes, such as adding provisions for lights and shapes for hovercraft and seaplanes.
The 1981 revision had more substantial changes. However, the overall framework, visibility
range, and arrangement details for lights and shapes have remained largely unchanged
since the 1972 regulations and continue to be followed to this day.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 3 of 15

3. Lights and Shapes in Relation to Collision Avoidance for Ships

3.1. The Collision Avoidance Responsibilities of Vessels in Sight of One Another
The Steering and Sailing Rules firstly establishes the general principles for collision
avoidance at sea, which are the rules of “Conduct of Vessels in Any Condition of Visibility”,
and then rule of “Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another” and “Conduct of Vessels in
Restricted Visibility” are created based on whether ships are in sight of one another. The
former is the core for determining collision avoidance responsibilities between ships, with
“in sight of one another” as a prerequisite. According to the General Definitions of Rule
3, vessels shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed
visually from the other. To interpret the meaning of the term 00 in sight of one another”, it is
generally understood that the key features that can clearly indicate the other ship’s basic
category and movement, such as the hull, the bow and stern facing, and the lights and
shapes, can be visually seen by the naked eyes with normal vision.
Based on this, the COLREGs clearly divide the collision avoidance responsibilities
based on the encounter situation between ships, maneuvering capabilities, and geometric
positions in relation to each other. Specifically, (1) the vessel that is overtaking another
vessel shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken; (2) vessels with better
maneuvering capabilities shall keep out of the way of vessels with poorer maneuvering
capabilities; (3) in a crossing situation, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard
side shall keep out of the way of the other vessel; (4) sailing vessels on the windward or
port side shall keep out of the way of sailing vessels on the leeward or starboard side; and
(5) in a head-on situation between two power-driven vessels, both vessels shall alter their
course to starboard. The specific collision avoidance responsibilities between vessels in
sight of one another are as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The collision avoidance responsibilities between vessels in sight of one another.

Category of Vessel Collision Avoidance Responsibility Category of Vessel

Vessel that is overtaking another vessel Keep out of the way of Vessel being overtaken
Sailing vessel
Vessel engaged in fishing
Power-driven vessel underway Keep out of the way of
Vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver
Vessel not under command
Vessel engaged in fishing
Sailing vessel underway Keep out of the way of Vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver
Vessel not under command
Vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver
Vessel engaged in fishing Keep out of the way of
Vessel not under command
The port side vessel in crossing situation Keep out of the way of The starboard side vessel in crossing situation
The sailing vessel with the wind on port side The sailing vessel with the wind on starboard side
Keep out of the way of
or windward or leeward
Power-driven vessel in head-on situation Have same responsibility to Power-driven vessel in head-on situation

3.2. The Role of Lights and Shapes during the Process of Collision Avoidance
According to Rule 7 on “Risk of Collision” and Rule 8 on “Action to Avoid Collision”
of the COLREGs, the whole encounter process between vessels can be divided into five
stages respectively that includes:
Stage 1: free movement with long range.
Stage 2: risk of collision exists.
Stage 3: close-quarters situation.
Stage 4: immediate danger situation.
Stage 5: collision.
As shown in Figure 1.
 Stage 1: free movement with long range.
Stage 2: risk of collision exists.
Stage 3: close-quarters situation.
Stage 4: immediate danger situation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 4 of 15
Stage 5: collision.
As shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The
Figure developing
1. The developingstages
stages of ship
shipcollision
collisionprocess.
process.

In In
the
thecollision
collision avoidance process
avoidance process shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 1, vessels
1, vessels do not
do not need need
to take to take
spe-
specific collision
cific collision avoidance
avoidance actions
actions during
during themaneuvering
the free free maneuvering stage.the
stage. During During
risk ofthe
col-risk of
lision stage,
collision stage,the
thevessel s category
vessel’s categoryand relative
and position
relative mustmust
position be determined to clarify
be determined the the
to clarify
collision
collision avoidance
avoidance responsibilitiesbetween
responsibilities between the
the two
two vessels
vessels and
andtake
takecorresponding
correspondingac-actions
tions accordingly.
accordingly. Subsequently,
Subsequently, the effectiveness
the effectiveness of the
of the collision
collision avoidanceactions
avoidance actions be-
between
tween
vessels vessels
must must be checked
be checked until
until pass andpass andDuring
clear. clear. During
the fivethe five stages
stages mentioned
mentioned above, the
above, the role of lights and shapes mainly includes:
role of lights and shapes mainly includes:
(1) To determine the category of vessel and thus astern the collision avoidance respon-
(1) Tosibilities
determine the category of vessel and thus astern the collision avoidance responsi-
by means of light and shape.
(2) To determine theofrelative
bilities by means light and shape.
position and the movement of the target vessel, as well as
(2) Tothe determine
encounter situation applicable byand
the relative position the movement
analyzing ofand
the location thethe
target vessel,
arc of lights, as
andwell as
thethen
encounter situation
the collision applicable
avoidance by analyzing
responsibilities the location and the arc of lights, and
be considered.
(3)then
To the
checkcollision avoidance
the effectiveness of responsibilities be considered.
the collision avoidance action by observing changes in
(3) Tothe check
type,the effectiveness
location, ofthe
and arc of thelights
collision
on theavoidance
approachingaction by observing changes in
vessel.
the type, location, and arc of the lights on the approaching vessel.

3.3. The Lights and Shapes Displayed by Different Categories of Ships

As mentioned above, whether determining the categories of vessels, judging the
relative position and movement of the target vessel, or verifying the effectiveness of
collision avoidance actions, it is necessary to confirm through the lights and/or shapes
displayed by vessels. According to the COLREGs, different categories of vessels have their
own exclusive identifying lights and/or shapes, as shown in Figure 2.
 3.3. The Lights and Shapes Displayed by Different Categories of Ships
As mentioned above, whether determining the categories of vessels, judging the rel-
ative position and movement of the target vessel, or verifying the effectiveness of collision
avoidance actions, it is necessary to confirm through the lights and/or shapes displayed
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 5 of 15
by vessels. According to the COLREGs, different categories of vessels have their own ex-
clusive identifying lights and/or shapes, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The specific lights and shapes of different categories of vessels. Note: Lights in Figure 2
Figure 2. The
show the specific
vision lightsof
from ahead andtheshapes of different
vessel where categories
the sternlight of vessels.
cannot Note: Lights
be discovered, and all in Figure 2
vessels
show
are making way through the water. Considering that the lights displayed depend upon not only vessels
the vision from ahead of the vessel where the sternlight cannot be discovered, and all the
are making
vessels way through
categories thetheir
but also water. Considering
navigational thatitthe
status, lights
is not displayed
necessary depend
to show upon not
all kinds only the
of lights
for vessels
vessels’ in everybut
categories condition,
also theirbut only the exclusive
navigational status, lights fornecessary
it is not vessels defined
to showin all
thekinds
General Defi- for
of lights
nitions of Rule 3 in the COLREGs.
vessels in every condition, but only the exclusive lights for vessels defined in the General Definitions
of Rule 3 in the COLREGs.
4. The Visible Range of Lights and Shapes in Relation to the Timing of Collision
4.Avoidance
The Visible Actions
Range of Lights and Shapes in Relation to the Timing of Collision
Avoidance Actions
4.1. The Visible Range of Lights
4.1. The Visible Range of Lights
The main way to determine the category of the target vessel during an encounter
The main
situation way to
is through itsdetermine the category
exclusive identifying of the
lights. Thetarget vesselidentifying
exclusive during an lights
encounter situa-
of ves-
tion
sels is
ofthrough
differentits exclusiveshown
categories identifying lights.
in Figure 2 areTheallexclusive
all-round identifying
lights, except lights of vessels
for the mast- of
different
head lightcategories shown invessels.
on power-driven FigureAccording
2 are all all-round
to the ruleslights, except for
concerning thethe masthead light
characteristics
on
of power-driven
lights and shapes vessels. According
in COLREGs, to the rules
the minimum concerning
visible range ofthe characteristics
all-round of lights
light is related
and shapes
to the lengthinofCOLREGs, the minimum
the vessel, with a maximumvisible
distance range of all-round
of 3 nautical miles.light is relatedthe
To determine to the
length
relativeofposition
the vessel,andwith a maximum
movement of thedistance of 3 nautical
approaching vessel, itmiles. To determine
is necessary the relative
to comprehen-
sively judge
position the masthead
and movement light,
of the sidelights, and
approaching sternlight.
vessel, The minimum
it is necessary visible range judge
to comprehensively of
sidelights
the masthead andlight,
sternlight is like and
sidelights, that sternlight.
of all-roundThelight, with a maximum
minimum distance
visible range of 3 nau-and
of sidelights
tical miles.is The
sternlight like minimum visible ranges
that of all-round of lights
light, with concerning
a maximum the length
distance of vesselmiles.
of 3 nautical are asThe
shown in Table
minimum visible3. ranges of lights concerning the length of vessel are as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The minimum visible ranges of lights concerning the length of vessel (n mile).

Length of Vessel Masthead Light Sidelights Sternlight All-Round Light

L ≥ 50 m 6 3 3 3
20 m ≤ L< 50 m 5 2 2 2
12 m ≤ L < 20 m 3 2 2 2
L < 12 m 2 1 2 2

This means that even without considering individual differences in human visual
acuity and adverse maritime conditions, the officers on watch (OOW) can only accurately
identify the lights of an approaching vessel and determine its category when the distance
between the two vessels is within 3 nautical miles. For smaller vessels, the distance may
need to be as close as 2 nautical miles. During the collision avoidance process, sidelights
 L < means
This 12 m that even without
2 1 individual differences
considering 2 2 visual
in human
Length
Thisof Vessel
means Masthead
that Light Sidelights
even without considering Sternlightdifferences
individual All-Round Light visual
inonly
human
acuity
Thisandmeans
adverse maritime
that even conditions,
without the officers
considering on watchdifferences
individual (OOW) canin accurately
human visual
L ≥ and
acuity 50 madverse maritime 6 conditions, the
3 officers on 3watch (OOW) can 3 only accurately
This
identify
acuity and means
the lights
adversethat
of even
an
maritime without
approaching considering
vessel
conditions, the and individual
determine
officers on differences
its
watch category
(OOW) in
when
can human
the
only visual
distance
accurately
20 m ≤ L<
identify 50lights
the m of an 5
approaching 2 and determine
vessel 2 its category when2 the distance
acuity and
betweenthe
identify adverse
thelights maritime
two vessels conditions, the
is within 3 nautical
of an approaching vessel officers
miles. on watch
For smaller (OOW) can
vessels,whenonly accurately
the distance may
12 m ≤ L <the
between 20 two
m vessels is3 within 2 and
3 nautical determine
miles. its category
For 2smaller the distance
2 distance
vessels,process,
the may
identify
need
betweento the
be
the lights
as closeof
asan
2 approaching
nautical vessel
miles. and
During determine
the collisionits category
avoidance when the distance
sidelights
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 needL <to12
bemastwo vessels
close is2 within
as 2 nautical 3 nautical
miles. 1 miles.
During For 2smaller
the collision vessels,process,
avoidance the
2 distance
6 of 15may
sidelights
between
and
need to be the
sternlight, astwo vessels
which
close are
as are is within
used
2 nautical 3 nautical
to determine miles.
the For smaller
movement of thevessels, the distance
approaching vessel may
and
and
need
verify sternlight,
to be
the as which
close
effectiveness as 2 used
nautical
of the tomiles.
miles.
actions,
During
determine
During
also thethe
need the
to
collision
movement
collision
be
avoidance
of the
avoidance
identified accurately
process,
approaching
process,
within
sidelights
vessel and
sidelights
a range
andThis
verify sternlight,
means
the which
that evenare
effectiveness used
without
of toconsidering
determine
the actions, the movement
individual
also need to of the
differences
be identified approaching
in humanwithin
accurately vessel
visual and
a range
and
of
verify sternlight,
about the which
3 effectiveness
nautical are
miles. of used
the to determine
actions, also the to
need movement
be of the
identified approaching
accurately withinvessel
a and
range
acuity
and of and adverse
about
sternlight, which maritime
3 effectiveness
nautical aremiles.
used conditions,
to determine the officers
theneed on watchof(OOW)
movement can only accurately
the approaching vessel and
verify
of the
about
identify
the
the 3lights
nautical
of anmiles.
of the actions, also to be identified accurately
approaching vessel and determine its category when the distance
within a range
verify
4.2. Theeffectiveness
Visible Range ofofthe actions, also need to be identified accurately within a range
of about
between
4.2. The the 3two
nautical
vessels
Visible Range is Shapes
miles. within 3 nautical miles. For smaller vessels, the distance may
of about 3 nautical miles. of Shapes
need According
4.2.toThebe Visible to 2the
as closeRange
as rules miles.
nautical
of Shapes concerning
Duringthe the characteristics
collision avoidance of shapes
process, insidelights
Annex I of the
and 4.2. According
The
COLREGs,
sternlight,Visible
the
which toare
Range the
shapes rules
ofused
Shapes
displayed
to concerning
by
determine the
vessels
the characteristics
are comprised
movement of the offour
of shapes
approaching basicinvessel
Annex
shapes: andaII ball,
of thea
4.2. The Visible
According Rangeto of Shapes
the displayed
rules concerning the are
characteristics offour
shapes in shapes:
Annex of the
COLREGs,
verify
cone, According
the a the
effectiveness
cylinder, shapes
toandthe rules
of athe actions,
diamond, by
concerning
alsovessels
whichneedthe
can be
be comprised
to characteristics
identified
displayed of
of shapes
accurately
separately basicin
within
or Annex
in a
acombination.ball,
rangeI of the a
COLREGs,
According
cone, the shapes
to the rulesadisplayed
concerning by vessels
canare comprised
the characteristics of four in
of shapes basic
or shapes:
Annex I of athe ball, a
of about
COLREGs,
The 3a nautical
minimumcylinder, and
miles.
the size
shapes diamond,
displayed
of different which
by
types vessels
of shapes beare
are displayed
comprised separately
ofinfour
as shownseparatelyTable basic
4.or in combination.
shapes: a ball, a
cone,
COLREGs,
The a
minimumcylinder,
the shapes sizeand a diamond,
displayed
of different bytypeswhich
vessels can be displayed
are comprised
of shapes are of four
as shown in basic
Table shapes:
4. in combination.
a ball, a
cone,minimum
The a cylinder, sizeand a diamond,
of different typeswhich
ofbe can beare
shapes displayed
shownseparately
asseparately inorTable 4.or in combination.
cone, a cylinder,
4.2.Table
Theminimum
Visible and a diamond, which can displayed in combination. The
The 4. The Range
minimum
sizeof of
Shapes
size of shapes.
different types of shapes are as shown in Table 4.
minimum
Table 4.size Theofminimum
differentsize types of shapes are as shown in Table 4.
of shapes.
According
Table to the rules
4. The minimum size concerning the characteristics of shapes in Annex I of the
of shapes.Minimum
Shapes
Table 4. The
Appearance Diameter (m) Minimum Height (m)
COLREGs,Shapes the minimum
shapes size of shapes.
displayed
Appearance by vessels
Minimumare comprised
Diameterof(m) four basic shapes: aHeight
Minimum ball, a (m)
Table 4. The minimum size of shapes.
cone, aShapes
cylinder, and Appearance
a diamond, which Minimum Diameterseparately
can be displayed (m) Minimum Height (m)
or in combination.
Shapes
Ball size of Appearance Minimum 0.6 Diameter (m) Minimum--Height (m)
TheShapes
minimum different types of shapes
Appearance Minimum are Diameter
as shown(m) in TableMinimum
4. Height (m)
Ball 0.6 --
Ball 0.6 --
TableBall
4. The
Ball minimum size of shapes. 0.6 -- --
Cone 0.6 0.6
ShapesCone Appearance Minimum Diameter (m) 0.6 Minimum Height 0.6(m)
Cone Cone 0.6 0.6 0.6
Cone
Ball 0.6 0.6 -- 0.6
Cylinder
Cone 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2
Cylinder
Cylinder 0.6 1.2 1.2
Cylinder 0.6 1.2
Cylinder
Cylinder 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.2

Diamond
Diamond 0.6 1.2 1.2
Diamond
Diamond 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.2
Diamond 0.6 1.2
Diamond 0.6 1.2
When
When the
theabove-mentioned
above-mentioned basic shapes
basic shapesarearedisplayed
displayedinincombination,
combination, thethe vertical
vertical
When the above-mentioned basic shapes are displayed in combination, the vertical
distance
distancebetween
When
between them
thethem should be
above-mentioned
should at least
be atbe basic
least 1.5 m.
1.5shapes
m.1.5Therefore,
are the
displayed
Therefore, schematic diagram
in schematic
the schematiccombination,
diagram of
thethe
ofthe vertical
distance
When between
the them should
above-mentioned at
basicleast
shapes m. Therefore,
are displayed the
in combination,diagram
the of the
combined
combined sizes
distance
sizesofofshapes
between them
shapes for
for different
should
differentbe categories
at least
categories1.5 ofm.
of vessels areasasshown
Therefore,
vessels are shown
the in Figure
schematic
in Figure 3. vertical
diagram
3. of the
When
combined
distance the
sizes
between above-mentioned
of shapes for basic
different shapes
categories are
ofdisplayed
vessels arein combination,
as shown in the
Figure vertical
3.
combined sizes of them
shapesshould be at least
for different 1.5 m. Therefore,
categories of vessels aretheasschematic
shown indiagram
Figure 3.of the
combined sizes of shapes for different categories of vessels are as shown in Figure 3. the
distance between them should be at least 1.5 m. Therefore, the schematic diagram of
combined sizes of shapes for different categories of vessels are as shown in Figure 3.

Figure3.3.The
Figure Thesize
sizeofofthe
thecombined
combined shapes
shapes of
of different
differentcategories
categoriesofofvessels.
vessels.

Accordingto
According tothe
theRayleigh
Rayleigh Criterion
Criterion [6],
[6],The
Theideal
idealangular
angularresolution of of
resolution thethe
human
human
eyesisisapproximately
eyes approximately 1.35
1.35××
1010 −4 rad
−4 rad or 0.46
or 0.46 0 [7], However,
[7], However, due to factors
due to such as the
factors retina,
such as the
retina, environment, and contrast sensitivity, the actual angular resolution of the normal
human eyes is about 2.91 × 10−4 rad or 10 [8,9]. As a result, the relationship between object
distance and spatial resolution is as shown in Equation (1):

s = R · θmin (1)

where s represents the spatial resolution between two points on an object, R represents
the distance between the human eye and the object, θ min represents the minimum resolv-
able angle.
Therefore, to identify the category of a target vessel through the shapes displayed, the
OOW needs to accurately identify the characteristics of a single shape in both the horizontal
and vertical directions with an angular resolution of 10 , and be able to distinguish the
 𝑠 𝑅⋅𝜃 (1)
where s represents the spatial resolution between two points on an object, R represents
the distance between the human eye and the object, θmin represents the minimum resolva-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508
ble angle. 7 of 15
Therefore, to identify the category of a target vessel through the shapes displayed,
the OOW needs to accurately identify the characteristics of a single shape in both the hor-
izontal and vertical directions with an angular resolution of 1 , and be able to distinguish
individual shapes
the individual in in
shapes a combination
a combinationofofshapes. According to
shapes. According toFigure
Figure3,3,it it
is is necessary
necessary to
to identify the individual shapes that have a diameter of 0.6 m and a height of 1.2 m,
identify the individual shapes that have a diameter of 0.6 m and a height of 1.2 m, respec-
respectively, and to distinguish the combined shapes with a vertical spacing of 1.5 m, as
tively, and to distinguish the combined shapes with a vertical spacing of 1.5 m, as shown
shown in Figure 4.
in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The visual distance of different types of shapes on board vessel.

Figure 4. The visual distance of different types of shapes on board vessel.

In Figure
Figure 4,
4, R
R0.6 and R1.2 represent the distance between a naked eye to the object with
In 0.6 and R1.2 represent the distance between a naked eye to the object with
dimensions of 0.6 m and
dimensions of 0.6 m and 1.2 1.2 m,
m, respectively,
respectively, and
and RR1.5 represents the distance at which two
1.5 represents the distance at which two
shapes with a vertical spacing of 1.5 m can be distinguished
shapes with a vertical spacing of 1.5 m can be distinguished by the by the naked
naked eye.
eye. According
According
to Figure 4 and Equation (1), the distance required to identify different types
to Figure 4 and Equation (1), the distance required to identify different types of shapes of shapes
can
cancalculated,
be be calculated, as shown
as shown in Table
in Table 5. 5.

Table 5.
Table 5. The
The optical
optical distance
distance of
of different
different types
types of
of shapes
shapes on
on board
board vessel
vessel (n
(n mile).
mile).

Type
Type θmin θ Optical Distance
Optical Distance
min
RR0.6 1′ 1.111.11
0.6 10
RR1.2
1.2
1 10 2.232.23
RR1.51.5 1 10 2.782.78

This means
This means that
that even
even without
without considering
considering individual
individual differences
differences in in human
human visual
visual
acuity and adverse maritime conditions, the OOW can only distinguish
acuity and adverse maritime conditions, the OOW can only distinguish between the two between the two
vertical shapes when the vessels are approaching within 2.78 nautical miles.
vertical shapes when the vessels are approaching within 2.78 nautical miles. To accurately To accurately
identify whether
identify whether the
the shape
shape displayed
displayed byby aa vessel
vessel is
is aa ball,
ball, aa cone,
cone, aa cylinder,
cylinder, or
or aa diamond,
diamond,
the vessel needs to be as close as 2.23 nautical miles or even within 1.11 nautical miles.
the vessel needs to be as close as 2.23 nautical miles or even within 1.11 nautical miles.
When aa combined
When combined shape
shape is
is displayed
displayed byby aa vessel,
vessel, the
the distinguishable distance depends
distinguishable distance depends on on
the smallest
the smallest shape
shapeininthe
thecombination.
combination.The Thedistinguishable
distinguishabledistances
distancesofof shapes
shapes forfor differ-
different
ent categories
categories of vessels
of vessels areshown
are as as shown in Table
in Table 6. 6.

4.3. The Timing of Collision Avoidance Actions

During the whole process of encounter, any vessel that has the responsibility to avoid
collision shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to avoid a close-quarters
situation and ultimately ensure that both vessels pass at a safe distance. There are multiple
interpretations of the term “close-quarters situation” [10–12], and the widely accepted one
is that a situation in which two vessels are approaching so close that the most effective
evasive action of one vessel alone is insufficient for passing at a safe distance [13]. Neither
the COLREGs nor the interpretation provide specific numerical values for close-quarters
situations or safe distance, but in navigation practice, there are corresponding reference
standards for both.
In terms of safe distance that varies with the navigational circumstances and the ship’s
maneuverability, it is generally 0.3–0.5 nautical miles in coastal and congested waters, while
in open seas, it is usually 1–2 nautical miles. In adverse weather or restricted visibility,
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 8 of 15
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERTable 6. The 2minimum
REVIEW nautical distinguishable distance of The
miles is recommended. different
safe types of shapes
distance can be(nreduced
mile). if the9 vessel
of 17 has good
Table 6. The minimum distinguishable distance of different types of shapes (n mile).
The maneuverability
Table 6.Category
minimum
of Vessel [14–16].distance
distinguishable of different types of
Shapes shapes (n mile). Distance
Distinguishable
Table 6.Category
The minimum
of distinguishable distance
Vessel of different types of
Shapes shapes (n mile). Distance
Distinguishable
Power-driven vessel Nil --
Category
The Table ofThe
6.
Table 6.Power-driven
minimum Vessel
minimum
distinguishable
vessel Shapes
distinguishable
distance of
Nil distance
different of
types Distinguishable
different
of types
shapes (n of
mile). Distance
--shapes (n mile).
Sailing vessel (being
Category propelled
of Vessel Shapes Distinguishable Distance
Power-driven
Sailing vessel (beingvessel
propelled Nil --
1.11
Category by
Category
of Vesselmachinery)
Power-driven of Vessel
vessel Shapes
Nil
Shapes Distinguishable
-- Distance
1.11
Distinguishable Distance
Sailing vessel (being propelled
by machinery)
Sailing vessel (beingvessel
Power-driven propelled Nil 1.11
--
by machinery)
Power-driven vessel Nil 1.11 --
by machinery)
Sailing vessel (being propelled
Sailing vessel (being propelled by machinery)
Vessel engaged in fishing 1.11
2.23 1.11
Vesselbyengaged
machinery)
in fishing 2.23
Vessel engaged in fishing 2.23
Vessel
Vessel engaged engaged in fishing
in fishing 2.23 2.23
Vessel engaged in fishing 2.23
Vessel restricted in her ability to
Vessel restricted in her ability to 1.11
maneuver 1.11
Vessel restricted in her ability to
maneuver
Vessel restrictedVessel
in her ability to maneuver
restricted in her ability to 1.11 1.11
maneuver 1.11
maneuver
Vessel restricted in her ability to
1.11
maneuver

Vessel not under command 1.11

Vesselcommand
Vessel not under not under command 1.11 1.11
Vessel not under command 1.11
Vessel not under command 1.11
Vessel not under command 1.11
Vessel constrained
Vessel constrained by her draft by her draft 2.23 2.23
Vessel constrained by her draft 2.23
Vessel constrained by her draft 2.23
Vessel constrained by her draft 2.23
Vessel constrained by her draft 2.23 also depends on various
4.3. The Timing ofSimilarly,Collision the applicable
Avoidance Actionsdistance for close-quarters situation
4.3. The Timing factors such as vessel
of Collision Avoidance size,Actions
maneuverability, speed, and so on, making it difficult to quantify
4.3. The DuringTiming theofwhole
Collisionprocess
Avoidanceof encounter,
Actions when any vessel that has the responsibility to avoid
During with
theso a specific value. Generally, usingthat radar
hasobservation from atolong distance and
4.3. The
collision Timing
shall, ofwhole as process
Collision
far Avoidance
possible, oftake
encounter,
Actions
early and any vessel
substantial action the
toresponsibility
avoid a close-quarters avoid
During
collision considering
shall,thesowhole
far radar errors,
asprocess
possible, oftake the
encounter,
early minimum
and applicable
anysubstantial
vessel hasdistance
thataction the foraclose-quarters
toresponsibility
avoid to avoid situation is
close-quarters
situation
4.3. The
During andthe
Timing ultimately
ofwhole
Collision ensure
Avoidance
process that both
Actions vessels pass atthat
a safe distance. There are multiple
collision 3 nautical
shall, so far asmiles;
possible, In of
openencounter,
take seas
early with
andany vessel
restricted
substantial has
visibility,
action the
to responsibility
for
avoid approaching
a to avoid
close-quarters vessels crossing
situation
interpretationsand ultimately
of the term ensure that both vessels
“close-quarters situation”pass[10–12],
at a safeand distance.
the Thereaccepted
widely are multiple one miles. In
collision
situationDuring shall,
and the
the so
bowfar
whole
ultimately as
of thepossible,
process of
observer’s
ensure take
that early
encounter,
vessel,
both andany substantial
vessel
thispass
vessels distanceatthat
a action
has
should
safe to
thenot
distance. avoid
beThere a
responsibility close-quarters
less than
are to avoid
2 nautical
multiple
interpretations
is that a situation of the
in term “close-quarters
which two vessels situation”
are approaching [10–12],so and the
close thatwidely
the accepted
most effectiveone
situation
collision shall,
interpretations and ultimately
so
of far
congested the as ensure
possible,
waters,
term that
when both
take the
“close-quarters early vessels pass
and substantial
vessel is moving
situation” at a safe
[10–12], distance.
action
slowlyto oravoid There are
in anaovertaking multiple
close-quarters situation, this
is that aaction
evasive situationof in which
one vessel two vessels
alone is than are
insufficient approaching
for passing soatand
close
a safe
thethatwidely
the most
distance
accepted
[13].
one
effective
Neither
interpretations
situation
is and
that aaction of
distance
situation the
ultimately term
can
in which also “close-quarters
ensure be that
less
two vessels both 2 situation”
vessels
nautical pass
are approaching [10–12],
at
miles a safe and the
distance.
[17,18].
soatclose that widely
There
the most accepted
are one
multiple
evasive
thethat
COLREGs of
nor onethe vessel alone
interpretation is insufficient
provide for passing
specific numerical a safe
valuesdistancefor most[13].effective
Neither
close-quarters
is
evasive aaction
interpretationssituation of
ofIn in
the
one which
term
addition
vessel two
to the
alone vessels
“close-quarters
is referenceare
insufficient approaching
situation”
standards
for passing insonavigation
[10–12], at close
and
a the
safe that the
widely
practice,
distance effective
accepted
[13]. using one
Neither mathematical
the COLREGs
situations or nordistance,
safe the interpretation
but in provide specific
navigation practice, numerical
there are values
corresponding for close-quarters
reference
evasive
is
the that a
COLREGsaction
situationof
methods one
in vessel
which
and
nordistance, alone
two
considering
the interpretation is insufficient
vesselsvessel are for
approachingpassing
maneuverability,
provide specific soat a
close
it is safe distance
that
possible theto [13].
most
calculate Neither
effective
the distance of a
situations
standards or
for safe
both. but in navigation practice,numerical
there are values corresponding for close-quarters
reference
the COLREGs
evasive action
situations or nor
of one the
close-quarters interpretation
vessel but alone
situation provide
in isnavigation
insufficient
related to specific
for passing
factors numerical
thereatare
including values
a safe
vessel for close-quarters
distance [13].reference
size, speed, Neither distance
bearing, and
standards
In forsafe
terms both.
of
distance,
safe distance that varies with
practice,
the navigational
corresponding
circumstances and the
situations
the COLREGs
standards or
for safe
between distance,
nor the
both. vessels but
interpretation in navigation
[19]. For provide two vessels practice, there
of approximately
specific are
numerical values corresponding
330 for m in reference
length, considering
close-quarters the
ship Ins terms of safe distance
maneuverability, it is that varies
generally 0.3–0.5with the navigational
nautical miles in circumstances
coastal and congested and wa-the
standards
situations
In for
or both.
target
safe vessel
distance,
terms of safe distance maintaining
but in its
navigation
that varies course
with and
practice, speed,
there
the navigational and
are assuming
corresponding
circumstances that the own
reference
and wa-the vessel can
ship
ters, Inswhile
maneuverability,
in open seas, ititisisgenerally
usually 0.3–0.5
1–2 nautical
nautical miles. miles in coastal
Inofadverse and congested
weather or restricted
standards
ship s termsturn
for ofatsafe
both.
maneuverability, full distance
rudder
it is that avaries
with
generally maximum
0.3–0.5with the
advance
nautical navigational
miles four
in circumstances
times
coastal andits length,
congested and the
thewa-close-quarters
ters, while2 in
visibility, open seas,
nautical miles itisisrecommended.
usually 1–2 nautical The safemiles. In adverse
distance can be weather
reduced or restricted
if the vessel
ship
ters, s
In maneuverability,
terms
while2 in situation
of safe
open seas, it
distance
distanceis generally
at which
that 0.3–0.5
the
varies ownwithnautical
vessel
the miles
could in
avoid
navigational coastal
the and
target
circumstances congested
vessel by
and wa-
using
the the rudder
visibility,
has good nautical
maneuverability
is milesitis[14–16].
approximately
isrecommended.
usually 1–2 nautical
2.2 nautical milesThe[20].
safemiles.
The
In adverse
distance can beweather
close-quarters reduced or restricted
if the
situation vessel obtained
distance
ters, while in
ship s maneuverability,
visibility, open seas,
2 nautical miles it
it is is usually
is recommended.
generally 0.3–0.5 1–2 nautical
Thenauticalmiles. In adverse
miles incan
safe distance coastal weather or
and congested
be reduced restricted
wa-
if the vessel
has good maneuverability
Similarly, thesimulation
applicable [14–16].
distance1–2 for close-quarters situation also depends
visibility,
ters,good
has using
2 in
nautical
whilemaneuverability
open milesitis[14–16].
seas, methods
isrecommended.
usually based Theon safe
nautical ship’s domain
distance
miles. canand
In adverse Maneuvering
beweather
reduced ifon
or the various
Modeling Group
vessel
restricted
factorsSimilarly,
such as the applicable
vessel distance
size,is[14–16].
maneuverability, for close-quarters
speed, situation also depends ontovarious
has good
visibility, 2 (MMG)
maneuverability
Similarly, nautical
the indicate
miles
applicable that the close-quarters
recommended.
distance for The safeand
close-quarters
so
situation
distanceon,distance
situation
making
can it difficult
for
be reduced
also depends stationary
ifon quan-
objects is about
thevarious
vessel
factors
tify with such
a as vessel
specific
2.01the size,
value.
nautical maneuverability,
Generally,
miles, while for when speed,
using and
radar so on,
observationmaking fromit difficult
a long to quan-
distance
has good
factors Similarly, applicable
maneuverability
such as vessel distance
[14–16].
size,Generally,
maneuverability, formoving objects,situation
close-quarters
speed,radarand so
it is about
on, making also 3.20 nautical
depends
it difficult onmiles
various[21,22]. Using
tify
and with a specific
consideringthe method value.
radar errors,
proposed thebyminimum when using
Captain applicable
Zajone to observation
distance
estimate for
thealso from a long to
close-quarters
critical collision
quan-
distance
situa- distance
avoidance
factors
tify with such
Similarly, as vessel
the
a specific size,
applicable
value. maneuverability,
distance
Generally, for speed,
close-quarters
when using and so on,
situation
radar observation making it difficult
depends on to quan-
various
and considering
tion with
is such
3 nautical
based radar
miles;
on the errors,
time open the seas
InGenerally,
required minimum with
for one applicable
restricted
vessel distance
tovisibility,
turn 90making for from
for
degrees
a long distance
close-quarters
approaching situa-
vessels
tify
factors
and a specific
considering as vessel value.
radar size, maneuverability,
errors, the when
minimum using
speed, radar
applicableand observation
so on,
distance for fromitand a the
longspeed
difficult
close-quarters to of both vessels,
distance
quan-
situa-
tion is
crossing 3 nautical
the bow
the miles;
of the
close-quarters In open
observer sseas
situation vessel, with
for thisrestricted
own distance
vessel visibility,
should
with 330 not
mfor be
in approaching
less
length thanand 2 a vessels
nautical
target vessel with
and
tion considering
tify with
is 3 thenautical radar
a specificmiles; errors,
value.InGenerally, the
open sseas minimum
whenwith applicable
using distance
radarvisibility,
restricted observation for close-quarters
forbefrom a long distance
approaching situa-
vessels
crossing
miles. In bow
congested
290 m of
in the
waters,
a observer
head-on when the vessel,
situation vesselis this
is distance
moving
approximately should
slowly 2.1 or not
in
nautical an less than
overtaking
miles [23]. 2situation,
nautical
tion
crossing is 3 the
and considering nautical
bowradar miles;
of In open
theerrors,
observer thesseasminimum
vessel, withthisrestricted
applicable
distance visibility,
distance
should notfor
for approaching
close-quarters
beovertaking
less than 2situation, vessels
situa-
nautical
miles. In congested
this distance canInalso waters,
beobserver
summary, less when
than
whetherthe vessel
2vessel,
nautical
inwith ismiles
moving
navigation slowly
[17,18].
practice orortheoretical
in an calculations, the distance at
crossing
tion
miles. is 3 the bow
nautical
In congested of the
miles;
waters, In open
when sseas
the this distance
restricted
vessel ismilesmoving should
visibility, notfor be less than
approaching
slowly or in an overtaking situation, 2 nautical
vessels
this distance can also
which two be less
vessels than
in a 2close-quarters
nautical [17,18].
situation on the sea is typically between
miles.
crossing
this
In addition
In congested
the bow
distance
to
can also
the
ofwaters,
the reference
be observer
less when
thanthe
standards
vesselthis
s2vessel,
nautical
in
ismiles navigation
moving
distance slowly
[17,18]. should practice,
or not using
in anbeovertaking nautical2–3 nautical
mathematical
less than 2situation,
In addition
miles. to the reference
Thisbedistance is standards in navigation practice, using mathematical
methods
this
miles. distanceand
InInaddition
considering
can
congested also
to waters,
vessel
less
the reference than
when 2also
the known
maneuverability,
nautical
vessel
standards
as the
ismiles
moving
in
it ispoint
possible
[17,18].
slowly
navigation
ofortheto
practice,
latest
in calculate minute
an overtaking
using the
action
the distance [24]
situation,
mathematical
of or the last
methods
a and
close-quarters considering
moment maneuver
situation vessel[25].
related maneuverability,
to It refers
factors to the
including itlatest
isvessel
possible
time to speed,
that
size, calculate
the vessel
bearing, distance
with andthe of to avoid
duty
dis-
methods In
this distance addition
andcan to the
also be less
considering reference
vessel standards
thanmaneuverability,
2 nautical miles itin navigation
[17,18].
isvessel
possible practice,
to speed, using
calculate mathematical
the distance of
atance
close-quarters
between situation
collision
vessels can [19]. related
take For action
two to vessels
factors
in including
an encounter
of situation,
approximately size,
considering
330 m inusing bearing,
length, the and dis-
maneuverability
considering of the
methods
atance In and
addition
close-quarters considering
to the
situation vessel
reference maneuverability,
standards in it is
navigationpossible to
practice, calculate the distance
mathematical of
the between
target vessel vessels [19].related
maintaining Foritstwo to vessels
course
factors of
and
including
approximately
speed, and
vessel size,
assuming 330 m speed,
in length,
that the
bearing,
own
and dis-
considering
vessel can
amethods
tanceclose-quarters
between situation
and considering
vessels [19].related
vessel
Foritstwo to vessels
factors of
maneuverability, including it isvessel
approximately possible size,
330 tom speed,
calculate
in length,bearing, and dis-
theconsidering
distance of
the target vessel maintaining course and speed, and assuming that the own vessel can
tance
a between
close-quarters vessels
situation [19]. For
related two to vessels
factors of approximately
including
the target vessel maintaining its course and speed, and assuming that the own vessel can vessel 330
size, m in
speed, length,
bearing,considering
and dis-
the
tance target vessel
between maintaining
vessels [19]. Foritstwo coursevessels andofspeed, and assuming
approximately 330 mthat the own
in length, vessel can
considering
the target vessel maintaining its course and speed, and assuming that the own vessel can
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 9 of 15

vessel. If the action is taken later than this time, the vessels may not be able to pass at a safe
distance [26].

5. The Main Problems and Suggestions Regarding Lights and Shapes

5.1. The Main Problems of Lights and Shapes
It was early in the 1st meeting (NAV/I) of the IMCO sub-committee on navigation
held in 1966 that three substantive issues were raised regarding the technical details of
lights and shapes specified in the 1960 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea. At the 1972 COLREGs amendment conference, some suggestions on lights and
shapes were adopted, such as integrating the technical details into an annex. However,
some obvious problems and reasonable revision proposals were not discussed and adopted,
and deep-seated issues, such as the insufficient clarity of shape size, were not thoroughly
explored [27]. These issues regarding lights and shapes have not been completely resolved
in the subsequent seven amendments, and with the development of larger, faster, and
smarter ships, these problems have become increasingly apparent.

5.1.1. An Inconsistent Visibility Range of Lights

As stated in Table 3, the visibility range of lights for ships of different sizes is not the
same, with larger ships having a significantly greater range than smaller ones. It means that
larger ships need to be closer to detect the smaller ships, which violate the rules of “early
detection of approaching vessels”; Additionally, for ships of the same size, the visibility
range of different types of lights is also not the same. Take the cargo ship with a length of
50 m or more for example, the visibility range of masthead light is 6 nautical miles, while of
the sidelights, sternlight, and all-round light is only 3 nautical miles, which means that it is
necessary to approach 3 nautical miles more to find the sidelights, sternlight, and all-round
light after detecting the masthead light, and then the category and movement of the vessel
detected can be determined, and a subsequent action can be taken. This is obviously
unsafe and does not comply with the “take early and substantial action” requirement in
the COLREGs.

5.1.2. The Visibility Range of Lights Is Too Small

The provisions on the visibility range of navigation lights in the COLREGs have a
history of more than 50 years. At that time, ships were small and had low speed. It was safe
for ships to make collision avoidance decisions and take actions at relatively close distances.
After many years of development, both the size and speed of ships have significantly
increased. Taking container ships as an example, since the first commercial container ship
Ideal X commenced its operation in 1956 [28], the maximum cargo capacity of container
ships has increased from 500–800 TEU to 21,000–24,000 TEU, and the length has increased
from 137 m to 400 m [29], as shown in Figure 5.
The increase in the size of ships will inevitably bring changes to their maneuverability.
According to the IMO resolution MSC. 137(76) “Standards for Ship Maneuverability”, the
maximum advance and tactical diameters should not exceed 4.5 times and 5.0 times of
the ship length respectively, and the track reach of full astern stopping should not exceed
15 times the ship’s length [30]. For a container ship that is 400 m long, the above-mentioned
maneuvering characteristics are approximately 0.97 nautical miles, 1.08 nautical miles, and
3.24 nautical miles, respectively, which are twice those of ships in 1970s. Considering the
extreme case where the ship can only avoid the target ship by a single turn or emergency
stop, the minimum distance at which the ship can safely avoid the target ship’s hull is
depicted in Table 7.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 10 of 15
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Figure 5. The evolution of container ships since 1956. Data source: https://transportgeogra-
Figure 5. The evolution of container ships since 1956. Data source: https://transportgeography.org/
phy.org/contents/chapter5/maritime-transportation/evolution-containerships-classes/. (Accessed
contents/chapter5/maritime-transportation/evolution-containerships-classes/.
on 19 June 2023.) (Accessed on 19
June 2023.)
The increase in the size of ships will inevitably bring changes to their maneuverabil-
Table 7. The minimum distance of collision avoidance with safe passage distance.
ity. According to the IMO resolution MSC. 137(76) “Standards for Ship Maneuverability”,
Maneuverability
the maximum advance and tactical diameters
Safe Passage Distance
shouldMinimum
Ship Length
not exceed 4.5 times and 5.0 times
Distance of Collision Avoidance
of the ship0 length respectively, and the track reach of full astern stopping should not ex-
Advance 0.97 1.00 400 m 2.400
Tactical diameter
ceed 15 times
1.08 0 the ship s length
1.0 0 [30]. For a container
400 m
ship that is 400 m2.51
long,
0 the above-
Track reach of full astern stopping mentioned
3.240 maneuvering1.0 characteristics
0 are approximately
400 m 0.97 nautical miles,
4.67 0 1.08 nauti-
cal miles, and 3.24 nautical miles, respectively, which are twice those of ships in 1970s.
Considering the extreme case where the ship can only avoid the target ship by a single
turnHowever, the visibility
or emergency stop, therange
minimumof navigation
distance at lights
which specified
the shipincan thesafely
COLREGs avoid isthe
only
3 target
nautical miles or 2 nautical miles,
ship s hull is depicted in Table 7. except for the masthead light that has a range of over
3 nautical miles, and the sidelights of ships with a length less than 12 m have a range
ofTable
only7.1Thenautical
minimummile, which
distance is an obviously
of collision avoidance inadequate visibility
with safe passage distance.range according to
the interpretation on close-quarters situation stated in Section 4.3. When identifying an
Safe Passage Minimum Distance of
approaching vessel through visual recognition ofShip
Maneuverability its navigation
Length lights within this range, a
Distance Collision Avoidance
larger vessel may not be able to act at a safe distance, which poses significant safety hazards
Advance
to navigation at sea. 0.97 1.0 400 m 2.40
Tactical diameter 1.08 1.0 400 m
In addition, although visual observation is the most important means of look-out, 2.51
Track
large reachcan
vessels of full
still use 3.24
electronic navigation equipment
1.0 400 msuch as radar and AIS (automatic
4.67
astern stopping
identification system) to assist in detecting approaching vessels or being detected by them.
However,
In contrast, the
small visibility
boats, range of
especially navigation
those less thanlights
12 m specified
in length,in the
haveCOLREGs is only
a significant gap3 in
nautical miles or 2 nautical miles, except for the masthead light that
the equipment and performance of their electronic navigation systems compared to larger has a range of over 3
vessels. Thus, large vessels can only identify small boats through navigation lights installed
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 11 of 15

on them, and the small visibility range of navigation lights on small boats can lead to a
close-quarters situation or even immediate danger for both vessels.

5.1.3. The Size of Shapes Is Too Small

According to the rules regarding the actions of vessels in sight of one another, vessels
primarily use shapes to determine the category of vessel during the daytime and to establish
the avoidance responsibility, and subsequently take appropriate action to avoid collision.
However, within the current framework of shapes’ size, the diameter of the light is only
0.6 m, the height is not more than 1.2 m, and the vertical distance between them is 1.5 m.
The corresponding visibility range is only 1.11 nautical miles, which is obviously less
than the close-quarters distance of 2–3 nautical miles, and even less than the safe passing
distance of two vessels in open waters. If factors such as masts, superstructures, and cargo
that may obstruct or visually interfere with shapes are considered, the visibility range of
shapes may be even smaller. In such a visibility range, using visual recognition of shapes
to determine the category of approaching vessel could mean that the vessels are already in
an immediate danger situation, which poses significant risks to navigation safety.

5.2. The Suggestions Regarding Lights and Shapes

The lights and shapes are the foundation of the rules of “Conduct of Vessels in Sight
of One Another”, and are the important means for mariners to determine the categories of
vessels by means of visual look-out at sea. To address the issues of inconsistent visibility
range and small size of the navigation lights and shapes, it is necessary to take corre-
sponding measures. However, it is also important to note that, according to the technical
characteristics of lights and shapes stated in COLREGs, the maximum luminous intensity
of navigation lights should be limited to avoid undue glare, and this shall not be achieved
by a variable control of the luminous intensity.
To address the issue of inconsistent visibility range of navigation lights, it is suggested
to replace the current method of dividing the visibility range based on the length of the
vessel with a unified method. This will ensure that navigation lights of the same type have
a consistent visibility range for vessels of different sizes and with different maneuvering
capabilities, meeting the requirements of early detection and early action.
Although the distance for making collision avoidance decisions and taking actions
between two vessels largely depends on the category of vessel, the navigational area, the
weather condition, and the sea state, etc. The collision decision should be made when
the distance between two vessels is not less than 6 nautical miles, and action to avoid
collision needs to be taken before 3 nautical miles in navigation practice when navigating
in open waters at sea [31]. To address the issue of navigation lights having a small visibility
range, it is suggested to adjust the visibility range of sidelights to be consistent with that
of masthead light, considering that the arcs of sidelights and masthead light are the same.
This will enable seafarers to identify the approximate heading and movement at the same
time of identifying the outline of the approaching vessel at night. Similarly, considering
that all-round light is the primary means of identifying vessel’s category and establishing
avoidance responsibilities, it is recommended to adjust the visibility range of all-round
lights to be consistent with that of masthead lights, providing more distance and time to
take appropriate action. Finally, considering that the relative speed of a vessel abaft the
beam is relatively slow, a visibility range of 3 nautical miles is sufficient for vessels to act
and pass at a safe distance. Therefore, it is recommended to adjust the visibility range of
the sternlight of vessels less than 50 m in length to be 3 nautical miles, consistent with
vessels 50 m or more in length. The adjusted visibility range of navigation lights is as
shown in Table 8.
 lights to be consistent with that of masthead lights, providing more distance and time to
take appropriate action. Finally, considering that the relative speed of a vessel abaft the
beam is relatively slow, a visibility range of 3 nautical miles is sufficient for vessels to act
and pass at a safe distance. Therefore, it is recommended to adjust the visibility range of
the sternlight of vessels less than 50 m in length to be 3 nautical miles, consistent with
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508
vessels 50 m or more in length. The adjusted visibility range of navigation lights12isof as 15

shown in Table 8.

Table 8. The
Table 8. The suggested
suggested minimum
minimum visible
visible ranges
ranges of
of lights
lights (n
(n mile).
mile).

Masthead Light
Masthead Light Sidelights
Sidelights Sternlight
Sternlight All-Round light
All-Round light
6
6 66 33 6
6

Regarding the issue of small visibility range of shapes that was mentioned by the
Regarding the issue of small visibility range of shapes that was mentioned by the
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and Netherlands in the process of formulating
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and Netherlands in the process of formulating the
the COLREGs in 1972, the IMCO Secretariat proposed a suggestion to relate the size of
COLREGs in 1972, the IMCO Secretariat proposed a suggestion to relate the size of shape to
shape to the ship s scale and/or speed. A survey conducted by Finland showed that ap-
the ship’s scale and/or speed. A survey conducted by Finland showed that approximately
proximately 5–10% of respondents believed that the size of shapes should be a function of
5–10% of respondents believed that the size of shapes should be a function of the ship’s
the ship s scale [27]. However, these proposals were not adopted. In fact, if the size of
scale [27]. However, these proposals were not adopted. In fact, if the size of shapes were to
shapes were to be expressed as a function of the ship s scale, it would mean that larger
be expressed as a function of the ship’s scale, it would mean that larger ships would have to
ships would
display largerhave
signaltoshapes,
displaywhile
largersmaller
signal ships
shapes, while
would smaller
only need ships would
to display only need
smaller shapes,to
display smaller shapes, this would not fundamentally solve the problem
this would not fundamentally solve the problem of not being able to identify the ship’s of not being able
to identify
category bythe shipats acategory
shapes by shapes
safe distance. Onlyatbya unifying
safe distance.
the sizeOnly by unifying
of shapes the size to
to correspond of
ashapes
certaintosafe
correspond
visibilitytorange
a certain
can safe visibility range
the requirements ofcan thedetection
early requirements of early
and early detec-
action be
tion and early action be met. When deciding on the size of shapes,
met. When deciding on the size of shapes, in addition to considering the visibility range, in addition to consid-
ering
the the visibility
adaptability of range, the adaptability
the ship’s structure and ofthe
the feasibility
ship s structure
of crew and the feasibility
operation must of crew
also be
operation must also be considered. The size of shapes should not
considered. The size of shapes should not be increased unreasonably beyond the height be increased unreason-
ably
of thebeyond
mast orthetheheight
rangeofofthe
themast
crew’sor operational
the range ofability.
the crew s operational
Therefore, ability. There-
it is recommended
fore,
to it is recommended
increase the size of shapesto increase
to enablethe them
size oftoshapes
be seentoby enable them eye
the naked to beatseen by the
a visibility
nakedof
range eye at a visibility
3 nautical range
miles; of 3 nautical
similarly, miles;
the vertical similarly,
distance the vertical
between shapes distance
shouldbetween
also be
shapes should also
distinguishable by thebe distinguishable
naked eye at a by the naked
visibility rangeeyeofat3 anautical
visibility rangeAccording
miles. of 3 nautical
to
Formula (1), the diameter of the shapes should be increased from the original 0.6from
miles. According to Formula (1), the diameter of the shapes should be increased m tothe
at
original
least 1.620.6
m, m toconsidering
and at least 1.62a m, and amount
certain considering a certain amount
of redundancy, of redundancy,
it is recommended it is
that this
recommended
value be 1.8 m.thatThethis valuespacing
vertical be 1.8 m. The vertical
between shapes spacing
shouldbetweenalso be atshapes
least should also
1.8 m. The
be at least 1.8 m.
recommended The recommended
combination of shapescombination of shapes
sizes for different sizes forofdifferent
categories ships is categories
as shown
of Figure
in ships is6.as shown in Figure 6.

6. The suggested size of the combined

Figure 6. combined shapes
shapes of
of different
different categories
categories of
of vessels.
vessels.

In addition to conventional approaches such as increasing the luminous intensity of

lights and enlarging the size and spacing of shapes, to increase the visibility range of lights
and shapes and improve the safety of collision avoidance, advanced technologies including
semiconductor laser [32], BP neural network [33], and augmented reality [34] can also
be employed.

6. Conclusions
The rules of “Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another” are the core of the COLREGs,
which defines the collision avoidance responsibilities and action requirements of vessel in
sight of one another. According to the definition of “in sight of one another”, vessels can be
deemed to be in sight of one another only if when one can be observed visually from the
other. The determination of collision avoidance responsibilities depends on the categories
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 13 of 15

of the two vessels and their relative positions, which are mainly determined by identifying
the navigation lights and shapes.
The navigation lights mainly include masthead light, sidelights, sternlight, and all-
round light. The function of masthead light, sidelights, and sternlight is to identify the
outline and approximate heading of the ship at night or in restricted visibility and to
check the effectiveness of collision avoidance actions. The all-around light is mainly used
to identify the category of the ship and determine the collision avoidance responsibility
accordingly. The visible range of these lights is inconsistent with each other but varies with
the size of the ship and the type of lights. In general, larger ships have a longer visible range
than smaller ships, and the masthead light have a longer visible range than other lights. It
means that when a ship discovers another ship at sea through its masthead light, she still
needs to continue sailing for a long time and distance before identifying the approximate
dynamics of the other ship through its sidelights or sternlight or identifying the ship’s
category through its all-around light, which does not comply with the principle of “early
detection and early action” in the COLREGs. In addition, the current visible range of lights
is mainly suitable for small and slow vessels in the early days. Today, with the trend of
larger and faster ships, a too small visible range can cause ships to enter a close-quarters
situation or even immediate dangerous when discovering other ships, and they may not be
able to act according to the COLREGs and pass at a safe distance.
The navigation shapes mainly include cone, ball, diamond, cylinder, and combination
of these basic shapes. The main function of shapes is to identify the category and movement
of a vessel in daylight, and thus determine the collision avoidance responsibility. However,
these shapes are relatively small and have limited visible range which is insufficient to allow
ships to take actions at a safe distance, especially when two vessels with corresponding
shapes are not power-driven vessels with normal maneuverability. In such situation, the
urgency of their movements is even more critical.
To address the issues with lights and shapes, this paper proposes to standardize the
masthead light, sidelights, and all-round light of ships of different sizes to a visible range of
3 nautical miles, in order to solve the problem of inconsistent and insufficient visibility. At
the same time, the shapes’ size and vertical distance between shapes will be standardized
to 1.8 m, ensuring that they can be detected at a visible range of at least 3 nautical miles,
thus solving the problem of limited space and time for collision avoidance caused by small
shapes. According to the legislative procedures of the IMO Convention, proposals for
revisions to the COLREGs should be submitted to the IMO by relevant maritime contracting
states. As a result, these suggestions might be developed into proposals and submitted to
the IMO as part of our further research.
Although this research makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge regard-
ing the navigation lights and shapes, there were also several limitations in this study, and
future work will need to improve in these areas. Firstly, studies on the COLREGs mainly
focus on collision avoidance, but there is limited research specifically on lights and shapes.
As a result, the literature relating to lights and shapes are very limited, and the correspond-
ing theoretical foundations are therefore lacking in this specific area. Secondly, the research
was limited in terms of time and financial resources; thus, there has been no interviews
with seafarers who implemented the COLREGs, to understand the practical application
of lights and shapes in navigational practice. A long period of interviews of seafarers
from different categories of vessels could have generated a more targeted and practical
suggestion. Thirdly, although the suggested larger visibility range of 6 nautical miles for
lights has been verified on masthead light since 1972, the suggested larger visibility range
of 3 nautical miles for shapes has never been verified on a real ship; thus, differences
between different types of conflicts were not analyzed in detail. Finally, the study only
focuses on vessels with mankind on board and does not cover the Maritime Autonomous
Surface Ships (MASS) [35] and the outcome of the Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use
of MASS [36].
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 14 of 15

As a result, further research is needed to determine the theoretical visible range of

lights and shapes and the relationship between a ship’s collision avoidance actions and
these signals, to determine the distance of close-quarters situation and safe passing of
different categories of vessels in different navigational environments. Additionally, it
is necessary to understand the common practices and good seamanship for seafarers in
applying lights and shapes in navigation, as well as the issues and possible solutions for
unmanned vessels in complying with the relevant regulations for lights and shapes, and to
carry out experiment and data collection on real ships to verify the validity of the suggested
visibility range of lights and shapes, as well as to analyze the differences between different
types of conflicts in detail. Many of these questions will need to be addressed through
exploratory accounts in future research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.; methodology, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.;
software, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.; validation, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.; formal analysis, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.;
investigation, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.; resources, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.; data curation, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.;
writing—original draft preparation, W.D. and J.L.; writing—review and editing, W.D. and P.Z.; visual-
ization, W.D., P.Z. and J.L.; supervision, P.Z.; project administration, W.D. and J.L.; funding acquisition,
Not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wikipedia. International Maritime Organization. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_
Organization (accessed on 20 May 2023).
2. Wikipedia. Navigation Light. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light (accessed on 20 May 2023).
3. Wikipedia. Day Shapes. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_shapes (accessed on 20 May 2023).
4. Lampenman, D. A Brief History of Ship Navigation Lights. Available online: https://www.oldshiplights.com/the-history
(accessed on 3 July 2023).
5. IMO. LIST OF CONVENTIONS, OTHER MULTILATERAL INSTRUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS IN RESPECT OF
WHICH THE ORGANIZATION PERFORMS DEPOSITARY AND OTHER FUNCTIONS (as at 1 July 2023). Available
online: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/List%20of%20the%20
Conventions%20and%20their%20amendments.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2023).
6. Learning, L. Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion. Available online: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/
chapter/27-6-limits-of-resolution-the-rayleigh-criterion/ (accessed on 5 July 2023).
7. Wikipedia. Angular Resolution. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution (accessed on 20 May 2023).
8. Wikipedia. Naked Eye. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye#cite_note-Yanoff2009-1 (accessed on 20
May 2023).
9. Zupanc, G.K. Sharp eyes: How well can we really see? Available online: https://www.scienceinschool.org/article/2016/sharp-
eyes-how-well-can-we-really-see/ (accessed on 16 May 2023).
10. Hilgert, H. Defining the Close-Quarters Situation at Sea. J. Navig. 2009, 36, 454–461. [CrossRef]
11. Nav/26/4/2; Definition of the Tern “Close Quarters Situation”. IMO: London, UK, 1981.
12. Cahill, R.A. The Avoidance of Close Quarters in Clear Weather. J. Navig. 2009, 35, 151–159. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, X. The Research on the Safety of Ship Navigation on the Open Sea Based on Ship Maneuverability. Ph.D.Dissertation,
Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China, 2017.
14. Li, W. The Fuzzy Assessment of the Minimum Safe Distance for Ships Passing in Open Waters. Master Dissertation, Dalian
Maritime University, Dalian, China, 2016.
15. Sawada, R.; Sato, K.; Majima, T. Automatic ship collision avoidance using deep reinforcement learning with LSTM in continuous
action spaces. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2020, 26, 509–524. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, W.; Goerlandt, F.; Montewka, J.; Kujala, P. A method for detecting possible near miss ship collisions from AIS data. Ocean.
Eng. 2015, 107, 60–69. [CrossRef]
17. Cockcroft, A.N.; Lameijer, J.N.F. Part B—Steering and sailing rules. In A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, 7th ed.; Butterworth-
Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 96–97.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1508 15 of 15

18. Mohovic, D.; Mohovic, R.; Suljic, M.; Njegovan, M. Reducing the risk of collision between ships in a close-quarters situation by
simulating collision avoidance actions. J. Navig. 2021, 74, 558–573. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, X.; Liu, Z.; Cai, Y. The ship maneuverability based collision avoidance dynamic support system in close-quarters situation.
Ocean. Eng. 2017, 146, 486–497. [CrossRef]
20. Fengchen, W. A Discussion on the Explanation of “Close Quarters Situation. J. Dalian Marit. Univ. 1991, 17, 1–6.
21. He, Y.X.; Xiong, Y.; Huang, L.W.; Tian, Y.F. Studies of last steering point/CRI basis on MMG and ship domain. J. Wuhan Univ.
Technol.(Trans. Sci. Eng.) 2014, 38, 1088–1091.
22. He, Y.; Jin, Y.; Huang, L.; Xiong, Y.; Chen, P.; Mou, J. Quantitative analysis of COLREG rules and seamanship for autonomous
collision avoidance at open sea. Ocean. Eng. 2017, 140, 281–291. [CrossRef]
23. Li, W. Study on the Mathematics for the Point of the Last Minute Action; Dalian Maritime University: Dalian, China, 2001.
24. Li, S.; Zheng, Z.; Mi, J. The latest minute action of ship. In Proceedings of the In Fifth International Conference on Traffic
Engineering and Transportation System (ICTETS 2021), Chongqing, China, 24–26 September 2021; pp. 644–649.
25. Koszelew, J.; Wołejsza, P. Determination of the Last Moment Manoeuvre for Collision Avoidance Using Standards for Ships
Manoeuvrability. Annu. Navig. 2017, 24, 301–313. [CrossRef]
26. Krata, P.; Montewka, J. ASSESSMENT OF A CRITICAL AREA FOR A GIVE-WAY SHIP IN A COLLISION ENCOUNTER. Arch.
Transp. 2015, 34, 51–60. [CrossRef]
27. Zhang, D. 50 Years of the Adoption of Convention on the COLREGS: Retrospect and Prospe. World Shipp. 2022, 45, 1–5. [CrossRef]
28. Wikipedia. Container Ship. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship (accessed on 20 June 2023).
29. Rodrigue, J.-P. The Geography of Transport Systems, 5th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 456.
30. MSC 76/23/Add.1; Standards for Ship Manoeuvrability (Resolution MSC.137(76)). IMO: London, UK, 2002; pp. 1–8.
31. Zhou, X.Y.; Huang, J.J.; Wang, F.W.; Wu, Z.L.; Liu, Z.J. A Study of the Application Barriers to the Use of Autonomous Ships Posed
by the Good Seamanship Requirement of COLREGs. J. Navig. 2020, 73, 710–725. [CrossRef]
32. Jinshan, Z.; Tongfei, W.U.; Licheng, S.; Jianchuan, Y.; University, D.M.; Society, C.C. Design of Semiconductor Laser Navigation
Lights with Light Intensity and Visible Arc Simulation. Navig. China 2015, 38, 5–9. [CrossRef]
33. Zhu, J.; Sun, L.; Yin, J.; Li, T. Simulation of Ship Lights Recognition Model Based on Back Propagation Neural Network. J. Basic
Sci. Eng. 2012, 20, 455–463. [CrossRef]
34. Bandara, D.; Woodward, M.; Chin, C.; Jiang, D. Augmented Reality Lights for Compromised Visibility Navigation. J. Mar. Sci.
Eng. 2020, 8, 1014. [CrossRef]
35. Wikipedia. Autonomous Cargo Ship. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cargo_ship (accessed on 8
April 2023).
36. IMO. OUTCOME OF THE REGULATORY SCOPING EXERCISE FOR THE USE OF MARITIME AUTONOMOUS SURFACE
SHIPS (MASS). In Proceedings of the Maritime Safety Committee(103rd session), London, UK, 5–14 May 2021.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.