I'll second that - reading the rules is, by itself, nearly useless. If anyone doubts me,
they should spend a few hours reading the book, then take a sample test. I would be very
surprised if anyone did better than 65% - passing is 90%. In fact, getting better than
80% is difficult even open book.

With repetition, its possible to memorize enough of the answers to pass the test. But it
requires extended period of study, hopefully assisted by others to truly understand the
rules.

BTW, it is startling how many people don't understand the rules, or grossly misinterpret
them. Fortunately, they usually err on the conservative side, claiming, for instance,
that large ships always have right of way. However, I was recently trying to determine
the status of rowboats and found many sites, including some official sites and handbooks,
that claimed that "human powered vessels" have right of way over all others. It turns out
that there is no explicit mention (other than appropriate lights) of rowboats in the
ColRegs - which means that they are simply governed by Rule 2 (ordinary practice of seamen
....) and the other basic rules, and enjoy no special status. Also, rule 9 and 10 specify
"all vessels under 20 meters ... shall not impede" and for non-US waters the CBD rule
applies to all vessels. The major exception to this is that inland lakes, not covered by
the ColRegs, often have state regs that give rowboats special status. In MA, for
instance, there are 4 such lakes, ME has a lot of them, etc. But these rules do not apply
(as far as I know) in the waters covered by ColRegs.



-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)



"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
I think we all realize that Neal is "trolling". However, with each new
troll we are apt to find a new possibility of "misinterpretation" that
needs to be addressed.
Since the subject is at least "On topic" and does tend to bounce around
all aspects of the "rules" it does serve a purpose for the group at large.
For myself, it keeps me on my toes. I used to read the rules book from
cover to cover, once or twice a year, to spark some memory cells .....
BORING!! This gives me a chance to do much the same thing and have some
fun at the same time.
Frequently, because of my background, I will get people coming to me
with rules question (either for test purposes or just for general
information), and I've been amazed at times, with some of the
interpretations people have, from reading the rules ( much like the
stuff in Neal's trolls) so, there's a good chance, BG if there's a
rules thread, you'll see me stick to it, because a read through of the
rules by a neophyte may end up creating more questions than answers.

otn

Gerard Weatherby wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:37:04 GMT, otnmbrd wrote:


The only reason I continue to answer your post, is to be sure that some
neophyte who is lurking in the background here, does NOT believe that
what you say is gospel, but is, instead, gibberish garbage.


Surely after the first back and forth this hypothetical neophyte lurker will
have sufficient information to draw the necessary conclusions. Why not just
post links to the rules?

The downloadable version
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm

and the online version

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm

S/V Cat's Meow
http://www.catsmeow.org