|
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Wrong word, Neal ..... Disgusted, would be closer.
otn Simple Simon wrote: I'm beginning to think Rick is becoming a newsgroup stalker. He's so jealous of me he just can't let go of his obsession. S.Simon "Rick" wrote in message nk.net... Simple Simon wrote: How Nil "can call himself a mariner is an absurdity of a major sort." Let's look at what he brings to the dock: A license good for a Whaler load of poor bemused and endangered passengers but none of the other certifications required of legitimate professional mariners. A plastic trailer-sailer with a broken boom moored to an old engine block in some Florida swamp. A pedant's vision of the COLREGS based on sailing fantasies developed while immersed in the fumes from his cedar bucket MSD. H'mmm, that seems to be about all ... He needs about a year's worth of training before he can even be a "one tripper." I don't believe he can successfully complete it even if he could afford it. Poor pathetic internet wannabe. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Excellent point, but beyond Neal's basic comprehension abilities.
otn Jeff Morris wrote: Something else not often mentioned in these threads is that it very difficult to determine the nature, course and speed of a boat as it first appears through the fog. Neal has claimed that the instant he sees another vessel he can turn away. The problem is that such an instantaneous response could be completely wrong. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Yet again Simple Simon shows the world that he has never actually been at sea in fog. It is NOT easy to tell the bearing of a vessel by just hearing a sound signal in fog. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Buffoon?
Rick wrote: Jonathan Ganz wrote: Bozo? No, haven't called him a bozo. That term is just a bit too warm and fuzzy. It implies a certain charm and harmlessness that just doesn't apply to someone as nasty and pernicious as Nil. Nil is more like an aggressive panhandler. It probably stems from a lifetime of underachievement and frustration. Having a broken boom on his little plastic trailer boat probably hasn't made things any easier for him. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ubject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility. From: "Simple Simon" Date: 10/16/2003 14:26 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under the circumstances he finds himself in. Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is. S.Simon Wrong, The COLREGS are very specific as to what is and isn't Safe Speed. You just don't understand what they say! Shen |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Subject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility. From: "Simple Simon" I maintain it is NOT scanty information. I know you do, but those of us with experience in these conditions, know better. Try getting out of the wheelhouse and opening your ears and you will discover it's easy to tell the bearing of a vessel giving fog signals. It is also not too difficult to tell the sound is getting louder (closer). I see, so .... It couldn't possibly be that the other vessel is turning and directing his whistle at you, rather than closing on you? Look at your radar as required by the Rules and plot positions and get bearings. Now, now .... you don't have or know how to use radar, so we have always addressed this as vessels without radar. Rule 8 applies in ALL conditions of visibility and it states that changing course early and largely is often the best way to avoid a close quarters situation. You would have me create a close quarters situation with your stupid insistence that I slow down and remain on the same course. You are Wrong Wrong Wrong! Not knowing what the other vessel is doing, how do you know you would be creating a close quarters situation by slowing down? How do you know you wouldn't be creating a close quarters situation by changing course? Stupid, stupid,stupid Why give signals at all if you're just gonna ignore them or use them to create close quarters situations? Huh? Huh? I can't HEAR you! You are SUCH an ignorant, incompetent, BUFFOON ! Shen |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ubject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility. From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?The=5Fnavigator=A9?= Date: 10/16/2003 14:16 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO Cheers MC Not really, it just takes different skills. Shen |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ubject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility. From: "Simple Simon" Date: 10/16/2003 14:42 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: You motorboat captains are all the same. You refuse to believe you are nothing but glorified truck drivers. Sailors, on the other hand, are much much more competent mariners. There is a whole world you are unfamiliar with because you drive boats while sailors sail them. How anybody who drives a boat from an enclosed and air-conditioned wheel house where you can't smell the air, hear the sounds outside, feel the temperature, look at the horizon all around, see the sky, see the water, etc. can call himself a mariner is an absurdity of a major sort. S.Simon Another prime example of Neal's highly limited experience. Shen |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Otn,
Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things
right with respect to this question of who determines safe speed. S.Simon "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
G I was searching for something else from Neal (read my response to
his response). If you are maintaining a complete deck log, ANY changes in speed MUST be noted (only done on ships). otn Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote: Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the
basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor.
Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice. As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held to a higher standard. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
You are wrong. No court can legally pass legislation.
No court can require anybody to study court cases. Courts are only empowered to decide how laws apply and if laws are constitutional and who may or may not have broken them. Any court or judge who says I must know all court cases that apply to the Colregs is completely overstepping his bounds. It is my duty to follow the letter of the Colregs. I cannot be expected to be a legal expert. Your liberal attitudes are showing again. Your attitudes suggest that when a motorist sees a 55MPH speed limit sign he is required to know and understand all court decisions related to this speed limit. That's bull and you know it. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor. Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice. As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held to a higher standard. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Is there no limit to the depths of your ignorance?
I know that you believe the "Farwell's," the standard text for the US Naval Academy, written by two former chairmen of the Navigation Department of the Academy (one of them a Commander in the Royal Navy, BTW), is part of a liberal conspiracy --- But here's what they say, so that others will understand: From the chapter on Principals of Marine Collision Law: Rules Modified by Court Interpretation A fourth principle of the rules too often overlooked by the mariner in his seagoing practice of collision law is that to avoid liability he must know not only what the rules applicable to a given situation provide but what the federal courts have interpreted them to mean. Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as efficient whistle or siren, flare-up light, proper lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third, judicial interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or con- flicts in the latter. .... Whatever the mariner thinks of the legal setup, which has the effect giving the courts more authority over the rules of the road than the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, who enforces them through the inspectors, the mariner must obey the law as he finds it- and that means in practice, as the admiralty judges interpret it. Notwithstanding the that in this country we do not have special admiralty courts, but federal judge may be required to hear a collision case, it will be found the decisions have been, as a whole, sound in seamanship as well as in law. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... You are wrong. No court can legally pass legislation. No court can require anybody to study court cases. Courts are only empowered to decide how laws apply and if laws are constitutional and who may or may not have broken them. Any court or judge who says I must know all court cases that apply to the Colregs is completely overstepping his bounds. It is my duty to follow the letter of the Colregs. I cannot be expected to be a legal expert. Your liberal attitudes are showing again. Your attitudes suggest that when a motorist sees a 55MPH speed limit sign he is required to know and understand all court decisions related to this speed limit. That's bull and you know it. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor. Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice. As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held to a higher standard. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
(deity I hate top posting but this is too messed up to fix...)
You, as master of the ship/vessel/bathtub/whatever, decide what _you_ consider to be a "safe speed" for the conditions... however... the courts _always_ get the benefit of perfect hindsight when it comes to the crunch and you then have to be prepared to justify your choice of "safe speed"... if you are around to do so... Simple Simon wrote: Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things right with respect to this question of who determines safe speed. S.Simon "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? -- COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD! |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Dear Group, Some people here who claim to be captains are so obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin, is but one example of restricted visibility that they have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted visibility. Excellent troll, Neal. All the usual suspects well and truly hooked! I'm impressed. Regards Donal -- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Donal" wrote: Excellent troll, Neal. All the usual suspects well and truly hooked! I'm impressed. I'm bored... LP |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Plain women usually are . . .
"Lady Pilot" wrote in message news:relkb.2938$B_2.2216@okepread02... I'm bored... |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
So what kind of woman would like to hear the same argument for many
months? Maybe your ex-wife? LP (needs more excitement than that) "Simple Simon" wrote: Plain women usually are . . . "Lady Pilot" wrote: I'm bored... |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ...
Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another. Hummm... Obviously this person has never spent any time in the pacific northwest in the summer. I was at about 43N and 30 miles off when I watched two 300 foot boats plow into each other because of fog. Do you remember how the nose of that paper airplane you use to make looked after a few nose dives? Trust me, the mate was not considering a "pecking order" when that bow loomed out of the mythical mist at a whoping 2.8 knts! Damn the COLREGS.......no speed ahead! Chris Freya 39 At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another. Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore, I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision. If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES. Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation. This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility. If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation. (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc, here - we're talking at sea.) This means the give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - knows the practical application as well as the letter of the Rules. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Sorry Jeff, It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread. I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of restricted visibility. Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should perhaps add a couple of points; First Point: Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1 (Application) '(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels' Second Point: Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog? He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker. I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog. I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound signals much easier than with an engine on. Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and Meteorology amongst other things. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Very good Paul, that sums it up!
(1) The captain is responsible for all of his decisions regarding safe speed. (And other decisions too!) (2) The court decides "in perfect hindsight" whether or not the decision(s) was correct. I like it. Capt. Frank paul cooke wrote: (deity I hate top posting but this is too messed up to fix...) You, as master of the ship/vessel/bathtub/whatever, decide what _you_ consider to be a "safe speed" for the conditions... however... the courts _always_ get the benefit of perfect hindsight when it comes to the crunch and you then have to be prepared to justify your choice of "safe speed"... if you are around to do so... Simple Simon wrote: Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things right with respect to this question of who determines safe speed. S.Simon "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message nk.net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Lady Pilot" wrote in message news:Aolkb.2941$B_2.204@okepread02... So what kind of woman would like to hear the same argument for many months? Maybe your ex-wife? You think that you wouldn't produce thar same argument for many months??? Honestly! Women are perfectly capable of producing the same argument for many years. Next Tuesday is my 25th wedding anneversiary. Earlier tonight, my wife tried to ask me how much I wanted on my dinner plate. SHE KNOWS HOW MUCH I WANT!! For 25 years she has given me too much food every single bloody night! Every single night since we got married, I've left food on my plate. I still get carrots served to me. I've never eaten a single bloody carrot in 25 years. WHY do I still get carrots on my plate? Regards Donal - who really doesn't understand women. -- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ROFL, Trust me Donal it doesn't get any easier after 25
Donal wrote: "Lady Pilot" wrote in message news:Aolkb.2941$B_2.204@okepread02... So what kind of woman would like to hear the same argument for many months? Maybe your ex-wife? You think that you wouldn't produce thar same argument for many months??? Honestly! Women are perfectly capable of producing the same argument for many years. Next Tuesday is my 25th wedding anneversiary. Earlier tonight, my wife tried to ask me how much I wanted on my dinner plate. SHE KNOWS HOW MUCH I WANT!! For 25 years she has given me too much food every single bloody night! Every single night since we got married, I've left food on my plate. I still get carrots served to me. I've never eaten a single bloody carrot in 25 years. WHY do I still get carrots on my plate? Regards Donal - who really doesn't understand women. -- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
It's a hint that she wants you to live up to your fantasies.
Cheers MC Donal wrote: "Lady Pilot" wrote in message news:Aolkb.2941$B_2.204@okepread02... So what kind of woman would like to hear the same argument for many months? Maybe your ex-wife? You think that you wouldn't produce thar same argument for many months??? Honestly! Women are perfectly capable of producing the same argument for many years. Next Tuesday is my 25th wedding anneversiary. Earlier tonight, my wife tried to ask me how much I wanted on my dinner plate. SHE KNOWS HOW MUCH I WANT!! For 25 years she has given me too much food every single bloody night! Every single night since we got married, I've left food on my plate. I still get carrots served to me. I've never eaten a single bloody carrot in 25 years. WHY do I still get carrots on my plate? Regards Donal - who really doesn't understand women. -- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Donal wrote:
I still get carrots served to me. I've never eaten a single bloody carrot in 25 years. WHY do I still get carrots on my plate? Do you bump into things at night? Cheers Marty, (who gets his billberry) |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Donal" wrote: "Lady Pilot" wrote: So what kind of woman would like to hear the same argument for many months? Maybe your ex-wife? You think that you wouldn't produce thar same argument for many months??? Honestly! Women are perfectly capable of producing the same argument for many years. Heh. Well... Next Tuesday is my 25th wedding anneversiary. Congrats on 25 years! Earlier tonight, my wife tried to ask me how much I wanted on my dinner plate. SHE KNOWS HOW MUCH I WANT!! How would she know if you had a late lunch, or was extra hungry from doing more physical labor than usual? Do you expect her to be a mind reader? For 25 years she has given me too much food every single bloody night! Every single night since we got married, I've left food on my plate. Maybe she got the habit from her mother who got it from her mother..... I still get carrots served to me. I've never eaten a single bloody carrot in 25 years. WHY do I still get carrots on my plate? They do say that your tastes change about every seven years. Maybe she thought you would try them after all these years? Donal - who really doesn't understand women. Maybe you should just ask her then? LP |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Lady Pilot" wrote in message news:bOXkb.4604$B_2.981@okepread02... Donal - who really doesn't understand women. Maybe you should just ask her then? I _have_ asked. Believe me, I've asked. Regards Donal -- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
I _have_ asked. Believe me, I've asked.
Regards Donal Hey! Stop your grousing! You get tea served in bed every morning. Be = grateful. --=20 katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Pockets of Resistance wrote: 3. If you are a powerboat, sod off. Not if the geezer at the helm, with the bimbo in matching mettalic jacket, has a heart attack! Seahag |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com