Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").


Please refresh my memory, Jeff. I've seen the term "Right of Way" in the Inland
rules, and in the Connecticut Automobile Drivers handbook. How does it apply to
the Colregs?

As I said, "simple terms." Frank doesn't seem ready for "standon" and
"giveway."

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.

Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.

If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.

That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.

You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.

Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said "I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

"(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely
restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate
from their course."

The question you should be asking isn't *would this boat be
maneuverable*.

No, the question is *would this boat (in my example) and it's tow be
severly restricted in their ability to deviate from their course*......
answer..... quite probably under most conditions, yes.

It's *is this
boat severely restricted in its ability to deviate from it's course*?
It's plain that it's NOT! It's as simple as turning the tiller handle.

G Try turning that tiller handle with no regard to the size/weight of
your tow and see how far you get. At best you'll get nowhere, at worst
you'll get tripped and end up in the drink with the pram on top of you.


Or throttling back.

...... and start praying the tow doesn't run you over.


It might not turn as fast or slow down as fast as
it can by itself. But it can do both. There's nothing severe about it.

Depends on the circumstances.... in my example it's probably severe.


Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe

Doesn't apply to this case in questio
, or being attached to a boat
your supplying or being attached to a wreck

Doesn't apply to the case in question.

or having a mine ten feet
away on either side of you.

May or may not apply.
That's what the examples tell you.

You really do have limited experience. The examples are of types of
vessels which may be RAM..... not all are considered "towing vessels" and
in fact few are.


A
towboat severely restricted means the same freakin' thing. Say it's
going around the bend in a river. It can't change course or the barge
will hit the bank. It can't slow down or the barge will hit the bank.
That's severe. Duh!

ROFL


3(g) "from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to
maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel."

How can you say your example is *unable* to keep out of the way of
Scotty's sailboat?

Simple.....because of the size/hullshape/hp/towing arrangement of the
pram, it and it's tow are severely restricted in it's ability to deviate
from it's course.

It's so simple. Turn the tiller sooner instead of later of turn off
the freakin' motor and stay out of the way of the sailboat.

BG

It's silly to say your example is RAM. The rule just doesn't
support it. Two motor boats
is all they are. One's running the other's broke down.

G If we listen to you, then you should be highly qualified to go aboard
any towboat and do the job..... simple....turn the tiller and jocky the
throttles.......

otn

Cheers,
Ellen

:

Leaving the colregs entirely to on side my basic thought is that if he
is moving at least 4-5 times faster than I can he must take avoiding
action because there is nothing I can usefully do. With such a big
speed difference I am in effect 'an obstruction to sea room' so he had
better avoid me...


Stop/come about.......

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 18:05:06 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:30:37 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Please refresh my memory, Jeff. I've seen the term "Right of Way" in the Inland
rules, and in the Connecticut Automobile Drivers handbook. How does it apply to
the Colregs?
Pedantry, pedantry, Charlie.

It's not as if he's speaking in tongues. I applaud Jeff for using plain
English. Most of us could figure out what he means.

Oh, no, Dave. When it's Jeff's turn to correct others he INSISTS on absolute
accuracy. When he is arguing a technical point, he owes it to all of us to be
completely accurate. The thread is about using either a strict or loose
interpretation. Every syllable counts! Reducing jargon is a fine goal, but this
particular thread is not the place. As a lawyer, you should know that. :^)


That's a crock of **** - I've never been picky about this issue. I've
only mentioned it to get it out of the way. When I learned the rules
phrases like right of way and burden and privilege were common, so I'm
quite happy to use them, even prefer them, with the understanding that
it isn't the way the rules are currently worded and the concepts have
shifted.

This thread is certainly not about a strict interpretation. It can't
be, because the facts of the the various cases recently referenced
(the sunfish, the sport fishermen, the amateur tow) are quite vague.
The issue is whether the rules can be ignored in favor of common
sense. Or, if the rules and common sense lead to different results,
which do you follow? Or, can the casual student of the rules learn
enough so that with a little common sense, a safe course can be
followed?

My issue with Frank is that some people make up concepts that simply
don't exist in the rules. In a very large sense, maneuverability is
behind many of the rules. However, in real life the rules have to be
applied without that being the primary deciding factor. As a
secondary issue, a 20 foot sailboat must consider the "limitations" of
a 600 foot tanker, but the sailboat is still standon. (If you really
want pedantry, consider why a CBD is not standon wrt the sailboat -
worth 5 points.)

And another thing - Scotty implied he avoids getting into situations
where knowledge of the rules is needed. In Frank's case, he seemed to
be demanding that others should follow his private definitions.
There's a big difference.

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in m

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake
Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year
before they
located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red
paint streaks
were all over the boat. The investigation was
relatively easy, and the
red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,
sporting damage
to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the
"captain" who
skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial
for, or has been
convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first
paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

You're me? How am I enjoying living in Pennsylvania?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in m

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake
Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year
before they
located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red
paint streaks
were all over the boat. The investigation was
relatively easy, and the
red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,
sporting damage
to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the
"captain" who
skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial
for, or has been
convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first
paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

You're me? How am I enjoying living in Pennsylvania?

You love it!
Scout

"Charlie Morgan" wrote
| How high is that pile of leaves?
| How high is that lampost? How high is that... wave?


How high are you? Pot?

Cheers,
Ellen

Scout wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in m


Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake

Michigan on a clear,

calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year

before they

located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red

paint streaks

were all over the boat. The investigation was

relatively easy, and the

red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,

sporting damage

to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the

"captain" who

skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial

for, or has been

convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first

paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

You're me? How am I enjoying living in Pennsylvania?


You love it!
Scout


He shouldn't complain...PA's better than Indiana any day...

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe
|
| Doesn't apply to this case in questio
| , or being attached to a boat
| your supplying or being attached to a wreck
|
| Doesn't apply to the case in question.
|
| or having a mine ten feet
| away on either side of you.
|
| May or may not apply.
| That's what the examples tell you.
|
| You really do have limited experience. The examples are of types of
| vessels which may be RAM..... not all are considered "towing vessels" and
| in fact few are.


BG Limited maybe so. But you still don't understand why they put those examples of
RAM boats in that rule. I'll tell you so listen. Here's a Q tip. Get that wax outta your ears.
Wipe that smirk off your face. I'm not ready to give up on you yet.
They put those examples in there so everybody would be able to understand what's meant
by *severe* and *unable*. They are defining those words. They're examples of what the rule
says. Mind pictures. You could think of other examples. That's why they said not limited to.
But any other examples you think of have to be similar. IOW just as severe and just as unable.
Your example isn't anyway near it. It's totally NOT similar. It's a joke. Well intended but
*severely unable* to make your point. :-))))))
BFG I proved you made a mistake. Why not be a man and admit it? I'm amazed you can be
driving big ships around without fully understanding simple rules. Even when the rule's
written so any old retard can understand it. Even when I tell you twice why they put the
examples in there. Duh! (You and Jeff brothers?)
Cri-men-ny, otn your hopeless/you really are. Typical bull headed man..... Stubborn ,obstinate,
self-righteous! Oh! And smug. I'd like to smack ya. BBG (that's big blonde grin)

Cheers,
Ellen