On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:40:44 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/08/2011 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:12:45 -0400, BeachBum"not a wrote:

On 8/18/2011 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:02:50 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:40:42 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

The sailboat did not have the right of way. The skipper took a
foolish risk and lost the bet.

Rule 18(b)

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=Rule18

And, I never said otherwise.

However, in international waters, that wouldn't be the case

==============

The rules in international waters are exactly the same with respect to
that situation. See rule 18(b) of the international COLREGS:

http://www.boatingsafety.com/colregs.htm



Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid
collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability,
since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the
other. There is no such rule that says a tanker can run down a smaller
boat.

Nothing in 18b talks about this situation.

Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft
long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the
smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense.

In the case of a crossing situation, I've heard the term the boat on
the right is right... just like when two cars come to stop signs at
the same time.

Inland and in restricted situations, such as a channel, they are
restricted by draft, for example.

In this situation, it is perfectly clear that the sailor ****ed up. You
will learn, as you mature, that all your book learnin and Goggling is
trumped by common sense and good judgement.

Wow. You're making some big assumptions there!

Wow. Two racist liars agree with each other! Call CNN!

Should tell you that even your own fleabagger kind thinks your a
dumb**** with at least boat regs.

Should tell you that you're a moron and that it won't be changing any
time soon.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:20:31 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John H
wrote:

Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft
long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the
smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense.

In that example both boats re restricted in their ability to maneuver
by virtue of their size. They are governed by the rules of the road
however which say that the vessel being overtaken is the "stand on"
vessel (see COLREGS definitions). That said, both vessels have the
obligation to avoid a collission. If there is doubt about another
vessels intent, they are *required* to make contact on the radio
and/or signal their intentions using whistles or horns.

In the case I cited, the "stand on" vessel is being overtaken. This
has nothing to do with Rule 18b International, and has nothing to do
with size per se, which is what dummy was arguing.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:11:05 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/08/2011 8:20 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John
wrote:

Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft
long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the
smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense.

In that example both boats re restricted in their ability to maneuver
by virtue of their size. They are governed by the rules of the road
however which say that the vessel being overtaken is the "stand on"
vessel (see COLREGS definitions). That said, both vessels have the
obligation to avoid a collission. If there is doubt about another
vessels intent, they are *required* to make contact on the radio
and/or signal their intentions using whistles or horns.

True, but no argument about who was more maneuverable. A sailboat is by
far the more maneuverable. The freighter did honk the horn in plenty of
time. And if he can't tack his rig well, darwin was incompetent.

I would not want to be in a car with this idiot making a cutoff move on
a train.....

As usual, you're agreeing with something that was under disagreement.
So what? You're still a moron.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote:

Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid
collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability,
since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the
other

Nothing but physics.
I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have
(Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet).

Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several
sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing
to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of
following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size.

Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking
about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea.
That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other
communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road.

Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way.

Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the
obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat
like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a
small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read
reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking.

I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the
Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are.
It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good
rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up
on the beach in Norfolk.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt
it's fun to watch.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:43:08 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/08/2011 5:55 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:24:33 -0400, wrote:


However, in international waters, that wouldn't be the case, so when
BAR claimed that the bigger you are means you have more rights, he's
wrong in several cases.

You missed my point completely. It doesn't matter if you have the right
of way if you die in the process of expecting the other boat, car or 18-
wheeler to yield to your right of way.

When there are ships or barges transiting the Potomac river everyone has
to get out of their way. Even in the Chesapeake Bay you need to get out
of the way of ships and barges when they are in the channel. due to the
fact that outside of the channel it can get extremely shallow quickly.

If you can defend your right of way from the grave good luck on coming
back and boating in this world again.




As usual, you've missed your own point. The rules are there to be
followed by everyone. If people start assuming what the other is going
to do, then that's when you'll be able to defend your action from
grave.

Which was why the sailboat fleabagger was wrong, he should have gone
around and not been such an ass. Rules of right away said he had no
business being there. Get it through your retarded skull.

Good part is if you do ever captain a boat, we might not ever see you
again.

As I said, you're arguing about something that's not an issue. There
is NO RULE that talks about size in this context.

You have no boat, unless you call what floats in your tub a boat.
You're a poor little man with no prospects. You hate kids and women.
You're bitter. We get it.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:54:31 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/08/2011 5:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:37:35 -0400, John
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:04:51 -0400, BeachBum"not a wrote:

On 8/18/2011 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:04:59 -0400, John
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:50:57 -0400, BeachBum"not a wrote:

On 8/17/2011 11:35 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/08/2011 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:02:51 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:27:42 -0400, wrote:

In aweb.com, "not a
says...

On 8/17/2011 12:04 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote:

In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right
of Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter
if you
are on the highway or on the water.

According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the
time.

Cite please.

God doesn't isn't going to accept your argument that you aren't
supposed
to be at the pearly gates because you had the right of way and you
should be sent back.

==============

The sailboat did not have the right of way. The skipper took a
foolish risk and lost the bet.

Rule 18(b)

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=Rule18

And, I never said otherwise.

However, in international waters, that wouldn't be the case, so when
BAR claimed that the bigger you are means you have more rights, he's
wrong in several cases.

Like I said, best you are **** poor and can't afford a boat.

Always wrong deplume.

What ever happened to that dream boat you and several of your friends
were going to chip in on?

I was discussing this with a friend a few days ago. The plume started off with a tale about a sail
boat investment with some friends. Sounded great.

Then we all became moronic, assholish, racist homophobes.

So, I guess when you bought your boat (you have a big boat right?),
you just bought the first thing you saw, no questions asked. Since you
were born knowing how to sail (or run a 40 ft motor boat), you didn't
bother to take lessons or make any plans to figure out how to do that.
You didn't "become" a moronic, assholish, racist, homophobe. You were
one all along.

What John was talking about makes perfect sense now. Thanks for clearing
up the " I'm gonna buy a boat" mystery.

Perhaps the plume should have spent some time asking questions rather than telling us how moronic,
assholish, racist, and homophobic we were.

Perhaps, you're just embarrassed by how accurate I've been about you
being a lying, racist, asshole.

Polly want a cracker?

Knuckles want to be stupid? Oh, you already are.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:38:15 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:04:59 -0400, John H
wrote:

What ever happened to that dream boat you and several of your friends
were going to chip in on?

I was discussing this with a friend a few days ago. The plume started off with a tale about a sail
boat investment with some friends. Sounded great.

=====

I would be concerned about a person with D'Plume's vast certitude
owning and operating a sailboat. Sailboats were invented to teach
the unwary just how much they *don't* know.

I would be concerned about a pompous ass like you Wayne being in
charge of a middle class motorboat that's 40 feet long. You certainly
haven't learned much in your time on the planet. I feel sorry for you.

On 18/08/2011 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:20:31 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John
wrote:

Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft
long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the
smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense.

In that example both boats re restricted in their ability to maneuver
by virtue of their size. They are governed by the rules of the road
however which say that the vessel being overtaken is the "stand on"
vessel (see COLREGS definitions). That said, both vessels have the
obligation to avoid a collission. If there is doubt about another
vessels intent, they are *required* to make contact on the radio
and/or signal their intentions using whistles or horns.

In the case I cited, the "stand on" vessel is being overtaken. This
has nothing to do with Rule 18b International, and has nothing to do
with size per se, which is what dummy was arguing.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

Well fleabagger parrot, (i) doesn't apply, both ships were under command
and under way in a main channel. See the buoy?

(ii) freighter has less maneuverability, you loose. (iii) not applicable.

Clearly the freighter was not over taking the sail boat. For that to
happen the sailboat wold have to be about 120 degrees to starboard.
Confused? Not surprising given your IQ and genetic damage.

So what part of the sail boat needed to yield that you don't understand?
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

On 18/08/2011 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote:

Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid
collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability,
since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the
other

Nothing but physics.
I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have
(Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet).

Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several
sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing
to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of
following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size.

Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking
about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea.
That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other
communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road.

Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way.

Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the
obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat
like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a
small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read
reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking.

I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the
Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are.
It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good
rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up
on the beach in Norfolk.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt
it's fun to watch.

You don't have the IQ to understand. Those regs are pretty much
international. You might as well admit your too stupid for your own
good. Hopelessly an idiot.

Even if the freighter was faster, and it was intentionally trying to run
down the sailboat, which it was not but lets for arguments sake say it
was. The sailboat could dodge the freighter all day long.

The idiot played chicken and lost.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

On 18/08/2011 11:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:01:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Who had the right of way here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had
nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame
to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing
situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen
or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or
more beeps I believe.

or how about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response
time.

In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was
a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but
should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was
taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60%
fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat
that was hit.

I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also.

Bull****. If the judge or any juror was a sailor, the sailboat owner is
toast.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.