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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.

The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

I find banana porridge helps greatly

At the risk of being a pedant, the COLREGS themselves state the following;

Rule 3
General Definitions
(l) The term "restricted visibility" means any conditions in which
visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms,
sandstorms or any other similar causes.

That aside, from my own experience at sea I'd have to agree with the point
Simon is trying to make.




-----= 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! =-----

SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.

The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

"Everett" wrote in message
...
"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from
the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

And the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a
collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and
yell "STAND ASIDE"

John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters

You're new here aren't cha.
"Charles T. Low" wrote in message
...
SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility,
unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of
the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.

The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

Your backpedaling furiously here Neal. You claimed many times that the sailboat is
entitled, actually obligated, to proceed at full speed in the thickest fog. Now you're
admitting that the sailboat must slow appropriately. I sounds like you're admitting you
were wrong all along.

More comments interspersed ...


"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.


True, but totally irrelavent. We merely claimed that fog that reduced visibilty to under
50 feet was not uncommon. Now you just admitting there are other conditions.


You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.


Thick fog may be "worst case" (actually I think torrential downpour can be worse) but it
is not uncommon.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.


Absolutely not. In fact, for large vessel (which is what the rules truly address) 1/4
mile visibilty is "thick" because it may be under a boat length. The only reason why we
often talk of very thick fog is that you insist on only applying the rules to a 27 foot
sailboat that has a max speed of about 3 knots.


The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules.

Absolutely wrong. By the time vessels come in sight of one another, it may be too late to
apply the "in sight rules." But even so, this is a huge backpedal for you, Neal! You're
actually claiming that all vessels must slow down? You've insisted all along the sailboat
has no such obligation!

It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.


There is no "pecking" mentioned in the rules. In fact, they are quite explicit that the
obligations are the same for all vessels. The fact the some vessels have a different
signal does not make them "standon."


Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.


This is a grey area that only works if all vessels believe they are "in sight" and can
clearly make out the course and speed. There may be some cases where it works - but the
courts and all commentators I've read are quite clear that the "restricted visibility"
rules are in lieu of the "in sight" rules.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Again you're backpedaling here - you've maintained in the past the the standon/giveway
relationship holds even in the thickest fog. Are you admitting you were wrong?


Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


So you are claiming the sailboat is required to maintain course and speed in thick fog?
What is is Neal, you seem to be reverting here. Are you claiming that because at some
point the "in sight" rules will apply that sailboats are always standon?



S.Simon - the ultimate buffoon when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.


Nice try Neal. You've pretty much admitted you were wrong all along. You're trying to
recast this as a situation were two small vessels are near an area of slightly restricted
visibility. You might even have a point for this case. However, you've claimed all along
that Rule 19 does not apply to sailboats; that they are permitted to travel at full speed
in the thickest fog, and all powerboats must get out of their way. A guess we can assume
this is as close as you'll come to admitting you were wrong all along.


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

Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.

If you want to see some of the earlier threads, search on "fog" in this group.


"Charles T. Low" wrote in message
...
SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.

The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

"Everett" wrote in message
from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett


What does it say? Do you have a point?