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)