Again you show ignorance. The courts have held that it is the responsibility of the
master not only to fully understand and abide by the rules, but also to understand and
abide by the interpretation of the courts. One area often discussed in these terms is the
meaning "safe speed." The meaning of "moderate speed" (from the old rules) and "safe
speed" has been much discussed over the years. The appropriate speed varies a lot with
the conditions, but is usually held to be somewhere between 2 knots and 6 knots for
vessels without radar.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
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


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
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your puny licence rescinded.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?