Jeff Morris wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Jeff Morris wrote:

Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?

Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can
be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need
to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained,

I've quoted this rule in full about 5 times in the year we've have this
running debate. I assume the everyone is familiar with the full wording,
so I sometimes only quote the "short version."

Well, you'll never get anywhere with sloppy quoting. By saying
"TO A MINIMUM" you're in danger of making people think you think
the rule means something other than what it really means. In short,
you need to be more of a pedant. :-)

Neal has claimed that it is unsafe for a sailboat to
proceed at anything less than the full speed for a given wind, and
therefore claims that anything less than
hull speed may be unsafe.

Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely
to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an
implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an
opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances
be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe
for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you
say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other
speed. That's fallacious.

Yes, again I assume everyone is familiar with the wording. But all you're
saying is that this rule only applies when there's a possibility of a
collision - but that's the interesting situation!

Well, he could say that provided there is no other traffic around,
it is perfectly safe for him to go as fast as he can, particularly
if that isn't very fast. Where he goes wrong is when, as you say,
it gets interesting.

This debate has gone on for over a year.

Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't
say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-)

The two main issues are whether
Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough,

That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does.

and
whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog
implies a standon/giveway relationship.

That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his
position that the signals give the listener an early warning of
what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship
will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply.
But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea.

In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that
since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted
visibility" rules might apply, then
there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a
pecking order,
sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying
it.

His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing
grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly
changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during
an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments
prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the
level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he
will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*.

That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of
course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the
letter of some of them which he closes his mind to.

In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced
to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can*
happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He
also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist,
its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what
action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying
himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many
rules.