"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
....
In short,
you need to be more of a pedant. :-)


I bow to the master!

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? :-)


Neal has essentially admitted he's wrong a few times, but prefers to keep the debate going for fun.
The problem is that every time it starts up a few people will be sucked in by his nonsense. I hate
to think how many newbies there are that think they have Right-Of-Way in the fog!


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.

precisely.


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.


Yes, he's tried to make this case. But this time he seems to be saying that the rules were not
written with thick fog in mind, since it is so rare. But he never addresses the fundamental concept
of 19(e), that when you hear a fog signal ahead, and can't figure it out, you must slow down.

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.


Neal never responds when I mention "closing rates." His claim has been that since the powerboat has
stopped for him, he will always be able to avoid it.