Very good Paul, that sums it up!

(1) The captain is responsible for all of his decisions regarding safe
speed. (And other decisions too!)

(2) The court decides "in perfect hindsight" whether or not the
decision(s) was correct.

I like it.

Capt. Frank

paul cooke wrote:

(deity I hate top posting but this is too messed up to fix...)

You, as master of the ship/vessel/bathtub/whatever, decide what _you_
consider to be a "safe speed" for the conditions... however... the courts
_always_ get the benefit of perfect hindsight when it comes to the crunch
and you then have to be prepared to justify your choice of "safe speed"...
if you are around to do so...

Simple Simon wrote:


Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things
right with respect to this question of who determines
safe speed.

S.Simon


"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
nk.net...

Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:


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?