Tell me, then, because you ignored the bigger part of
my post, why in the examples I listed 'any of these
rules' means any of these rules while you choose to
assign the same term a specific meaning in the case
of Rule 8 (f)(i) ? Seems to me one needs to be
consistent if one expects to be taken seriously.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
snip meaningless gibberish
How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?

No, that's not what I said. The word "impede" is only used in rule 9 and 10, and of
course, rule 8(f). Those are the rules meant "by any of these rules." Rule 8(f) is
qualifying the meaning of "shall not impede," as it is used in Rule 9 and 10. I even
quoted the IMO commentary that explained that that is why 8(f) was added.

Only a simpleton would try to read more into this.












You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon