"Donal" wrote in message
...

Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1.

Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"?

How did you get it there? Levitation?

They aren't very navigable when I'm parked there!

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you should be
a judge.

Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say! So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?

Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and Jax on
the stupidity scale!



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving, there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable. This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK, because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your judgement on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."



So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework, of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not
interpret the law? Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing? Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?




I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that courts
see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its appropriate to cite
any
case that shows the concepts.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You seem to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think they
were that bad!


And remember, the comments that really started this were about Joe's
actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts, in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job. I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than running
on visual only. How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away.



I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to back up any
of your claims?


*You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an obligation to
obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've never made
any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as interpreted by
the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to
everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context, you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the helmsman is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been playing the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming its a wise
choice?


You've even gone as far as to say that
commercial shipping is favoured under the CollRegs.

In a Narrow Channel or a TSS they are "favored." Or do you disagree?

Of course not! *You* suggested that the rules had a general bias towards
commercial shipping.
Let me quote you(again) -
"No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most
meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. "

I stand by that - its absolutly correct. Are you claiming Rules 9 and 10 don't
exist? Have you ever read them? You might try to claim rules 9 & 10 don't
apply as often as I claim, but certainly when they do apply, the large ship is
favored.


The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules say, do
you?

I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels or a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also, that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only case in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.

So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of
understanding of the rules.



Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that? Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!


If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of most people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels, mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly liar?


Where did I ever complain about the speed alone?

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts, using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue to play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre compulsion to be
an asshole?



Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as absolute as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper speed
should be, never having been there.

You are trying to extract
yourself from an untenable situation.

I have no need. I am content in my tenability.

It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection. Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual (and
sound) watch".

So, is it legal to single hand? Is it proper for a helmsman to also be
the
lookout? Can someone maintain a visual watch and a radar watch at the
same
time?

How is it possible to paddle a kayak in the open ocean, and still maintain
a
proper watch? Isn't continuous vigilance required?

Yes it is. So what?



These are all issues the courts have addressed - why do you claim their
opinions
have no bearing on this discussion?

Why don't you post a link?

I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just claimed that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have no
bearing?





Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs at
face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always keep a
lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though that's too
fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK to break
the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the concepts in the
rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way it works
in the
US.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might be hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.