"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. NealŪ wrote:
Rule 13 cannot take priority over the sailing rules. It has no standing to do so.
What do you mean by this? "No standing"??? Are you claiming that your boat does not qualify as "all vessels"?
I'm claiming my sailboat is obligated to follow the sailing rules which
cover all eventualities, yes even overtaking and that makes Rule 13
superfluous. Superfluous means it has no standing.
When one follows the sailing rules then Rule 13 never has a chance to
even come into play. It is not needed so how can it take priority?
What do you mean by this? These is nothing in the rules that say that they are randomly applied.
Exactly, sailboats are to follow the sailing rules. When they do, overtaking
situations are covered by the sailing rules. This makes Rule 13 superfluous.
If one also tries to apply rule 13 along with the sailing rules one runs into
situations where the sailng rules says vessel A is the stand on vessel while
Rule 13 says it is the give way vessel. You can't have it both ways. You have
to ask yourself at what point rule 13 applies. You say it applies at all times.
This tells me there are situations where Rule 13 would negate the sailing
rules. You cannot have one rule conflicting with another.
In order to follow rule 13 one would have to abandon the sailing rules.
Well sort of. In the sense that Rule 13 starts with "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and
II". This means that Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. Why is this a problem?
It does not mean Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. How can a rule that
contradicts another have priority? You either follow the sailing rules
or you ignore them. As captain, I'll make the choice of which rules
I will follow and since I sail, I will follow the sailing rules which
make Rule 13 unnecessary and superfluous. I will not be put in a
position to be liable for a poor set of rules that contradict each other
by embracing the contradictions.
One would be put in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose at
what point to abandon one rule in order to follow another.
Why is this a problem? The rules are very explicit and precise. They even give guidance as to what to do when in doubt.
You know as well as I do that that's bullcrap!
What? That the rules are optional? So how much did you pay someone to take the test for you? Its clear you never could have
passed it on your own.
That's the point. The sailing rules are NOT optional. Your precious
Rule 13 attempts to make them optional. This alone makes rule 13
something real sailors should ignore.
As long as one follows the sailing
rules one is operating entirely legally. As soon as one deviates from
the sailing rules one is acting entirely illegally.
Negatory pseudo-Cap. The rule apply in their entirety, not selectively. Rule 1 says "These Rules shall apply to all vessels" not
"Some of these rules..."
How can two rules that contradict each other apply at the same time.
It is not possible.
Rule 2 says "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any
neglect to comply with these Rules". It is clear that all of the rules must be followed, not selectively applied.
But, you are suggesting selective following. You are saying at some point
one must abandon one set of rules in favor of another rule.
Rule 13 specifically take priority over rule 12. They could have written "except for rule 12," but they didn't. Sorry Neal - are
you sure you want this blunder on the permanent record?
You are looking at this wrong, yourself. You are a typical confused
thinker who actually believes two rules that countermand each other
in certain situations can be applied together. It's simply not possible
in real life situations.
CN
|