You'll note, that to date, I have not disagreed with you're basic premise
regarding Rule 5.
IMO, however, if there is a collision, odds are that the courts will find that
someone didn't maintain a proper lookout, but, if there is NO collision, who
can say that a proper lookout WASN'T maintained?
Rule 5 is an "after the fact" gotcha!
I.e., it's telling you a basic premise for how you should conduct yourself and
that there will be consequences if you have a collision ...... don't have a
collision, and.... who's to know?

I've followed Capt Woinin's (sp?) comments for a number of years.
Most of what he writes is quite accurate, though he obviously has an agenda, so
you need to know he's apt to push the boundaries of his arguments in one
direction.

Shen