You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in further
discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all.

Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone else
must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Simple Simon wrote:
It just so happens that this sound signal is also that of a NUC, RAM,
etc. This means that any motor vessel hearing the required signal
knows that according to the Rules it shall take action early and
adequately to avoid a close quarters situation.

Rule 19 doesn't differentiate between signals - ALL vessels must respond to ALL
signals!
Did you ever even read the rules?

Yes, and the way a motor vessel responds to the signal
of a saiboat, NUC, RAM etc. in restricted visibility
is to take action early and adequately to avoid a close
quarters situation.


That is the same way a sailboat responds to a powerboat.

Wrong. A sailboat upon hearing the signal of a powerboat
knows the powerboat is mandated by the Rules to avoid
a close quarters situation. The sailboat knows the motor
boat is either going to slow down and stop or change
course. In either case the sailboat, if it does the same,
will only worsen the situation because it might well be
taking an action that will make matters worse and that
is prohibited in the Rules. What if the sailboat decides
to turn to the right and the motorboat has turned to the
left then chances of a collision would be greatly increased.

It is clear by the different sound signals that since the
motor vessel must take action to avoid a close quarters
situation that it is not necessary for the sailboat to do the
same. In a fog how's the sailboat to know what the
motorboat is doing if the sailboat is changing its course?



The proper response of a sailboat upon hearing the fog signal
of a motor vessel is to maintain course and heading and slow
down or change course only if a danger of collision exists
because the motor vessel fails to take the appropriate action
stated above. In other words the sailboat stands on until
it becomes clear that continuing to do so will result in
a collision because the motor vessel did not follow the
Rules that apply to motor vessels.


You're doing a good job of stating how the rules apply for "vessels in sight of one
another."

This is how it works in a fog as well.

Now you're saying that a sailboat can never go fast enough to cause damage!! This is only
true for one boat I know of!

You're even claiming that the rules don't apply to you because you're too incompetent to
handle your boat? You've totally lost it, Neal!


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
However, in restricted visibility the rule is different. Your standin at the test
probably knew this, but since you have never read it: "Except where it has been
determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every vessel ... shall reduce her
speed"


I already told you about a billion times that a sailboat
already is operating at a safe speed. Reducing speed
to a safe speed when one is already operating at a safe
speed is not possible.

Thus the presumption is that there is a risk of collision. Since hearing one signal
is
not necessarily enough to determine the situation, it is generally appropriate for all
vessels to reduce speed. There is no mention of different categories of boats.

All vessels that are operating too fast for the condition
of restricted visibility must reduce their speed to a
safe speed. The only vessel that IS ABLE TO operate
at an unsafe speed is the motor vessel. This reduces
your argument to a pile of rubble.


The
only exception is if the motor vessel is higher in the pecking order than
the sailboat, i.e. NUC, RAM, etc. According to your silly statement any
motor vessel could stop in the path of a sailboat on purpose and it would
be the sailboat's responsibility to keep clear.

Rule 19 explicitly requires it: . What part of "She shall if necessary take all her
way
off" do you not understand?

I understand it all and in the case of the sailboat it is not
"necessary because any decent sailboat can turn faster
than she can take all weigh off. How do you expect
a sailboat to stop her foward progress? Does your
sailboat have brakes or something? Again this
rule is for motorboats that can reverse their propeller
and take way off. A sailboat cannot do so so it
cannot be expected to do so.

Finally we're getting to the heart of it You're admitting that I'm right, but claiming
that your interpretation of the rules makes more sense. I think you should forward your
thoughts to the Coast Guard.

The claim you're making is that when they say "all vessels" they really mean "all vessels
that are moving too fast." However, they don't say "reduce to a safer speed," the say
"shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can be held on course." They clearly
say exactly what I've been saying; clearly refute exactly what you're claiming.

You also make the bizarre claim that powerboats must avoid sailboats that the re unable to
see. The sailboat must sound its signal every 2 minutes. At 8 knots, the sailboat
travels 1600 feet. By what magical method does the powerboat avoid a sailboat that could
be 1/4 mile away, or could be dead ahead at 50 feet?

Your strongest argument is the absurd claim that they didn't really mean "All vessels
....shall reduce speed" because some vessels are already stopped. You know that's a stupid
argument, but its the best you've got. You lost this one Neal, big time. I got my
quarterly rules fix, and you come out looking like a total buffoon! Just hope the CG
isn't reading this!


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
news

What pecking order? There's no pecking order in Restricted Visibility. Anyone
who
actually passed the test would know this.

You have tried to claim
there is no pecking order in restricted vis. but there clearly is a
pecking order because the motor vessel knows when it hears the
sound signal of a sailboat, NUC, RAM etc. that a vessel is in the
area with which the motor vessel must avoid a close quarters situation.

The concept of "pecking order" implies a priority that the rules explicitly say
does
not
exist. "ALL VESSELS ... MUST REDUCE SPEED" It is true that sounding the "other"
signal

You seem to ignore Rule 6 which talks about safe speed.

RULE 6

Safe Speed

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she

can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and

conditions.


Reducing speed to zero for a sailboat is not operating at
a safe speed.

It is clear that there is no speed safe for you.

It is also clear that you have no answer for my arguments.


All vessels must reduce speed applies only to those vessels
having speed to reduce. A sailboat going along at two or three
knots in a fog does not fit the definition. It it reduces speed any
more than it will not be operating at a safe speed as required
by Rule 6


There may be such a specific case - but you might have to justify your actions in
court.
Oh, I forgot, you souwl simply lie. That sure makes things easy for you, doesn't it?

I don't need to lie. I need only to state the facts based
on my superior understanding of the position of a sailboat
with respect to the Rules. Never forget the Rules were
written primarily to control motor boat irresponsibility.

Sailboats hold a privileged position in most of the Rules.
About the only case where a sailboat must kowtow to
a motor boat is when a sailboat is overtaking and you
and I know that rarely, if ever, happens.



A Coast Guard vessel tied up to and repairing an aid to navigation
is in the category of "all vessels" and you are trying to say it must
reduce speed? It can't reduce speed because it has no speed to reduce.

stupid.

Not stupid. It is a case that refutes your insistence on 'all vessels' having
to reduce speed. It show that what the Rule really says is all vessels
that are speeding must reduce speed. The implication is so clear that
it is not stated because it would be redundant.


The same goes for a sailboat. There is no way a sailboat can
reduce speed to zero. Even if it lets the sails shake, rattle and
roll it still will be making some way either forwards, backwards
or sideways, furthermore it will not be operating at a safe speed
as required.

equally stupid

Not stupid. It shows how your insistence that a sailboat
must reduce speed to zero is not possible and not safe
and a violation of the requirement that it operate at a safe speed.


Again you attempt to make a sailboat adhere to rules that are
meant only for motor vessels that can use their powerful
engines and thrusters to stop dead in the water.


Start at the beginning: Rule 1(a) "These rules apply to all vessels"


We have been through that already. 'All vessels' includes that Coast
Guard vessel tied up to and doing work on an aid to navigation.
The rule literally states that that Coast Guard vessel must reduce
its speed to a safe speed and even stop if necessary. It simply does
not apply. It follows that 'all vessels' clearly does not mean all
vessels. There are exceptions. A sailboat is another such exception.


I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to understand it but
when a motor vessel is required by the Rules to take
action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation with any vessel signaling it is a sailboat, NUC,
RAM in restricted visibility then that means by definition
that the motor vessel is the give-way vessel.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to this affect. On the contrary, the rules
are
quite explicit that there is no concept of "standon" in restricted visibility.

There is no written rule to that affect. You are correct there.
But, and it's a big but, the consequences of the Rules when
followed in their spirit and letter makes any sailboat, NUC, RAM
etc. a stand-on vessel by virtue of the fact that motor vessels
must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation whenever it becomes aware that any vessel that sounds
a fog signal saying "Here I am, you know my status. My status
is you must avoid a close quarters situation with me because
I may not be able to do so." This mandates the motor boat
give way. Suddenly even if the Rules don't specifically state it,
you have a give way vessel and once you have a give way
vessel you have a pecking order. Believe it.

I'm on a roll. I only wish Shen44 could read these posts
and come to realize the limitations of his understanding
of the Rules as well .


Must I remind you I am STILL a Captain in good standing.
Maybe you should check with your friend at the office
again.

Have a nice evening, friend.

S.Simon

Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/27/2003 16:35 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:




"otnmbrd" Gdog Gdog Gdog Gdog G wrote in message
nk.net...
Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up
and he can't read any newsgroups.

Simple Simon wrote:
Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario
of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not
making way while underway because the wind
is calm.

It is now nighttime and . . .

The captain decides to take down his sails so
they won't be slating back and forth in the left-
over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway
and not making way but what is he now? Is he
a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a
sailboat with his sails down? What do you think?

My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can
legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason
is because he has sails even though they are furled.

What say you two?

I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC.

Not under command means some failure of mechanical systems
that means the vessel cannot maneuver. Lack of wind is not
such a circumstance. No, I think even Jeff and Shen44 would
agree with me that NUC is not applicable here

Where does it say that in the Rules?
NUC means a vessel through some exceptional circumstance cannot maneuver as
required by these rules .... a becalmed sailboat with no mechanical power seems
to fit this bill perfectly.
The fact it's not normally done doesn't mean it can't be .... show me a legal
precedence that says it can't.

Shen

Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/28/2003 12:07 Pacific Standard Time
snip
It just so happens that this sound signal is also that of a NUC, RAM,
etc. This means that any motor vessel hearing the required signal
knows that according to the Rules it shall take action early and
adequately to avoid a close quarters situation.

In fog, how do you know there is a close quarters situation if you cannot see
the other guy? Sound can be very deceptive in fog and should not be relied on
as anything but "scanty" information ..... so....explain how you can take
early action (other than putting the sound hopefully dead astern and praying
that you are faster)?

Rule 19 doesn't differentiate between signals - ALL vessels must respond to
ALL signals!
Did you ever even read the rules?

Yes, and the way a motor vessel responds to the signal
of a saiboat, NUC, RAM etc. in restricted visibility
is to take action early and adequately to avoid a close
quarters situation.

Wrong


The proper response of a sailboat upon hearing the fog signal
of a motor vessel is to maintain course and heading and slow
down or change course only if a danger of collision exists

It's foggy... how would they know?

because the motor vessel fails to take the appropriate action
stated above. In other words the sailboat stands on until
it becomes clear that continuing to do so will result in
a collision because the motor vessel did not follow the
Rules that apply to motor vessels.

How do they know this? It's fog...they can't see.....

If a close quarters
situation eventuates it is solely the motor vessel's fault for not
fulfilling its obligations under the Rules.

Typically wrong

The sailboat has not
violated any Rule to cause the close quarters situation. The motor
vessel has.

Typically wrong


If your point is that with the sail down the aux does not have to get out
of the way of
the powerboat, this is correct. However, if the situations were reversed,
i.e. in the
fog: a powerboat stopped, and a sailboat at full speed, it now becomes the
sailboat's
responsibility to avoid the powerboat.

This is totally incorrect. A motor vessel underway but not making way
is still obligated to stay clear of a sailboat and not cause a close quarters
situation. It has a motor and it must use that motor to keep clear. The
only exception is if the motor vessel is higher in the pecking order than
the sailboat, i.e. NUC, RAM, etc. According to your silly statement any
motor vessel could stop in the path of a sailboat on purpose and it would
be the sailboat's responsibility to keep clear. Wrong. The sailboat is
the stand-on vessel and must maintain course and speed.

The whole of the above, typically wrong

The motor vessel
must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters situation.

Based on what information...."Assumptions shall not be made based on scanty
information"

What pecking order? There's no pecking order in Restricted Visibility.
Anyone who
actually passed the test would know this.

You have tried to claim
there is no pecking order in restricted vis. but there clearly is a
pecking order because the motor vessel knows when it hears the
sound signal of a sailboat, NUC, RAM etc. that a vessel is in the
area with which the motor vessel must avoid a close quarters situation.

ROFL love the way you keep avoiding that towboat

The concept of "pecking order" implies a priority that the rules explicitly
say does not
exist. "ALL VESSELS ... MUST REDUCE SPEED" It is true that sounding the
"other" signal

You seem to ignore Rule 6 which talks about safe speed.

RULE 6

Safe Speed

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she

can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and

conditions.


Reducing speed to zero for a sailboat is not operating at
a safe speed.

Wrong it's just as safe as reducing speed to zero on a powerdriven vessel

All vessels must reduce speed applies only to those vessels
having speed to reduce. A sailboat going along at two or three
knots in a fog does not fit the definition. It it reduces speed any
more than it will not be operating at a safe speed as required
by Rule 6

LOL that's pathetic

A Coast Guard vessel tied up to and repairing an aid to navigation
is in the category of "all vessels" and you are trying to say it must
reduce speed? It can't reduce speed because it has no speed to reduce.
The same goes for a sailboat. There is no way a sailboat can
reduce speed to zero. Even if it lets the sails shake, rattle and
roll it still will be making some way either forwards, backwards
or sideways, furthermore it will not be operating at a safe speed
as required.

ROFL

Again you attempt to make a sailboat adhere to rules that are
meant only for motor vessels that can use their powerful
engines and thrusters to stop dead in the water.

ROFL

conveys additional information that indicates extra caution is needed; it
does NOT give a
vessel standon status.

I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to understand it but
when a motor vessel is required by the Rules to take
action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation with any vessel signaling it is a sailboat, NUC,
RAM in restricted visibility then that means by definition
that the motor vessel is the give-way vessel. Taking action
to avoid a close quarters situation is giving way. It doesn't
get any simpler than that.

ROFL

There clearly IS a pecking order and hence there IS, by definition,
a stand-on vessel and a give-way vessel in restricted vis.

ROFL

The fact that one vessel should exercise special caution doesn't make the
other vessel
"standon."

I'm not talking about special caution. I am talking about
a motor vessels obligation to avoid a close quarters
situation with a sailboat, NUC, RAM, etc. in a fog

How about that sailboat and tug pushing a dinky empty barge....you explained
that yet?

Yes, it does make a pecking order. Taking action early
and adequately to avoid a close quarters situation is giving way.
Giving way means the vessel giving way is the give way vessel.

I achieved a higher score than you did because I understand the
Rules. I know the expected answers but the expected answers
don't cover the above situations with a sailboat in a fog.

You should be ashamed for being so closed-minded that
you refuse to believe what is so evident.

I think you need a good flogging at the mast!



ROFL so..... you admit it...you didn't (and still don't) know the subject but
you knew the answers from one of those exam helper books and passed the test.

Shen

Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: (CANDChelp)
Date: 07/28/2003 12:13 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

You are required to some sort of legal lights to
operate legally at night. Bobsprit does not need
to have lower running lights in addition to the
masthead tricolor as you stated in order for him
to operate at night. He can sail at night his whole
life with tricolor only and be legal.

Thanks, neal. I checked on this and found you're right. Not surprising that
Jeff got it wrong.
I intend to install the masthed set, and keep the originals as a "spare."

RB


Just don't start or use your engine while using the "tricolor"

Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/28/2003 15:26 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 16:05
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44


Is this is why the rule says: "She shall if necessary take all her way
off" ? So just how
much does a license cost nowadays?

It does not say take all way off so you stop in the path
of the sailboat. First, the motor vessel is required to
take necessary action to avoid a close quarters situation.

Wrong

Taking all way off is only necessary if the motor vessel
fails in its obligation to stay clear of the sailboat. To
further compound its violation of the Rules only an
idiot motor boat operator would come to a stop right
in the path of a sailboat.

If he's in fog and can't see the sailboat, how does he know he's stopped in the
path of the sailboat?

Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/28/2003 15:58 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
news

What pecking order? There's no pecking order in Restricted Visibility.
Anyone who
actually passed the test would know this.

You have tried to claim
there is no pecking order in restricted vis. but there clearly is a
pecking order because the motor vessel knows when it hears the
sound signal of a sailboat, NUC, RAM etc. that a vessel is in the
area with which the motor vessel must avoid a close quarters
situation.

Semi right....mostly wrong

The concept of "pecking order" implies a priority that the rules
explicitly say does
not
exist. "ALL VESSELS ... MUST REDUCE SPEED" It is true that sounding
the "other"
signal

You seem to ignore Rule 6 which talks about safe speed.

RULE 6

Safe Speed

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she

can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and

conditions.


Reducing speed to zero for a sailboat is not operating at
a safe speed.

It is clear that there is no speed safe for you.

It is also clear that you have no answer for my arguments.

You have no valid arguments


All vessels must reduce speed applies only to those vessels
having speed to reduce. A sailboat going along at two or three
knots in a fog does not fit the definition. It it reduces speed any
more than it will not be operating at a safe speed as required
by Rule 6

Wrong



There may be such a specific case - but you might have to justify your
actions in court.
Oh, I forgot, you souwl simply lie. That sure makes things easy for you,
doesn't it?

I don't need to lie. I need only to state the facts based
on my superior understanding of the position of a sailboat
with respect to the Rules. Never forget the Rules were
written primarily to control motor boat irresponsibility.

Wrong

Sailboats hold a privileged position in most of the Rules.
About the only case where a sailboat must kowtow to
a motor boat is when a sailboat is overtaking and you
and I know that rarely, if ever, happens.

Never heard of narrow channels and safety fairways, I see



A Coast Guard vessel tied up to and repairing an aid to navigation
is in the category of "all vessels" and you are trying to say it must
reduce speed? It can't reduce speed because it has no speed to reduce.

stupid.

Not stupid. It is a case that refutes your insistence on 'all vessels' having
to reduce speed. It show that what the Rule really says is all vessels
that are speeding must reduce speed. The implication is so clear that
it is not stated because it would be redundant.

As Jeff said....stupid


The same goes for a sailboat. There is no way a sailboat can
reduce speed to zero.

not too good a sailor, are you?

Even if it lets the sails shake, rattle and
roll it still will be making some way either forwards, backwards
or sideways,

much like a motor vessel

furthermore it will not be operating at a safe speed
as required.

wrong


equally stupid

Not stupid. It shows how your insistence that a sailboat
must reduce speed to zero is not possible and not safe
and a violation of the requirement that it operate at a safe speed.

stupid AND wrong



Again you attempt to make a sailboat adhere to rules that are
meant only for motor vessels that can use their powerful
engines and thrusters to stop dead in the water.


Start at the beginning: Rule 1(a) "These rules apply to all vessels"


We have been through that already. 'All vessels' includes that Coast
Guard vessel tied up to and doing work on an aid to navigation.
The rule literally states that that Coast Guard vessel must reduce
its speed to a safe speed and even stop if necessary. It simply does
not apply. It follows that 'all vessels' clearly does not mean all
vessels. There are exceptions. A sailboat is another such exception.

Show us where these exceptions are stated .... include legal precedence



I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to understand it but
when a motor vessel is required by the Rules to take
action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation with any vessel signaling it is a sailboat, NUC,
RAM in restricted visibility then that means by definition
that the motor vessel is the give-way vessel.

Wrong


There is absolutely nothing in the rules to this affect. On the contrary,
the rules are
quite explicit that there is no concept of "standon" in restricted
visibility.

There is no written rule to that affect. You are correct there.
But, and it's a big but, the consequences of the Rules when
followed in their spirit and letter makes any sailboat, NUC, RAM
etc. a stand-on vessel by virtue of the fact that motor vessels
must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation whenever it becomes aware that any vessel that sounds
a fog signal saying "Here I am, you know my status. My status
is you must avoid a close quarters situation with me because
I may not be able to do so." This mandates the motor boat
give way. Suddenly even if the Rules don't specifically state it,
you have a give way vessel and once you have a give way
vessel you have a pecking order. Believe it.

Wrong....typically

I'm on a roll. I only wish Shen44 could read these posts
and come to realize the limitations of his understanding
of the Rules as well .

EG Shen's reading and as you can see, having a good laugh

Must I remind you I am STILL a Captain in good standing.

ROFLMAO

Maybe you should check with your friend at the office
again.

Have a nice evening, friend.

S.Simon

Shen

Booby just said that to troll you up from the depths
to which you have sunk recently. Booby acts
dumb but he is dumb like a fox. Unlike Doug King,
for example, Booby at least knows the difference
between a sailboat and a motor boat.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Whatever. But your job was well done. Booby now believes his tricolor is legal for
powering.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Fact 4) An auxiliary sailboat does not need to have installed
the lights for a motor vessel unless and until it
turns on the motor.

True. It also doesn't need lights during the day in good visibility. Running
lights
are
not "required equipment," but their appropriate use is. What's the point?

The point is your statement about Bobsprit's boat needing lower
running lights in addition to any masthead tricolor he might install
is totally wrong.


Is that what this is all about? I was advising RB, taking into account the nature of
his
boat and his sailing. He has already told us that he frequently powers back to his
slip
at night; he clearly needs lower sidelights. To advise otherwise would be
reprehensible.

Your advice was incomplete and wrong. Your wording
was wrong. The idea it conveyed was wrong. When
you tell somebody he must have lower running lights
in addition to the tricolor you need to include the qualifiers
and you did not include them. You made a blanket
generalization based on a motor boat bias.

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...

S.Simon wrote:
It does not say take all way off so you stop in the path
of the sailboat. First, the motor vessel is required to
take necessary action to avoid a close quarters situation.


And just how is the powerboat supposed to do this in thick fog, Putz?

The reason for vessels being required to sound fog
signals that identify them is because fog signals enable
vessels to plot a bearing of another vessel. Further,
the reason certain vessels (sailboats, NUC, RAM, etc.)
are required to sound a fog signal peculiar to them and
different from a motor vessel is so motor vessels can
not only become aware of bearing but of what class
of vessel is on that bearing.

So, a motor vessel upon hearing in a fog a signal of
one prolonged and two short blasts knows that the
vessel that made the signal bears whatever degrees
and is a vessel that may not be able to take
action to avoid a collision. The information that
is lacking is range, speed and course of the vessel
making the fog signal. What is known is that motor
vessel must take action early and adequately to
avoid a close quarters situation. Most often the best
way to avoid a close quarters situation is to change
the heading away from a possible close quarters situation
with the vessel that may be unable to do the same by
virtue of the signal it sounds. This means that the best
course of action for a sailboat is to hold course and
speed (which speed is already slow and already safe)
until and unless a close quarters situation develops.
This eliminates variables and allows the motorboat to
make sure it is well clear before it gets back onto its
intended course.

This also means that the motor vessel gives way. It
becomes the give-way vessel. Though not specifically
stated in the restricted visibility rules this means there
is a give way vessel created by the Rules for restricted
visibility. This means there is a pecking order also
created, though it is an abbreviated pecking order
because sailboats, NUC, RAM etc, don't have individual
different signals but the same signal identifying their
grouping.

The whole point, in
fact the letter of the law is that both boats "shall reduce her speed to the minimum at
which she can be kept on
course. She shall if necessary take all her way off and, in any event,
navigate with extreme caution until danger of collision is over."

A sailboat navigating in a fog already is operating at slow and
safe speed. She is operating with extreme caution because
she knows by the signal heard that a motor vessel is on the
prowl and probably going way too fast for the conditions and
relying on her radar way too much so she can keep on schedule.

A sailboat navigating in a fog cannot, like a motorboat, choose
her speed. A sailboat is at the mercy of wind direction and wind
speed which is most often low or non-existent in a fog. Any rule
that requires a sailboat do take an action she cannot take is not
a rule intended to apply to the sailboat.


Please read the rules before commenting further.

The Rules in and of themselves mean nothing. They only
mean something when applied to real life situations on the
water between vessels. One cannot make blanket statements
based on the Rules alone. Every case is different.

Your insistence on saying "all vessels" must slow to a safe speed
does not apply to "all vessels". I proved that a couple of times
with my example of a Coast Guard vessel tied up to and servicing
a navigational aid. Another example would be an anchored vessel.
Yet another would be a vessel being towed. It follows that the Rules
are meant to be a guiding hand to prevent collisions and not a rigid
set of laws to which there are no exceptions or no special
circumstances that make them not appear to be what they seem.

Your outlook is too stringent, rigorous and inflexible. You will
get yourself into trouble because you fail to consider special
circumstances such as sailboats already proceeding at slow
and safe speeds somehow being required to go even slower
to the point where they cannot maneuver with any kind of
efficiency. You even want sailboats to stop when I have
demonstrated this is often not even possible. Rules, as
well-intentioned as they may be, cannot cover all contingencies.
People, when writing rules that are primarily motor boat-oriented,
cannot understand, let alone foresee, any and all circumstances
for sailboats, which boats the operation of they are mostly
ignorant.

In fact, when collisions occur, it is hugely lopsided and the fault
of motor boats the majority of the time. This alone should tell
you that it's motorboaters who should listen to sailors and their
unique perspective and their superior understanding of the actual,
real life workings of the Rules and not vice versa.