And obviously YOU'RE too stupid to realize that fog,
thick or thin, is but one of the examples of restricted
visibility. Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust
and smog can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can
restrict visibility and there is restricted visibility in a maritime
environment most everywhere in the core of a hurricane.
Even smoke from forest fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario to prove your
point will continue to come up way, way short of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it.

Your stinking fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
wreck of a vessel does not change my argument for unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility that
generally is an exception to the rule. The very purpose
of having vessels slow to a safe speed is so when they
come within sight of one another they will be going at
a safe speed so they can avoid a collision and follow the
in-sight Rules. It's sort of like being a safe driver on the
road at night and not going so fast that you cannot stop
in the distance your headlights shine.

PUTZ!

S.Simon - the Master of 'em all.


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
Obviously you've never seen fog... just a low cloud bank. In real fog you
might not see the bow of your boat. 60 foot visibility is a 'normal' fog
bank up my way.... they get way thicker than that.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
| Jeff,
|
| Back in the old days some of the schooners could indeed
| proceed at a good clip (clipper ship, get it?). I'm surprised
| you think the recent ruling that ALL vessels slowing down
| was because of anything other than a proliferation of motor
| vessels becoming such a hazard that the very safety of
| even large, fast sailing ships was in danger. The bottom
| line is only those vessels who are going fast must slow
| down. Those already going slow need not slow down
| and these include small cruising yacht restricted by
| their hull speed.
|
| The fact remains there are two different sound signals
| one for motor vessels and another for all vessels above
| them in the pecking order. These signals alone shout
| out loudly and clearly "PECKING ORDER" and
| pecking order means stand-on and give-way vessels.
|
| You always seem to fall back on your lame argument
| about a fog so thick that you can't see your own bow
| let alone another ship. Well, tough! One instance does
| not make a Rule. My instance of a normal fog in which
| ships become visible to one another and hence must
| follow the in-sight rules even though they are in or near
| an area of restricted visibility is all that's needed to prove
| there IS a pecking order and hence a give-way and
| stand-on vessel in restricted visibility.
|
| The logic here is unassailable making the statement true
| till proven false and thus far you and the other tugboat
| captain's lame (by the nature of their specificity) arguments
| have come up short.
|
| S.Simon - irrefuteable
|
|
|
| "Jeff Morris" wrote in message
m...
| Its an interesting comment, one that we've discussed before. It may
| actually have some validity in very light fog, which might be all Neal
has
| any experiance in. However, it is the opinion of all of the
commentators,
| the IMO, and the courts, that if there is any doubt as to the
conditions,
| one must assume you are NOT in sight of one another.
|
| In thick fog (which has always been stipulated in these discussions)
there
| will not be sufficient time for a powerboat to avoid collision if a
sailboat
| assumes it is "standon"and continues at hull speed. This is why the
rules
| stipulate that ALL VESSELS must slow when hearing a fog signal.
|
| An interesting point is that until 1972 this rule only applied to
| powerboats. Previous versions of the ColRegs (from about 1890 and 1948)
had
| similar wording but only applied it to power, not sail. Obviously, the
IMO
| decided that it was important that ALL VESSELS slow down in the fog when
| hearing a fog signal. They also eliminated the concept of "moderate
speed"
| and replaced it with "safe speed."
|
| -jeff
|
|
|
| "Simple Simon" wrote in message
| ...
| In a fog, as soon as vessels concerned come within sight of one
| another the sailboat is the stand-on vessel with respect to the
| motor vessel
|
| This means in a fog (when in sight) the pecking order applies.
|
| This loophole in the Rules is something that seems to go right
| over the heads of the group's tugboat captains. They cannot
| fathom the fact that 'in sight' also exists in restricted visibility
| as in a fog. Since 'in sight' exists in a fog then the pecking order
| exists in a fog. This is so logical that it cannot be argued.
|
| Yet the fools continue to argue it . . .
|
| S.Simon
|
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| Who is the stand on vessel in fog?
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Simple Simon wrote:
| Joe,
|
| I'm surprised at you making an ignorant statement like you could
| care less about the COLREGS. Everybody who cares about safe
| and sane operation of boats of all kinds would do well to learn
the
| COLREGS. Even if you aren't concerned about safety you should
| be concerned about liability. Knowing and following the COLREGS
| will eventually save you far more trouble than the little time
spent
| avoiding acquiring this valuable knowledge.
|
| I recommend you visit my website and read the Novice Lessons
| where I give a very good and thorough explaination in layman's
| terms of the COLREGS.
|
| http://www.homestead.com/captneal/lesson.html
|
|
| S.Simon - knows the COLREGS better than any other individual
| here and better than all the tugboat captains
combined
| which includes Rick, Otnmbrd, Morris, and Shen44.
|
|
| "Joe" wrote in message
| om...
|
| "katysails" wrote in message
| ...
|
| So the gamers should respect the people and the vessel with a
goal
| and
| or a purpose.
|
| Racers are entoute and do have a goal and purpose. It is just
not
| YOUR
| goal or purpose. They do have to follow COLREGS, though, in the
| process
| even though some forget that.
|
| Katy,
|
| If a man is mowing a lawn, would you expect him to stop so you can
| play baseball? He's trying to feed his kids. Yet you are just
playing
| a game.
|
| If a man is sweeping a sidewalk, would you have him stop so you
can
| Scotty can play jacks?
|
| You may have the right to demand him to stop, But the whole
| neighborhood will suffer a dirty sidewalk because you are selfish.
|
| I could care less about the COLREGS.
|
| It's not about the law, it's about the respect.
|
| Joe
| MSV RedCloud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Simple Simon wrote:
And obviously YOU'RE too stupid to realize that fog,
thick or thin, is but one of the examples of restricted
visibility. Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust
and smog can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can
restrict visibility and there is restricted visibility in a maritime
environment most everywhere in the core of a hurricane.
Even smoke from forest fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario to prove your
point will continue to come up way, way short of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it.

You've proven nothing, except to yourself. All you've proved to others,
is your complete lack of experience and understanding of the rules.
STAND-ON, DOES NOT EXIST IN RESTRICTED VISIBILITY ....and you are just
plain too stupid to realize it.

Your stinking fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
wreck of a vessel does not change my argument for unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility that
generally is an exception to the rule.

WRONG for most of us. You are just plain too new to this game to have
experienced it !

The very purpose
of having vessels slow to a safe speed is so when they
come within sight of one another they will be going at
a safe speed so they can avoid a collision
PERIOD

and follow the
in-sight Rules.
BS! ...normally,k by that time, rule 17b will probably apply.

It's sort of like being a safe driver on the
road at night and not going so fast that you cannot stop
in the distance your headlights shine.

PUTZ!

S.Simon - the Master of 'em all.

I doubt you're master of your own ......

otn


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...

Obviously you've never seen fog... just a low cloud bank. In real fog you
might not see the bow of your boat. 60 foot visibility is a 'normal' fog
bank up my way.... they get way thicker than that.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
| Jeff,
|
| Back in the old days some of the schooners could indeed
| proceed at a good clip (clipper ship, get it?). I'm surprised
| you think the recent ruling that ALL vessels slowing down
| was because of anything other than a proliferation of motor
| vessels becoming such a hazard that the very safety of
| even large, fast sailing ships was in danger. The bottom
| line is only those vessels who are going fast must slow
| down. Those already going slow need not slow down
| and these include small cruising yacht restricted by
| their hull speed.
|
| The fact remains there are two different sound signals
| one for motor vessels and another for all vessels above
| them in the pecking order. These signals alone shout
| out loudly and clearly "PECKING ORDER" and
| pecking order means stand-on and give-way vessels.
|
| You always seem to fall back on your lame argument
| about a fog so thick that you can't see your own bow
| let alone another ship. Well, tough! One instance does
| not make a Rule. My instance of a normal fog in which
| ships become visible to one another and hence must
| follow the in-sight rules even though they are in or near
| an area of restricted visibility is all that's needed to prove
| there IS a pecking order and hence a give-way and
| stand-on vessel in restricted visibility.
|
| The logic here is unassailable making the statement true
| till proven false and thus far you and the other tugboat
| captain's lame (by the nature of their specificity) arguments
| have come up short.
|
| S.Simon - irrefuteable
|
|
|
| "Jeff Morris" wrote in message
. com...
| Its an interesting comment, one that we've discussed before. It may
| actually have some validity in very light fog, which might be all Neal
has
| any experiance in. However, it is the opinion of all of the
commentators,
| the IMO, and the courts, that if there is any doubt as to the
conditions,
| one must assume you are NOT in sight of one another.
|
| In thick fog (which has always been stipulated in these discussions)
there
| will not be sufficient time for a powerboat to avoid collision if a
sailboat
| assumes it is "standon"and continues at hull speed. This is why the
rules
| stipulate that ALL VESSELS must slow when hearing a fog signal.
|
| An interesting point is that until 1972 this rule only applied to
| powerboats. Previous versions of the ColRegs (from about 1890 and 1948)
had
| similar wording but only applied it to power, not sail. Obviously, the
IMO
| decided that it was important that ALL VESSELS slow down in the fog when
| hearing a fog signal. They also eliminated the concept of "moderate
speed"
| and replaced it with "safe speed."
|
| -jeff
|
|
|
| "Simple Simon" wrote in message
| ...
| In a fog, as soon as vessels concerned come within sight of one
| another the sailboat is the stand-on vessel with respect to the
| motor vessel
|
| This means in a fog (when in sight) the pecking order applies.
|
| This loophole in the Rules is something that seems to go right
| over the heads of the group's tugboat captains. They cannot
| fathom the fact that 'in sight' also exists in restricted visibility
| as in a fog. Since 'in sight' exists in a fog then the pecking order
| exists in a fog. This is so logical that it cannot be argued.
|
| Yet the fools continue to argue it . . .
|
| S.Simon
|
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| Who is the stand on vessel in fog?
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Simple Simon wrote:
| Joe,
|
| I'm surprised at you making an ignorant statement like you could
| care less about the COLREGS. Everybody who cares about safe
| and sane operation of boats of all kinds would do well to learn
the
| COLREGS. Even if you aren't concerned about safety you should
| be concerned about liability. Knowing and following the COLREGS
| will eventually save you far more trouble than the little time
spent
| avoiding acquiring this valuable knowledge.
|
| I recommend you visit my website and read the Novice Lessons
| where I give a very good and thorough explaination in layman's
| terms of the COLREGS.
|
| http://www.homestead.com/captneal/lesson.html
|
|
| S.Simon - knows the COLREGS better than any other individual
| here and better than all the tugboat captains
combined
| which includes Rick, Otnmbrd, Morris, and Shen44.
|
|
| "Joe" wrote in message
| om...
|
| "katysails" wrote in message
| ...
|
| So the gamers should respect the people and the vessel with a
goal
| and
| or a purpose.
|
| Racers are entoute and do have a goal and purpose. It is just
not
| YOUR
| goal or purpose. They do have to follow COLREGS, though, in the
| process
| even though some forget that.
|
| Katy,
|
| If a man is mowing a lawn, would you expect him to stop so you can
| play baseball? He's trying to feed his kids. Yet you are just
playing
| a game.
|
| If a man is sweeping a sidewalk, would you have him stop so you
can
| Scotty can play jacks?
|
| You may have the right to demand him to stop, But the whole
| neighborhood will suffer a dirty sidewalk because you are selfish.
|
| I could care less about the COLREGS.
|
| It's not about the law, it's about the respect.
|
| Joe
| MSV RedCloud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|