G I was searching for something else from Neal (read my response to
his response).
If you are maintaining a complete deck log, ANY changes in speed MUST be
noted (only done on ships).

otn

Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote:

Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me
to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate
watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to
proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.




OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.




OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.




OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability




It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.




Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.




Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the
basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information
than the possible future decisions of courts.

Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed
for his vessel is then whose is it?

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision?

Or are you just saying that humans have free will?

The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in
both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases
involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad.
--
-jeff

"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
.net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.



OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.



OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.



OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability



It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.



Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.



Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor.
Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to
the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice.

As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are
completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is
responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by
with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held
to a higher standard.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the
basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information
than the possible future decisions of courts.

Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed
for his vessel is then whose is it?

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that
is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision?

Or are you just saying that humans have free will?

The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be
found liable in
both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of
admiralty cases
involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was
good or bad.
--
-jeff

"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
.net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.



OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.



OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.



OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability



It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.



Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.



Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

You are wrong. No court can legally pass legislation.
No court can require anybody to study court cases.
Courts are only empowered to decide how laws apply
and if laws are constitutional and who may or may not
have broken them. Any court or judge who says I
must know all court cases that apply to the Colregs
is completely overstepping his bounds.

It is my duty to follow the letter of the Colregs. I
cannot be expected to be a legal expert.

Your liberal attitudes are showing again. Your attitudes
suggest that when a motorist sees a 55MPH speed limit
sign he is required to know and understand all court
decisions related to this speed limit. That's bull and
you know it.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor.
Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to
the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice.

As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are
completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is
responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by
with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held
to a higher standard.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the
basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information
than the possible future decisions of courts.

Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed
for his vessel is then whose is it?

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that
is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision?

Or are you just saying that humans have free will?

The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be
found liable in
both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of
admiralty cases
involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was
good or bad.
--
-jeff

"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
.net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.



OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.



OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.



OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability



It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.



Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.



Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

Is there no limit to the depths of your ignorance?

I know that you believe the "Farwell's," the standard text for the US Naval Academy,
written by two former chairmen of the Navigation Department of the Academy (one of them a
Commander in the Royal Navy, BTW), is part of a liberal conspiracy --- But here's what
they say, so that others will understand:

From the chapter on Principals of Marine Collision Law:

Rules Modified by Court Interpretation
A fourth principle of the rules too often overlooked by the mariner in
his seagoing practice of collision law is that to avoid liability he must know
not only what the rules applicable to a given situation provide but what the
federal courts have interpreted them to mean. Judicial interpretation has,
in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it
has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the
rules themselves, such as efficient whistle or siren, flare-up light, proper
lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of
seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus
established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has
filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this.
...
Third, judicial interpretation has
been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to
the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or con-
flicts in the latter.
....
Whatever the mariner thinks of the legal setup, which has the effect
giving the courts more authority over the rules of the road than the
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, who enforces them through the
inspectors, the mariner must obey the law as he finds it- and that means
in practice, as the admiralty judges interpret it. Notwithstanding the
that in this country we do not have special admiralty courts, but
federal judge may be required to hear a collision case, it will be found
the decisions have been, as a whole, sound in seamanship as well as in law.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
You are wrong. No court can legally pass legislation.
No court can require anybody to study court cases.
Courts are only empowered to decide how laws apply
and if laws are constitutional and who may or may not
have broken them. Any court or judge who says I
must know all court cases that apply to the Colregs
is completely overstepping his bounds.

It is my duty to follow the letter of the Colregs. I
cannot be expected to be a legal expert.

Your liberal attitudes are showing again. Your attitudes
suggest that when a motorist sees a 55MPH speed limit
sign he is required to know and understand all court
decisions related to this speed limit. That's bull and
you know it.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor.
Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls
to
the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice.

As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are
completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is
responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get
by
with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be
held
to a higher standard.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the
basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information
than the possible future decisions of courts.

Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed
for his vessel is then whose is it?

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is,
that
is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision?

Or are you just saying that humans have free will?

The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be
found liable in
both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of
admiralty cases
involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was
good or bad.
--
-jeff

"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
.net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.



OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.



OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.



OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability



It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.



Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.



Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

(deity I hate top posting but this is too messed up to fix...)

You, as master of the ship/vessel/bathtub/whatever, decide what _you_
consider to be a "safe speed" for the conditions... however... the courts
_always_ get the benefit of perfect hindsight when it comes to the crunch
and you then have to be prepared to justify your choice of "safe speed"...
if you are around to do so...

Simple Simon wrote:

Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things
right with respect to this question of who determines
safe speed.

S.Simon


"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
.net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me
to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate
watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to
proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.



OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.



OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.



OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability



It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.



Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.



Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?




--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

Some people here who claim to be captains are so
obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
is but one example of restricted visibility that they
have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
visibility.


Excellent troll, Neal. All the usual suspects well and truly hooked!


I'm impressed.



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote:

Excellent troll, Neal. All the usual suspects well and truly
hooked!


I'm impressed.

I'm bored...

LP

Plain women usually are . . .


"Lady Pilot" wrote in message news:relkb.2938$B_2.2216@okepread02...
I'm bored...

So what kind of woman would like to hear the same argument for many
months? Maybe your ex-wife?

LP (needs more excitement than that)

"Simple Simon" wrote:
Plain women usually are . . .


"Lady Pilot" wrote:
I'm bored...