SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

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 (very thick fog)
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 below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

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

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

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

"Everett" wrote in message
...
"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from
the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

And the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a
collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and
yell "STAND ASIDE"

John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters

Hey John,
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Of course,
one "tries" to miss the errant PWC too. G

Capt. Frank

John Cairns wrote:

"Everett" wrote in message
...

"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not

knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from

the

Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

snip

"Simple Simon"

snip

I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.


Lsnip

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.


snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett


And the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a
collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and
yell "STAND ASIDE"

John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:51:21 GMT, something compelled "Capt.
Frank Hopkins" , to say:

Hey John,
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid.

Standing orders on USS Prairie, AD 15 read in part:*

Aircraft carriers are unpredictable and change course at will,
with little to no regard to the rest of the fleet. Whenever
steaming with an aircraft carrier, a vigilant watch will be kept
upon it, and the ship will be maneuvered out of the way as
prudent.





*As much as I remember.

"Everett" wrote in message
from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett


What does it say? Do you have a point?

Everett wrote:

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all.

To say what, exactly?

The pecking order (rule 18), stand-on (rule 17), and give-way (rule
16) stuff is not in section I of part B, to which rule 4 refers, but
in section II of part B, which is introduced by rule 11:

"Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another."

So the pecking order *only* applies when in sight.

Section III which is rule 19 applies only to vessels not in
sight of one another, when in restricted visibility. This means
that, even where visibility is restricted (for any reason), as
soon as ships come close enough to see each other, section III
goes out the window and section II kicks in, restoring pecking
order *which does not exist in section III*. But this revived
pecking order may be academic if by then vessels are already
in a close quarters situation.

How absolutely, positively correct you are, sir!

S.Simon


"Everett" wrote in message ...
"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

You're new here aren't cha.
"Charles T. Low" wrote in message
...
SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility,
unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of
the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

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 (very thick fog)
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 below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

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

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

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.

If you want to see some of the earlier threads, search on "fog" in this group.


"Charles T. Low" wrote in message
...
SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

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 (very thick fog)
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 below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

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

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

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.