LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #6   Report Post  
Jeff Morris
 
Posts: n/a
Default COLREGS - Proving Pecking Order in Restricted Visibility


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
snip meaningless gibberish
How come when it comes to Rule 8(f)(i),

"A vessel which, by any of THESE RULES (my caps),
is required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case,
take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel,"

you claim the term 'any of these rules" is
specific to only two rules (9 and 10)?


No, that's not what I said. The word "impede" is only used in rule 9 and 10, and of
course, rule 8(f). Those are the rules meant "by any of these rules." Rule 8(f) is
qualifying the meaning of "shall not impede," as it is used in Rule 9 and 10. I even
quoted the IMO commentary that explained that that is why 8(f) was added.

Only a simpleton would try to read more into this.












You are making an incorrect assumption based
on scanty information. You are proceeding with
eyes closed. You are violating Rule 7(c) in your
attempt to narrow the definition in Rule 8(j)(i)

Also, you must never forget that Rule 8 exists
in Section 1 - Conduct of Vessels in Any
Condition of Visibility. This includes
restricted visibility.

Rule 8 - Action to Avoid Collision therefore
applies in restricted visibility as well as
all other conditions of visibility.

Since Rule 8(j)(i) applies under all conditions
of visibility it applies in fog.

This means vessels shall not be impeded in
restricted visibility. This means there is
a pecking order in restricted visibility.
In an area of restricted visibility the Rules
state a motor vessel shall not impede a sailing
vessel.

The proof is in the pudding. All it takes is to
understand the broad meaning of Rule 8(j)(i)

"A vessel which, by any of these rules, - - - -

[Rule 8(c) for example, "If there is sufficient
sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good
time, is substantial and does not result
in another close-quarters situation" is only
one such example.]

- - - - -is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall when required by the circumstances
of the case, take early action to allow
sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the other vessel.

This alteration of course defines a give way
vessel because a stand-on vessel is defined
as the vessel not to alter course.

Conclusion: There is, indeed, a pecking order
in restricted visibility because Rule 8(j)(i)
says so.

It is all based on the fact proven at the
beginning of this essay that 'any of these
rules' means just that. It is clearly not
only referring to Rules 9 and 10. Those
who insist it does are in error.

S.Simon












 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility. Simple Simon ASA 149 October 22nd 03 04:08 AM
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility. Simple Simon General 84 October 19th 03 05:41 AM
Perception Joe ASA 60 October 17th 03 12:42 PM
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine Gerard Weatherby ASA 97 August 8th 03 01:03 AM
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44 otnmbrd ASA 53 July 30th 03 06:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017