Since I was going to the Coast Guard office anyway I decided to ask them in
what ways the ColRegs could be 'interpreted' by those of us on every sort of
nautical vessel.

The answer came, "You DON'T interpret anything. You just follow the rules.
Only the US Coast Guard in it's enforcement role or in it's judicial role
gets to 'interpret'. Then I further explained the situation. The answer
this time was, "Read Rule Two. As soon as someone starts interpreting the
rules it's pretty obvious and they are, at that point, in violation of Rule
Two. Also, it doesn't matter if the vessel operator has read the rules or
was trained under the rules or not. They are still liable under them."

Read between the lines. They just love to fine sea lawyers.

Michael





"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the
ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you
should be
a judge.

I most certainly do *not* feel free to apply my personal interpretation to
the CollRegs. Surely, you must see that *you* are the one who is
constantly
suggesting that the CollRegs can be "interpreted". You have previously
chastised me for suggesting that the words should be taken at face value
....
and now you are suggesting that I am placing my personal interpretation on
the Regs.

Perhaps you will accept the definition of the word "navigable" as provided
by the Chambers Dictionary.

"navigable (of a river, channel, etc) deep enough and wide enough to be
passed by ships, etc; dirigible."



You see, Jeff. I made NO personal interpretations. My slip is not
navigable. It cannot be "passed" by any floating object. When I am
berthed
there, it is very much *not* navigable.









Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at
anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards
low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets
shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats
touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's
possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say!

Good! 'Cos it isn't very stupid when you think about it.

I've described a dead end, and you are claiming that it is "navigable".
Please re-read the definition of "navigable". A dead-end cannot be
navigable.


So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?



Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and
Jax
on
the stupidity scale!

You are recycling your insults. It didn't help your case the first time.
It doesn't help your case this time.



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And
although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving,
there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable.
This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where
another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

Agreed.



My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost
everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK,
because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the
rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your
judgement
on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."

What nonsense! You are trying to say that courts around the world can
overrule the wording of the CollRegs. Your opinion is much closer to
anarchy than mine. I am trying to say that the CollRegs are worded very
carefully, and that we should not try to second guess what the authors
intended. They actually wrote their intentions. When they say that a
lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing, they really meant to
say
that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing. When they said
that a vessel should maintain a speed that was appropriate for the
conditions, they didn't mean that Joe could race about at 25 kts in thick
fog.






So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow
American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is
the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you
claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework,
of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus
assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not
interpret the law?

No. What makes you think that?

Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing?

No. Why do you ask this question?

Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?

I'm really beginning to think that you didn't understand a word that I
wrote.






I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that
courts
see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its appropriate to
cite
any
case that shows the concepts.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You
seem
to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else
should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think
they
were that bad!

You seem to be suggesting that a court ruling in one country could
influence
a court's decision in a different jurisdiction. Can you understand that I
have a difficulty with that proposition?

I suspect that you might be suffering from a little insularity.

Can you imagine a court in Boston allowing its judgement to be influenced
by
a French case? Of course not. Believe it, or not, a French court would
not
give any weight to a decision in an American court.





And remember, the comments that really started this were about Joe's
actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25
kts,
in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job.

Didn't you? So why did you question *me* for criticising Joe's attitude?
In case you don't rember, this all started when I suggested that Joe was
in
breach of the CollRegs for doing 25kts in fog, using the Radar as a
lookout.
You did *not* feel the need to question Joe. You did ask me to show
where
the CollRegs said that you couldn't navigate under radar alone.

Why on Earth did you pose that question?


I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than
running
on visual only.
How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was
that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away.


Ahhhh! You didn't like to see a foreigner criticise a fellow
American???
That sounds like a pretty poor defence to me.





I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even
know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to
back
up any
of your claims?


*You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an
obligation
to
obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've never
made
any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as
interpreted
by
the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to
everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does
it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context,
you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the
helmsman
is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but
the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been
playing
the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming
its
a wise
choice?

Don't ask silly questions. I have repeatedly said that a kayak could get
caught out in an unexpected fog. It really has nothing to do with
wisdom -
and everything to do with the vagaries of the weather.




The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules
say,
do
you?

In fact, I do.


I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels
or
a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also,
that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only
case
in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.
So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially
small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the
blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of
understanding of the rules.

I'm almost reduced to your level of ad hominem response by this silly
comment.

The rule says that power shall give way to sail *except* in the following
circumstances.






Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you
really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that?
Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!

No, I asked a serious question. You *did* use quotation marks. Thar
would lead many people to believe that you were actually quoting from
something. Do the words "those places where large ships and small
vessels
are likely to meet one another" actually appear in the CollRegs? Perhaps
you would like to admit that you were being "creative" when you wrote
those
words?

Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest, once again, that I am either
stupid - or a liar.

Maybe, you will be honest and admit that you just made those words up.




If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of
most
people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's
reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a
large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the
Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick
look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of
miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't
often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a
Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels,
mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that
you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly
liar?

When I first pointed it out you asked me "where ...." etc.

If you really believed that you would have questioned Joe's position - and
not mine.

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts,
using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep
accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue
to
play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre
compulsion
to be
an asshole?

Personal attacks won't help us to reach agreement.
Your initial question was something like "where in the CollRegs does it
say
that you can't say that you can't keep a lookout under Radar alone?" I
posted a reply, and you disagreed with me. I've no idea *why* you wanted
to
disagree with me ... but you did. That was your choice. On the one hand
you had someone(Joe) who claimed that doing 25kts on a busy waterway, in
fog, without a proper lookout, was safe. On the other hand you had
someone
(me) who pointed out that this behaviour was in contravention of rhe
CollRegs. You didn't question Joe, and you did question me.

Now you say that I was right, and that Joe was wrong, and yet you are
still
arguing with me. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be on some sort of
mission.






Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as
absolute
as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've
even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper
speed
should be, never having been there.


Are you saying that you have never encountered shipping in fog??

If so, why the hell have you engaged in this conversation?


It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection.
Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual
(and
sound) watch".


So why did you question *me*, when I was stating that one should always
have
a visual and a hearing lookout? Why didn't you question Joe?




I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just
claimed
that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have
no
bearing?

Not really. I'm claiming that "National" court rulings can have no
influence on an "International" treaty.








Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs
at
face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always keep a
lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though
that's
too
fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK to
break
the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the concepts in
the
rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way it
works
in the
US.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and
read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might
be
hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.

Do you really think that I am a liar?

... Or do you think that you have painted yourself into a corner?



Regards


Donal
--

This is exactly the answer I would expect from the CG. They are under orders
not to offer any interpretation other than "its all in the rules." When I
forward a query to the CR"rules man" I got the following response: "As I'm sure
you are well aware of by know, we stay away from conjecture or opinion as to the
validity of any the arguments brought forth in the newsgroups (legal
precaution). "

The last time I was in thick fog I was almost run down by a CG RIB doing about
10 knots in a very narrow channel - no lights, no whistle.



"Michael" wrote in message ...
Since I was going to the Coast Guard office anyway I decided to ask them in
what ways the ColRegs could be 'interpreted' by those of us on every sort of
nautical vessel.

The answer came, "You DON'T interpret anything. You just follow the rules.
Only the US Coast Guard in it's enforcement role or in it's judicial role
gets to 'interpret'. Then I further explained the situation. The answer
this time was, "Read Rule Two. As soon as someone starts interpreting the
rules it's pretty obvious and they are, at that point, in violation of Rule
Two. Also, it doesn't matter if the vessel operator has read the rules or
was trained under the rules or not. They are still liable under them."

Read between the lines. They just love to fine sea lawyers.

Michael





"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the
ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you
should be
a judge.

I most certainly do *not* feel free to apply my personal interpretation to
the CollRegs. Surely, you must see that *you* are the one who is
constantly
suggesting that the CollRegs can be "interpreted". You have previously
chastised me for suggesting that the words should be taken at face value
...
and now you are suggesting that I am placing my personal interpretation on
the Regs.

Perhaps you will accept the definition of the word "navigable" as provided
by the Chambers Dictionary.

"navigable (of a river, channel, etc) deep enough and wide enough to be
passed by ships, etc; dirigible."



You see, Jeff. I made NO personal interpretations. My slip is not
navigable. It cannot be "passed" by any floating object. When I am
berthed
there, it is very much *not* navigable.









Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at
anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards
low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets
shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats
touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's
possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say!

Good! 'Cos it isn't very stupid when you think about it.

I've described a dead end, and you are claiming that it is "navigable".
Please re-read the definition of "navigable". A dead-end cannot be
navigable.


So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?



Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and
Jax
on
the stupidity scale!

You are recycling your insults. It didn't help your case the first time.
It doesn't help your case this time.



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And
although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving,
there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable.
This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where
another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

Agreed.



My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost
everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK,
because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the
rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your
judgement
on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."

What nonsense! You are trying to say that courts around the world can
overrule the wording of the CollRegs. Your opinion is much closer to
anarchy than mine. I am trying to say that the CollRegs are worded very
carefully, and that we should not try to second guess what the authors
intended. They actually wrote their intentions. When they say that a
lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing, they really meant to
say
that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing. When they said
that a vessel should maintain a speed that was appropriate for the
conditions, they didn't mean that Joe could race about at 25 kts in thick
fog.






So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow
American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is
the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you
claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework,
of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus
assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not
interpret the law?

No. What makes you think that?

Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing?

No. Why do you ask this question?

Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?

I'm really beginning to think that you didn't understand a word that I
wrote.






I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that
courts
see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its appropriate to
cite
any
case that shows the concepts.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You
seem
to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else
should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think
they
were that bad!

You seem to be suggesting that a court ruling in one country could
influence
a court's decision in a different jurisdiction. Can you understand that I
have a difficulty with that proposition?

I suspect that you might be suffering from a little insularity.

Can you imagine a court in Boston allowing its judgement to be influenced
by
a French case? Of course not. Believe it, or not, a French court would
not
give any weight to a decision in an American court.





And remember, the comments that really started this were about Joe's
actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25
kts,
in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job.

Didn't you? So why did you question *me* for criticising Joe's attitude?
In case you don't rember, this all started when I suggested that Joe was
in
breach of the CollRegs for doing 25kts in fog, using the Radar as a
lookout.
You did *not* feel the need to question Joe. You did ask me to show
where
the CollRegs said that you couldn't navigate under radar alone.

Why on Earth did you pose that question?


I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than
running
on visual only.
How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was
that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away.


Ahhhh! You didn't like to see a foreigner criticise a fellow
American???
That sounds like a pretty poor defence to me.





I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even
know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to
back
up any
of your claims?


*You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an
obligation
to
obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've never
made
any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as
interpreted
by
the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to
everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does
it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context,
you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the
helmsman
is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but
the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been
playing
the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming
its
a wise
choice?

Don't ask silly questions. I have repeatedly said that a kayak could get
caught out in an unexpected fog. It really has nothing to do with
wisdom -
and everything to do with the vagaries of the weather.




The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules
say,
do
you?

In fact, I do.


I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels
or
a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also,
that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only
case
in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.
So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially
small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the
blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of
understanding of the rules.

I'm almost reduced to your level of ad hominem response by this silly
comment.

The rule says that power shall give way to sail *except* in the following
circumstances.






Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you
really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that?
Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!

No, I asked a serious question. You *did* use quotation marks. Thar
would lead many people to believe that you were actually quoting from
something. Do the words "those places where large ships and small
vessels
are likely to meet one another" actually appear in the CollRegs? Perhaps
you would like to admit that you were being "creative" when you wrote
those
words?

Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest, once again, that I am either
stupid - or a liar.

Maybe, you will be honest and admit that you just made those words up.




If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of
most
people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's
reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a
large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the
Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick
look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of
miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't
often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a
Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels,
mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that
you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly
liar?

When I first pointed it out you asked me "where ...." etc.

If you really believed that you would have questioned Joe's position - and
not mine.

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts,
using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep
accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue
to
play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre
compulsion
to be
an asshole?

Personal attacks won't help us to reach agreement.
Your initial question was something like "where in the CollRegs does it
say
that you can't say that you can't keep a lookout under Radar alone?" I
posted a reply, and you disagreed with me. I've no idea *why* you wanted
to
disagree with me ... but you did. That was your choice. On the one hand
you had someone(Joe) who claimed that doing 25kts on a busy waterway, in
fog, without a proper lookout, was safe. On the other hand you had
someone
(me) who pointed out that this behaviour was in contravention of rhe
CollRegs. You didn't question Joe, and you did question me.

Now you say that I was right, and that Joe was wrong, and yet you are
still
arguing with me. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be on some sort of
mission.






Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as
absolute
as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've
even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper
speed
should be, never having been there.


Are you saying that you have never encountered shipping in fog??

If so, why the hell have you engaged in this conversation?


It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection.
Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual
(and
sound) watch".


So why did you question *me*, when I was stating that one should always
have
a visual and a hearing lookout? Why didn't you question Joe?




I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just
claimed
that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have
no
bearing?

Not really. I'm claiming that "National" court rulings can have no
influence on an "International" treaty.








Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs
at
face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always keep a
lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though
that's
too
fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK to
break
the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the concepts in
the
rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way it
works
in the
US.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and
read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might
be
hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.

Do you really think that I am a liar?

... Or do you think that you have painted yourself into a corner?



Regards


Donal
--

I think the guy was in one of those, we're tired of going out after silly
people who think losing one of two engines merits a tow et. al. One thing
I've noticed readily, each Coast Guard station is almost a world unto itself
and does things it's own way. Their REC's are most famous for this but I'm
sure it spills over to the other operations. Not surprising. Even the US
Navy is different in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Mediterranan, the IO
etc. etc.

The real hard case ones are those on drug interdiction. They don't do any
lifesaving no matter how close and they are strictly law enforcement. There
dogs are great though. A minature Black Labrador breed and they are great to
be around. We had some practice on my last ship and I found how to get one
for my own boat. Just the right size, good water dogs and great
companion/guards.

Anyway I'd hate to be on the receiving end of the drug catchers after
multiple trips per year in and out of the US or with a record of unexplained
income or living beyond visible means.

Those guys are all business. A different group entirely.

Back to the rules. Best thing is to follow them and when in doubt revert to
Rule Two. Can't go wrong that way.

Cheers

Michael


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
This is exactly the answer I would expect from the CG. They are under
orders
not to offer any interpretation other than "its all in the rules." When
I
forward a query to the CR"rules man" I got the following response: "As I'm
sure
you are well aware of by know, we stay away from conjecture or opinion as
to the
validity of any the arguments brought forth in the newsgroups (legal
precaution). "

The last time I was in thick fog I was almost run down by a CG RIB doing
about
10 knots in a very narrow channel - no lights, no whistle.



"Michael" wrote in message
...
Since I was going to the Coast Guard office anyway I decided to ask them
in
what ways the ColRegs could be 'interpreted' by those of us on every
sort of
nautical vessel.

The answer came, "You DON'T interpret anything. You just follow the
rules.
Only the US Coast Guard in it's enforcement role or in it's judicial
role
gets to 'interpret'. Then I further explained the situation. The answer
this time was, "Read Rule Two. As soon as someone starts interpreting
the
rules it's pretty obvious and they are, at that point, in violation of
Rule
Two. Also, it doesn't matter if the vessel operator has read the rules
or
was trained under the rules or not. They are still liable under them."

Read between the lines. They just love to fine sea lawyers.

Michael





"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating
the
ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe
you
should be
a judge.

I most certainly do *not* feel free to apply my personal
interpretation to
the CollRegs. Surely, you must see that *you* are the one who is
constantly
suggesting that the CollRegs can be "interpreted". You have
previously
chastised me for suggesting that the words should be taken at face
value
...
and now you are suggesting that I am placing my personal
interpretation on
the Regs.

Perhaps you will accept the definition of the word "navigable" as
provided
by the Chambers Dictionary.

"navigable (of a river, channel, etc) deep enough and wide enough to
be
passed by ships, etc; dirigible."



You see, Jeff. I made NO personal interpretations. My slip is not
navigable. It cannot be "passed" by any floating object. When I am
berthed
there, it is very much *not* navigable.









Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at
anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek".
Towards
low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets
shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some
boats
touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there?
That's
possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say!

Good! 'Cos it isn't very stupid when you think about it.

I've described a dead end, and you are claiming that it is
"navigable".
Please re-read the definition of "navigable". A dead-end cannot be
navigable.


So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?



Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath
and
Jax
on
the stupidity scale!

You are recycling your insults. It didn't help your case the first
time.
It doesn't help your case this time.



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law.
And
although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not
moving,
there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held
liable.
This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or
where
another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

Agreed.



My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost
everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it
OK,
because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret
the
rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your
judgement
on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."

What nonsense! You are trying to say that courts around the world
can
overrule the wording of the CollRegs. Your opinion is much closer to
anarchy than mine. I am trying to say that the CollRegs are worded
very
carefully, and that we should not try to second guess what the authors
intended. They actually wrote their intentions. When they say that
a
lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing, they really meant
to
say
that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing. When they
said
that a vessel should maintain a speed that was appropriate for the
conditions, they didn't mean that Joe could race about at 25 kts in
thick
fog.






So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation
differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must
follow
American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point
is
the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you
claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal
framework,
of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you
thus
assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do
not
interpret the law?

No. What makes you think that?

Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing?

No. Why do you ask this question?

Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?

I'm really beginning to think that you didn't understand a word that I
wrote.






I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that
courts
see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its
appropriate to
cite
any
case that shows the concepts.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy?
You
seem
to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone
else
should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't
think
they
were that bad!

You seem to be suggesting that a court ruling in one country could
influence
a court's decision in a different jurisdiction. Can you understand
that I
have a difficulty with that proposition?

I suspect that you might be suffering from a little insularity.

Can you imagine a court in Boston allowing its judgement to be
influenced
by
a French case? Of course not. Believe it, or not, a French court
would
not
give any weight to a decision in an American court.





And remember, the comments that really started this were about
Joe's
actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do
25
kts,
in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job.

Didn't you? So why did you question *me* for criticising Joe's
attitude?
In case you don't rember, this all started when I suggested that Joe
was
in
breach of the CollRegs for doing 25kts in fog, using the Radar as a
lookout.
You did *not* feel the need to question Joe. You did ask me to show
where
the CollRegs said that you couldn't navigate under radar alone.

Why on Earth did you pose that question?


I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed
than
running
on visual only.
How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it
was
that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles
away.


Ahhhh! You didn't like to see a foreigner criticise a fellow
American???
That sounds like a pretty poor defence to me.





I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't
even
know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to
back
up any
of your claims?


*You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an
obligation
to
obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've
never
made
any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as
interpreted
by
the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to
everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs
does
it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of
context,
you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the
helmsman
is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required,
but
the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been
playing
the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you
claiming
its
a wise
choice?

Don't ask silly questions. I have repeatedly said that a kayak could
get
caught out in an unexpected fog. It really has nothing to do with
wisdom -
and everything to do with the vagaries of the weather.




The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to
sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules
say,
do
you?

In fact, I do.


I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow
Channels
or
a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note
also,
that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only
case
in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.
So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially
small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the
blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack
of
understanding of the rules.

I'm almost reduced to your level of ad hominem response by this silly
comment.

The rule says that power shall give way to sail *except* in the
following
circumstances.






Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years
ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do
you
really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that?
Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the
discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!

No, I asked a serious question. You *did* use quotation marks.
Thar
would lead many people to believe that you were actually quoting from
something. Do the words "those places where large ships and small
vessels
are likely to meet one another" actually appear in the CollRegs?
Perhaps
you would like to admit that you were being "creative" when you wrote
those
words?

Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest, once again, that I am either
stupid - or a liar.

Maybe, you will be honest and admit that you just made those words up.




If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to
the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of
most
people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's.
That's
reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never
encounter a
large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the
Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a
quick
look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number
of
miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats
don't
often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships
in a
Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels,
mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say
that
you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly
liar?

When I first pointed it out you asked me "where ...." etc.

If you really believed that you would have questioned Joe's position -
and
not mine.

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25
kts,
using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said
"Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you
keep
accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you
continue
to
play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre
compulsion
to be
an asshole?

Personal attacks won't help us to reach agreement.
Your initial question was something like "where in the CollRegs does
it
say
that you can't say that you can't keep a lookout under Radar alone?"
I
posted a reply, and you disagreed with me. I've no idea *why* you
wanted
to
disagree with me ... but you did. That was your choice. On the one
hand
you had someone(Joe) who claimed that doing 25kts on a busy waterway,
in
fog, without a proper lookout, was safe. On the other hand you had
someone
(me) who pointed out that this behaviour was in contravention of rhe
CollRegs. You didn't question Joe, and you did question me.

Now you say that I was right, and that Joe was wrong, and yet you are
still
arguing with me. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be on some sort
of
mission.






Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as
absolute
as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK,
You've
even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper
speed
should be, never having been there.


Are you saying that you have never encountered shipping in fog??

If so, why the hell have you engaged in this conversation?


It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel
detection.
Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a
visual
(and
sound) watch".


So why did you question *me*, when I was stating that one should
always
have
a visual and a hearing lookout? Why didn't you question Joe?




I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just
claimed
that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling
have
no
bearing?

Not really. I'm claiming that "National" court rulings can have no
influence on an "International" treaty.








Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the
CollRegs
at
face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always
keep a
lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though
that's
too
fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK
to
break
the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the
concepts in
the
rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way
it
works
in the
US.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road"
and
read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it
might
be
hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.

Do you really think that I am a liar?

... Or do you think that you have painted yourself into a corner?



Regards


Donal
--

"Michael" wrote

The real hard case ones are those on drug interdiction. They don't do any
lifesaving no matter how close and they are strictly law enforcement.
There
dogs are great though. A minature Black Labrador breed and they are great
to
be around. We had some practice on my last ship and I found how to get
one
for my own boat. Just the right size, good water dogs and great
companion/guards.

and really handy when you forget where you put your stash.

SV

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
This is exactly the answer I would expect from the CG.


Indeed it is! I asked the commander of USCG group Houston what is
visual as it applies to the rule. He said everything you see including
radar. I asked him which would he have his crew do in thick fog. He
said it is required you use all the tools you have on board. You use
the most effective tools and methods to avoid collision.

He also mentioned special exemption for special purpose boats that
you can file for.

I asked if it is a boat that is so loud on deck that you can not hear
anything else do you think you could get an exemption from the hearing
part of lookouts.
He said yes, but that does not exempt you from monitering the proper
VHF channels and checking and listening to traffic.


They are under orders
not to offer any interpretation other than "its all in the rules." When I
forward a query to the CR"rules man" I got the following response: "As I'm sure
you are well aware of by know, we stay away from conjecture or opinion as to the
validity of any the arguments brought forth in the newsgroups (legal
precaution). "

The last time I was in thick fog I was almost run down by a CG RIB doing about
10 knots in a very narrow channel - no lights, no whistle.

Typical coasties out for a joy ride.

They are as flawed as anyone as far as sticking to the rules (thou
they may be exempt).

On of the things that soured me on the CG is a incident that happened
in Port Issabel. We were coming in the jetties and a nice new 30 foot
boston whaler was upside down in the jetties. They has hit the rocks
and put a hole about 1 inch wide by 8 inches long on a strake. The
boat I was running has an anchor handling boat and we had a roller on
the stern and gates that open and a winch that would pull over 100
tons dead weight. We were going to save the boat and perhaps make a
few bucks in the process. We opened the gates and were just attaching
the tugger winch to the bow of the whaler and the USCG got on the
radio and told us to clear the channel that we were a hazard to
navigation. Mind you there was no other traffic. I told the local
commander we were going to pull the vessel up on deck and bring it to
the dock. He said no that they had a bouy tender in route to get the
vessel. Well the tender just pulled the whaler out of the jetties and
let her go, it beach about a mile down the coast
spilled it fuel and was buried in the sand to a point it could not be
salvaged.

I was ****ed, the boat was brand new with 2 Mercury Black Max engines
and would of made a nice easy salvage. All we wnded up getting was
the props, that was all that was above the sand on Padre Island. I
often wondered if the owner that abandoned the boat had something to
do with it being let go and us being told to move along, Insurance
job.

The thing that made me respect them again they were nice enough to do
a fly over at a friend funeral. Every year on the anniversery I send
the pilots at USCGG Houston a big bottle of whiskey anonymiously, if
they knew who it came from they are required to return it.

Joe
MSV RedCloud





"Michael" wrote in message ...
Since I was going to the Coast Guard office anyway I decided to ask them in
what ways the ColRegs could be 'interpreted' by those of us on every sort of
nautical vessel.

The answer came, "You DON'T interpret anything. You just follow the rules.
Only the US Coast Guard in it's enforcement role or in it's judicial role
gets to 'interpret'. Then I further explained the situation. The answer
this time was, "Read Rule Two. As soon as someone starts interpreting the
rules it's pretty obvious and they are, at that point, in violation of Rule
Two. Also, it doesn't matter if the vessel operator has read the rules or
was trained under the rules or not. They are still liable under them."

Read between the lines. They just love to fine sea lawyers.

Michael





"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the
ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you
should be
a judge.

I most certainly do *not* feel free to apply my personal interpretation to
the CollRegs. Surely, you must see that *you* are the one who is
constantly
suggesting that the CollRegs can be "interpreted". You have previously
chastised me for suggesting that the words should be taken at face value
...
and now you are suggesting that I am placing my personal interpretation on
the Regs.

Perhaps you will accept the definition of the word "navigable" as provided
by the Chambers Dictionary.

"navigable (of a river, channel, etc) deep enough and wide enough to be
passed by ships, etc; dirigible."



You see, Jeff. I made NO personal interpretations. My slip is not
navigable. It cannot be "passed" by any floating object. When I am
berthed
there, it is very much *not* navigable.









Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at
anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards
low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets
shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats
touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's
possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say!

Good! 'Cos it isn't very stupid when you think about it.

I've described a dead end, and you are claiming that it is "navigable".
Please re-read the definition of "navigable". A dead-end cannot be
navigable.


So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?



Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and
Jax
on
the stupidity scale!

You are recycling your insults. It didn't help your case the first time.
It doesn't help your case this time.



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And
although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving,
there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable.
This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where
another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

Agreed.



My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost
everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK,
because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the
rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your
judgement
on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."

What nonsense! You are trying to say that courts around the world can
overrule the wording of the CollRegs. Your opinion is much closer to
anarchy than mine. I am trying to say that the CollRegs are worded very
carefully, and that we should not try to second guess what the authors
intended. They actually wrote their intentions. When they say that a
lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing, they really meant to
say
that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing. When they said
that a vessel should maintain a speed that was appropriate for the
conditions, they didn't mean that Joe could race about at 25 kts in thick
fog.






So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow
American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is
the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you
claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework,
of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus
assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not
interpret the law?

No. What makes you think that?

Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing?

No. Why do you ask this question?

Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?

I'm really beginning to think that you didn't understand a word that I
wrote.






I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that
courts
see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its appropriate to
cite
any
case that shows the concepts.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You
seem
to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else
should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think
they
were that bad!

You seem to be suggesting that a court ruling in one country could
influence
a court's decision in a different jurisdiction. Can you understand that I
have a difficulty with that proposition?

I suspect that you might be suffering from a little insularity.

Can you imagine a court in Boston allowing its judgement to be influenced
by
a French case? Of course not. Believe it, or not, a French court would
not
give any weight to a decision in an American court.





And remember, the comments that really started this were about Joe's
actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25
kts,
in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job.

Didn't you? So why did you question *me* for criticising Joe's attitude?
In case you don't rember, this all started when I suggested that Joe was
in
breach of the CollRegs for doing 25kts in fog, using the Radar as a
lookout.
You did *not* feel the need to question Joe. You did ask me to show
where
the CollRegs said that you couldn't navigate under radar alone.

Why on Earth did you pose that question?


I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than
running
on visual only.
How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was
that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away.


Ahhhh! You didn't like to see a foreigner criticise a fellow
American???
That sounds like a pretty poor defence to me.





I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even
know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to
back
up any
of your claims?


*You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an
obligation
to
obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've never
made
any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as
interpreted
by
the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to
everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does
it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context,
you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the
helmsman
is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but
the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been
playing
the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming
its
a wise
choice?

Don't ask silly questions. I have repeatedly said that a kayak could get
caught out in an unexpected fog. It really has nothing to do with
wisdom -
and everything to do with the vagaries of the weather.




The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules
say,
do
you?

In fact, I do.


I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels
or
a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also,
that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only
case
in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.
So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially
small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the
blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of
understanding of the rules.

I'm almost reduced to your level of ad hominem response by this silly
comment.

The rule says that power shall give way to sail *except* in the following
circumstances.






Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you
really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that?
Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!

No, I asked a serious question. You *did* use quotation marks. Thar
would lead many people to believe that you were actually quoting from
something. Do the words "those places where large ships and small
vessels
are likely to meet one another" actually appear in the CollRegs? Perhaps
you would like to admit that you were being "creative" when you wrote
those
words?

Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest, once again, that I am either
stupid - or a liar.

Maybe, you will be honest and admit that you just made those words up.




If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of
most
people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's
reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a
large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the
Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick
look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of
miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't
often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a
Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels,
mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that
you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly
liar?

When I first pointed it out you asked me "where ...." etc.

If you really believed that you would have questioned Joe's position - and
not mine.

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts,
using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep
accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue
to
play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre
compulsion
to be
an asshole?

Personal attacks won't help us to reach agreement.
Your initial question was something like "where in the CollRegs does it
say
that you can't say that you can't keep a lookout under Radar alone?" I
posted a reply, and you disagreed with me. I've no idea *why* you wanted
to
disagree with me ... but you did. That was your choice. On the one hand
you had someone(Joe) who claimed that doing 25kts on a busy waterway, in
fog, without a proper lookout, was safe. On the other hand you had
someone
(me) who pointed out that this behaviour was in contravention of rhe
CollRegs. You didn't question Joe, and you did question me.

Now you say that I was right, and that Joe was wrong, and yet you are
still
arguing with me. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be on some sort of
mission.






Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as
absolute
as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've
even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper
speed
should be, never having been there.


Are you saying that you have never encountered shipping in fog??

If so, why the hell have you engaged in this conversation?


It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection.
Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual
(and
sound) watch".


So why did you question *me*, when I was stating that one should always
have
a visual and a hearing lookout? Why didn't you question Joe?




I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just
claimed
that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have
no
bearing?

Not really. I'm claiming that "National" court rulings can have no
influence on an "International" treaty.








Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs
at
face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always keep a
lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though
that's
too
fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK to
break
the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the concepts in
the
rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way it
works
in the
US.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and
read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might
be
hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.

Do you really think that I am a liar?

... Or do you think that you have painted yourself into a corner?



Regards


Donal
--

Damn! I knew I'd left something out.

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote

The real hard case ones are those on drug interdiction. They don't do
any
lifesaving no matter how close and they are strictly law enforcement.
There
dogs are great though. A minature Black Labrador breed and they are
great
to
be around. We had some practice on my last ship and I found how to get
one
for my own boat. Just the right size, good water dogs and great
companion/guards.

and really handy when you forget where you put your stash.

SV