| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal" You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make. Which is? Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own purposes. I was a power boater, and now I sail. Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters tend to think that all sailors are ignorant. When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored. My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The vast majority of power boaters are concientious. Can't agree with this, but, so what..... My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts, in fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your only hearing lookout. You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the PRIMARY visual lookout, not the only ..... AAARRRGHHHHHH!!! Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said that it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a "visual" lookout. Mebbe yes, mebbe no. The only one who has come close to saying this is Joe..... Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see" anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored, as wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends on the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? EG VHF is being used as a means to transmit and agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations ..... not as a hearing lookout. Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!! And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could possibly use it as the "sole" hearing lookout. I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause. Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision, when used properly. What makes you think such a thing? The fact that you are still commenting on this thread. Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs. I'm trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply their own interpretation to the Regs. I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours. Unfortunately, this will cause accidents. I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the VHF. ......and if I was a lawyer, eg I could find links that would demonstrate that the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions. (Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......) Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs? LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we are employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason...... I've a different sense of humour. Maybe Katy can explain???? Thought you might be working that route......careful, I might liken it to the "British" sense of humour..... Shen |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Redneck Girl | General | |||
| Redneck Woman | General | |||
| Dangerous quadrant? | ASA | |||
| Installing storage - cutting aluminum bench, dangerous? | General | |||
| Irrefutable proof of dangerous multihulls. | ASA | |||
Threaded Mode
