"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message news:fkaaf.4109
I
know what is involved with sailing. Married a good sailors daughter and
used to windsurf. But too many "sailors" figure they have the right of
way
as they have a sailboat. I have had "sailors" do a 90 degree in front of
me
when lifting the sails and the iron sail is still running, and then yell
at
me. They would yell even louder if I collided with them and when they
had
to pay enormous sums of money to me.

Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim



Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.

In article et,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim



Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.

15 feet? 25 MPH? So, we're talking about 1/2 seconds? I find this hard
to believe somehow. Do you want to try for second prize?



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6, rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule 7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule 8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule 7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule 8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim



Bzzt: Sailboat made a bad move. Prove I was not paying attention, and that
an illegal direction change while being overtaken did not cause the
accident.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a
boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being
overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule
7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule
8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim



Bzzt: Sailboat made a bad move. Prove I was not paying attention, and
that
an illegal direction change while being overtaken did not cause the
accident.
Bill, here is the proof for you. If "you" hit the sailboat that means that
you were not paying attention to various factors, those factors being your
speed & your proximity to the sailboat. Ergo.......your broke Rule 5. The
sailboat making a bad move has nothing to do with it. You were too close!
You were going too fast! You hit the sailboat! You're in the
wrong.......

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a
boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid
the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being
overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule
7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule
8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim



Bzzt: Sailboat made a bad move. Prove I was not paying attention, and
that
an illegal direction change while being overtaken did not cause the
accident.
Bill, here is the proof for you. If "you" hit the sailboat that means
that
you were not paying attention to various factors, those factors being your
speed & your proximity to the sailboat. Ergo.......your broke Rule 5.
The
sailboat making a bad move has nothing to do with it. You were too
close!
You were going too fast! You hit the sailboat! You're in the
wrong.......

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.



I may get a minority of the blame, but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.

Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.


Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He
gets the majority of the fault.

Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK


Rule 17 a) i)

DSK wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:

I may get a minority of the blame


Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT!
He gets the majority of the fault.


Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK

Rule 17

Action by Stand-on Vessel

(a)(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other
shall keep her course and speed.

Gary

In article ,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame, but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.

Suggestion: Don't bet on it.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com