"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)

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"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)

Wrong again Bill. Did you not read Rule 13 part (a)? If not, here it is
for you.
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and
II, any vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of the way of the
vessel being overtaken."

This means that you were, at 25 feet behind the sailboat, and going 25 MPH,
you were not in a position to "keep out of the way". Right Bill? Proof of
this is in Rule 17 (b) . Did you read this part Bill? If not, here it is
for you.
"When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed
finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the
give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid
collision. This could be the reason for her turning. Right Bill?

This means Bill, that if you collided with the sailboat, the majority of the
blame is YOURS.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.

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