COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
You are wrong. No court can legally pass legislation.
No court can require anybody to study court cases. Courts are only empowered to decide how laws apply and if laws are constitutional and who may or may not have broken them. Any court or judge who says I must know all court cases that apply to the Colregs is completely overstepping his bounds. It is my duty to follow the letter of the Colregs. I cannot be expected to be a legal expert. Your liberal attitudes are showing again. Your attitudes suggest that when a motorist sees a 55MPH speed limit sign he is required to know and understand all court decisions related to this speed limit. That's bull and you know it. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor. Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice. As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held to a higher standard. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Is there no limit to the depths of your ignorance?
I know that you believe the "Farwell's," the standard text for the US Naval Academy, written by two former chairmen of the Navigation Department of the Academy (one of them a Commander in the Royal Navy, BTW), is part of a liberal conspiracy --- But here's what they say, so that others will understand: From the chapter on Principals of Marine Collision Law: Rules Modified by Court Interpretation A fourth principle of the rules too often overlooked by the mariner in his seagoing practice of collision law is that to avoid liability he must know not only what the rules applicable to a given situation provide but what the federal courts have interpreted them to mean. Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as efficient whistle or siren, flare-up light, proper lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third, judicial interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or con- flicts in the latter. .... Whatever the mariner thinks of the legal setup, which has the effect giving the courts more authority over the rules of the road than the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, who enforces them through the inspectors, the mariner must obey the law as he finds it- and that means in practice, as the admiralty judges interpret it. Notwithstanding the that in this country we do not have special admiralty courts, but federal judge may be required to hear a collision case, it will be found the decisions have been, as a whole, sound in seamanship as well as in law. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... You are wrong. No court can legally pass legislation. No court can require anybody to study court cases. Courts are only empowered to decide how laws apply and if laws are constitutional and who may or may not have broken them. Any court or judge who says I must know all court cases that apply to the Colregs is completely overstepping his bounds. It is my duty to follow the letter of the Colregs. I cannot be expected to be a legal expert. Your liberal attitudes are showing again. Your attitudes suggest that when a motorist sees a 55MPH speed limit sign he is required to know and understand all court decisions related to this speed limit. That's bull and you know it. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor. Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice. As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held to a higher standard. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
(deity I hate top posting but this is too messed up to fix...)
You, as master of the ship/vessel/bathtub/whatever, decide what _you_ consider to be a "safe speed" for the conditions... however... the courts _always_ get the benefit of perfect hindsight when it comes to the crunch and you then have to be prepared to justify your choice of "safe speed"... if you are around to do so... Simple Simon wrote: Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things right with respect to this question of who determines safe speed. S.Simon "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? -- COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD! |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Dear Group, Some people here who claim to be captains are so obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin, is but one example of restricted visibility that they have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted visibility. Excellent troll, Neal. All the usual suspects well and truly hooked! I'm impressed. Regards Donal -- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ...
Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another. Hummm... Obviously this person has never spent any time in the pacific northwest in the summer. I was at about 43N and 30 miles off when I watched two 300 foot boats plow into each other because of fog. Do you remember how the nose of that paper airplane you use to make looked after a few nose dives? Trust me, the mate was not considering a "pecking order" when that bow loomed out of the mythical mist at a whoping 2.8 knts! Damn the COLREGS.......no speed ahead! Chris Freya 39 At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another. Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore, I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision. If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES. Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation. This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility. If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation. (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc, here - we're talking at sea.) This means the give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - knows the practical application as well as the letter of the Rules. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Sorry Jeff, It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread. I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of restricted visibility. Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should perhaps add a couple of points; First Point: Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1 (Application) '(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels' Second Point: Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog? He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker. I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog. I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound signals much easier than with an engine on. Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and Meteorology amongst other things. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com