Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Jeff Morris wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote Jeff Morris wrote: Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ... SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that? Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained, I've quoted this rule in full about 5 times in the year we've have this running debate. I assume the everyone is familiar with the full wording, so I sometimes only quote the "short version." Well, you'll never get anywhere with sloppy quoting. By saying "TO A MINIMUM" you're in danger of making people think you think the rule means something other than what it really means. In short, you need to be more of a pedant. :-) Neal has claimed that it is unsafe for a sailboat to proceed at anything less than the full speed for a given wind, and therefore claims that anything less than hull speed may be unsafe. Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other speed. That's fallacious. Yes, again I assume everyone is familiar with the wording. But all you're saying is that this rule only applies when there's a possibility of a collision - but that's the interesting situation! Well, he could say that provided there is no other traffic around, it is perfectly safe for him to go as fast as he can, particularly if that isn't very fast. Where he goes wrong is when, as you say, it gets interesting. This debate has gone on for over a year. Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-) The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough, That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does. and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his position that the signals give the listener an early warning of what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply. But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*. That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the letter of some of them which he closes his mind to. In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can* happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist, its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many rules. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
... .... In short, you need to be more of a pedant. :-) I bow to the master! This debate has gone on for over a year. Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-) Neal has essentially admitted he's wrong a few times, but prefers to keep the debate going for fun. The problem is that every time it starts up a few people will be sucked in by his nonsense. I hate to think how many newbies there are that think they have Right-Of-Way in the fog! The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough, That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does. and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his position that the signals give the listener an early warning of what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply. But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea. precisely. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*. That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the letter of some of them which he closes his mind to. Yes, he's tried to make this case. But this time he seems to be saying that the rules were not written with thick fog in mind, since it is so rare. But he never addresses the fundamental concept of 19(e), that when you hear a fog signal ahead, and can't figure it out, you must slow down. In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can* happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist, its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many rules. Neal never responds when I mention "closing rates." His claim has been that since the powerboat has stopped for him, he will always be able to avoid it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Ronald Raygun wrote:
Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other speed. That's fallacious. What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher speed? Does that wash? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Wally wrote:
What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher speed? Does that wash? Not really. Manoeuvrability alone is not good enough, he needs to budget for reaction time. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Not really. At the slower speed he'll have more time to maneuver and may
well carry a shorter distance during the maneuver. otn Wally wrote: Ronald Raygun wrote: Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other speed. That's fallacious. What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher speed? Does that wash? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|