Jim,
I thought the sailboat was a power boat if the engine was running, even if
the propeller was not engaged.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
There is always argument with law regardless of whether there is
precedent
or "set law", whatever that means.

Too many times I have seen a "sailboat" with a sail kind of half assed up
but the motor is in the water and you can see the propellor's trail and
these idiots think they are "under sail." These are the people that give
the
rest of you rag merchants a bad name.

Good morning Bert. Yes, you are correct. A person can argue against
the
laws that have been set by precedent. Almost 99.9% of the cases that are
argued against precedent are doomed to failure.

If a sailing vessel has it's sails raised and his propeller is functioning
and driving the boat, then this is a power boat. No argument with that
statement. That sailor actions, as a sailing vessel, would be almost as
stupid as Bill McKee's act of trying to pass a sailing vessel at 25 MPH
and
15 feet distance.

Jim C.

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Jim,
I thought the sailboat was a power boat if the engine was running, even if
the propeller was not engaged.

Good morning Dr. Smithers.

You would be incorrect in your thinking. According to Admiralty Law with
regards to the wording of the Collision Regulations, a sailing vessel
becomes a power vessel when the propulsion machinery is engaged. The
engine can be running for the vessel to be considered a sailing vessel, but
the running gear, ( shafts and props,) cannot be turning. If you will read
the sections of the Collision Regulations that I have pointed out to Bill
McKee, you will see, clearly, the definitions.

Jim C.