Re: Colregs dilemma

<salty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:rb7h14131b1tm03c0sr25tiv5e9hdmu495@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT), RichH <rhmpL33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>******* isn't propelling the boat ********   should be the only reply/
>>answer needed to be in compliance to the COLREGS.
>
> Insufficient.
>
> The colregs have specific language that could be interpreted many
> ways. This example throws a very large monkey wrench into many
> interpretations that have been posted here recently.
>
>


While true, if it went to court, I think the judge would find (all things 
being equal of course) that it wasn't the causitive agent of the accident.

It might have been a contributing factor that could have been used to 
*avoid* an accident, however. This is the primary reason for the
navigation 
rules... preventing accidents.

-- 
"j" ganz @[EMAIL PROTECTED]