Would mandatory licensing change things?

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Now try superimposing Canada .

We got some big freakin’ countries here in NA. Takes me about 10 days of driving to reach my boat, which is over in Newfoundland. I’m currently in British Columbia.

Exactly!

Most of the rest of the world (and city dwellers) have very little idea how big the place is. Australians and a few others excepted.

Many states and most/all provinces have some really remote places. The point being that the size of the place makes public transportation a non-starter.

[Pelagic]

Ok. after 164 posts, has anyone considered what message weekend racing around marks sends as far as "safe" operation?
Idiots purposely forcing each other to make last second course changes inches from each, boxing in opponents and generall aggressive unseamanlike behavior.
All in the name of a shiny goblet.proclaiming your crew the badass bunch of the fleet.
[emoji57]

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Exactly!

Most of the rest of the world (and city dwellers) have very little idea how big the place is. Australians and a few others excepted.

Many states and most/all provinces have some really remote places. The point being that the size of the place makes public transportation a non-starter.

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. While Canada and the USA are very large, both our countries have highly focused population centres — Canada even more so than the USA. There is ample opportunity to have effective public transportation that would cover most of the population, if not most of the area of the two countries.

It’s clear some of the impediments to better public transportation systems are differing cultural, but also entrenched economic interests.

ADD: Actually, a fine counter-example is China. By some assessments it is now leading the world in the development of high-speed public transportation. China is number three in area (between Canada and the USA).

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by evm1024

The Colombian thought that Douglass Firs were exotic and awesome.

I think Douglas firs are exotic and awesome. Also one of my favourite Latin names: Pseudotsuga menziesii... it just rolls off the tongue

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Ok. after 164 posts, has anyone considered what message weekend racing around marks sends as far as "safe" operation?
Idiots purposely forcing each other to make last second course changes inches from each, boxing in opponents and generall aggressive unseamanlike behavior.
All in the name of a shiny goblet.proclaiming your crew the badass bunch of the fleet.
[emoji57]

there is a reason they call the Wednesday races beer can races

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

By the third round of beers I’ve got most of the world’s problems worked out. But for some reason I can’t quite remember it all by the morning .

How does that happen ?

I’ll bet that after three rounds of beers you’re a libertarian.

When you wake up looking for ways to fix everything you’re probably not a libertarian.

[Pete17C]

Originally Posted by evm1024

I see that you feel insulted and would rather fight than use your head. So be it.

You presented a hypothetical scenario and offered up only 2 solutions, neither of which are correct. Surely, you do know how to handle the intersection and thus I can only conclude that you would rather.... And there is no need to.

The queued up intersection appears to alternate but in reality the car yielded to rotates. But it is really more complex than that.

As an example from the MN drivers manual:

1) If each car arrived at a different time, then they leave in the order in which they arrived. To repeat: Leave in the order in which you got there.

2) If two vehicles arrive at the same time, the driver on the left defers to the driver on the right. In other words: The driver on the right goes first.

3) If two vehicles arrive at the same time and one of them is signaling a turn across the path of the other, then the one who is not turning has right of way.

4) If you had to wait in a line at the intersection to get to the stop sign, this does not change anything. Each car stops and then follows the above rules as if no one else had been in line before him. (In other words, you can’t conclude that you were there before the person at the other intersection just because the car in front of you was there before him or her.)

5) If you are at a T-intersection with a 3-way stop, the vehicle that does not have to turn has right of way.

you said (post #14)

"Some how we got it into our heads that I was here first so I get to go first....."

I said (post #7)

"If you get there first, you do indeed get to go first."

the law says (according to you, post #115)

"If each car arrived at a different time, then they leave in the order in which they arrived. To repeat: Leave in the order in which you got there."

but please go on

/or not

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Pete17C

you said (post #14)

Originally Posted by EVM1024

"Some how we got it into our heads that I was here first so I get to go first....."

You will note that the sentence I wrote and you quoted ends in ellipsis. "..." Ellipsis indicate that there was more to be said that was left out. It is up to the reader to understand that.

In this case the ellipsis take the place of "in all cases" or "when one person is not sure who was there first" or " when it is not clear who was first" etc.

They also indicate that 4 way intersections are actually quite complex in the real world.

The art of english.....


I said (post #7)

"If you get there first, you do indeed get to go first."

Yes, you did say that. And you also said "The 'yield to the car on the right' rule comes into play when you both arrive at the same time.".

I'm missing your point here. Actually I am missing the reason for your post.

the law says (according to you, post #115)

"If each car arrived at a different time, then they leave in the order in which they arrived. To repeat: Leave in the order in which you got there."

I see that you selectively quoted me in order to support your position. Let me put the full quote down:

Originally Posted by EVM1024

As an example from the MN drivers manual:

1) If each car arrived at a different time, then they leave in the order in which they arrived. To repeat: Leave in the order in which you got there.

2) If two vehicles arrive at the same time, the driver on the left defers to the driver on the right. In other words: The driver on the right goes first.

3) If two vehicles arrive at the same time and one of them is signaling a turn across the path of the other, then the one who is not turning has right of way.

4) If you had to wait in a line at the intersection to get to the stop sign, this does not change anything. Each car stops and then follows the above rules as if no one else had been in line before him. (In other words, you can’t conclude that you were there before the person at the other intersection just because the car in front of you was there before him or her.)

5) If you are at a T-intersection with a 3-way stop, the vehicle that does not have to turn has right of way.

You will note that I highlighted the important part of the quote. It clearly states that you cannot determine who was there first and thus the "first" cannot go. And an noted where you cannot determine who was in the intersection first then you yield to the car on the right.

I might also remind you that you took it from 2 cars at a 4 way to a queue of cars at the 4 way. And in that case the cars appear to alternate (N-S lanes then E-W lanes or some such). No one knows who was first if anyone.

Originally Posted by Pete17C

but please go on

/or not

I'm not sure why you feel the need to toss in such things. It does not lead to a civil conversation.

[newhaul]

Ok I'm sorry but I can't resist

[Pete17C]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Ok. after 164 posts, has anyone considered what message weekend racing around marks sends as far as "safe" operation?
Idiots purposely forcing each other to make last second course changes inches from each, boxing in opponents and generall aggressive unseamanlike behavior.
All in the name of a shiny goblet.proclaiming your crew the badass bunch of the fleet.
[emoji57]

The water is everyones playground. Man has long persured frivolous endeavors in the name of pride.

Which planet did you say you were from?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok I'm sorry but I can't resist

Wait! I’ve always wanted to use this:

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Wait! I’ve always wanted to use this:

click on the picture its animated

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

click on the picture its animated

Oh damn … you outdid me again

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Pete17C

The water is everyones playground. Man has long persured frivolous endeavors in the name of pride.

Which planet did you say you were from?

Lol, never said which planet I am from [emoji4]

But in the context of this discussion it is all about promoting a Safe Operating mindset and racing does send the wrong message.

Lots of people on this thread have made analogies to automobiles and road safety.

There, street racing is against the Law and a jailable offence.

But yacht racing often happens in navigable channels where competitors often use thru traffic to block competitors
Used to be a common occurrence in Victoria Harbour when the RHKYC held races from the causeway bay location.

I doubt if any racer would call their pass time "frivolous" given what they spend to beat their peers and from delivery experience with amateur racers offshore, the young guns can be a liability.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Oh damn … you outdid me again

Remember I'm used to dealing with those agw guys I have lots of good ones