Jeff Morris wrote:

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law says
he shouldn't.

There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.

Until or unless the kayaker impedes the tanker no rules are broken.

You never have a "right" to kill someone on another vessel. Sorry if
that upsets you.

So now you're saying it doesn't matter what you do; someone else will make an
arbitrary decision. Interesting.

Far from arbitrary. They will make an assignment of blame based on the
circumstances and action taken or not taken.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Rick