Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout. Where did
I say that

Comments interspersed ...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However,
I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities
are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know
you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

I listened out for their fog horns as we approached. I altered course so
that I would cross at right angles.
Most of the ships had slowed down to between 8-12 kts. Of the four times
that I crossed a lane in fog, I only came close enough to one ship to
discern the lookout on the bow.

If you were close enough to see a lookout on the bow, and this was real fog, you
were probably impeding their progress and in violation of the rules.

I hope you realize that fog signals are very unreliable for determining
direction and distance.



What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.

You're right. They forbid the small boat from impeding the progress of the
large one. How do you propose to do that?




Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?


Because you followed a claim that you studied the rules with the claim that you
cross the channel in the fog. Forgive me for assuming there's some coherence to
your thoughts.



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

But you claim its the "ordinary practice of seamen" to cross shipping lanes in
the fog without one. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to you?


Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes very
much.

That's very good. If you thought you had zero radar visibility, would you be so
eager to cross in the fog?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane
in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not
good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the
progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no
ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without
lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.

So doesn't this mean that the kayaker that ignores the rules does so at his own
risk? You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?




I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

Now you're putting words in my mouth - I never advocating this. In fact, quite
the contrary. Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is only permitted where small boat would not be likely
to travel. Vessels regularly do things in the middle of the ocean that would
not be permitted under rule 2 in an inner harbor.


You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to think that stupid
kayakers will have ever even heard of the CollRegs.

In fact, the reason I brought this up is that I've heard kayaker claim, more
than once, that they obviously have right-of-way over large ships. Fortunately,
most sea kayakers know this is not true.


In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

So if I said drunks don't belong on the road, you would call me stupid for
thinking there are no drunks? Why is it so hard to believe that I'm extra
cautious because I know there are a few kayakers dumb enough to be were they
don't belong?


If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.

Again with the stupid comments! How many times do I have to say I'm not
endorsing Joe's actions?


...
Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker
within the COLREGS and VTS requirements.
What do you mean?
He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the
tanker.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak
to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.

A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the CollRegs.

Perhaps I should repeat what I said befo

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

I also claimed that with the lookout, a boat is effectively running on radar
alone if there is zero visibility. This is accepted practice in many areas,
including TSS zones, and offshore. In spite of what you think the ColRegs mean,
it is permitted by local authorities and the courts.

You're the one who keeps adding "25 knots" and "busy waters." I've never
suggested this is appropriate.



=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


What part of the above rule allows a commercial craft to travel without
keeping a lookout? Does it say that you don't have to keep a lookout
because Rule 2 says that the other sailors should be intelligent enough to
realise that you might come out of the fog at 25 kts without a lookout?


It doesn't. Where did I ever say it did? I only said that in zero visibility a
vessel is effectively on radar alone. What part of this do you not understand?
Your kayaker, in zero visibility has no input? Why is this better?

Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing
situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in
a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS.

NO, you have not.

You misquoted one of the rules on one occasion, and I corrected you.

I misquoted? Now you're just lying. Whenever I've quoted the ColRegs I've
extracted the text directly and indicte it as such.

I said, not quoting but paraphrasing "The rules are quite also explicit that the
rowboat should avoid crossing a VTS channel." The rule actually says "A vessel
shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes ..." Its a pretty
big stretch to call this a "misquote"!


There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a TSS.

Your correct. My claim has been that the ColRegs forbid the kayak from impeding
the progress of vessels, and that in the fog, it is impossible to fulfill this
obligation. Although I've said this a number of times, you haven't addressed
this at all.



Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, the ColRegs state an obligation that is impossible for the kayak
to fulfill. How do you refure this?


Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

You seem happy to ignore the very specific wording in the rule about keeping
a lookout ("sight and hearing"), and yet you are relying on your own weird
interpretation of Rule 2 to guarantee that a kayak could never be expected
on a river in fog.

When did I ever claim a lookout is not needed? You keep makeing this up. When
did I ever claim a kayak could never be expected on a river in a fog? You're
just making this up.

Let me ask you this: Do you think drunks should be allowed to drive? If you
answered no, do you assume there are never drunks on the road?




This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.

No, Jeff. Your one sided interpretation of the rules is childish.


Which side do you think I'm on?

You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be necessary.


You're lying here again. Where did I say that?


At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

No. I think you're unable to read what I've said. You have this fantasy That
I'm advocating something I'm not.

Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they
do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also
have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding
large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly!

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be? This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the kayak
should not be there.



The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.

Then how does the kayak ensure it will not impede a vessel? This is the
essential point you keep ignoring.



That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask the
question?

You've claimed repeatedly that the kayak has the right to be there. Are you
agreeing now that there are limitation on its behavior?

The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid
crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes
but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word.

No it isn't. It is *very* different.


But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have
to.

Please tell me where the CollRegs *explicitly* state that a kayak may not
cross the TSS in restricted visibility.

Can you explain how the kayak avoids impeding vessels it cannot see?

At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.

Can you explain why you keep bringing this up? I never said a lookout is not
needed. BTW, what kind of lookout do you think the kayak can maintain in the
middle of the English Channel? How well can it see in the chop and swells?



But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can
fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business
being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the
fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog,
and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots
is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on
its own
special circumstances.

Joe claimed that it was safe to travel at 25 kts without any lookout other
than Radar.

As I've said many times, I'm not defending Joe's comments. However, IIRC, he
didn't quite say that, he merely implied that in low visibility most of the
input is from the radar.


There are *NO* special merits at all.

A vessel is obliged to keep a lookout by sight and hearing. No ifs, No
buts. No exceptions. No personal interpretations.


You really have an obsession with this, don't you?

The rule is absolutely crystal clear. It does not allow for any special
circumstances at all.

OK, I agree. I always agreed. I never said anything different.


Perhaps you need to read it again, because you really do not seen to be
able to grasp it.
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


Wow. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't read. Here's quotes of mine,
all taken from responses to you. I feels like you haven't read one of them:

"Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot
if there is
effectively zero visibility."

"I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and even
that would often be considered excessive). "

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

"That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility."

"As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal)."

At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

Cheers,
Jeff