"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

"probably" ??? You are clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
I am irresponsible skipper.

If I had impeded his progress, I "probably" wouldn't be alive to tell the
tale.





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


[sigh]
Jeff, I assume that you have heard fog signals in fog. Then you know that
anyone who has tried to pinpoint the direction will know how difficult this
is. You also know that telling the distance is nearly impossible.





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?

By maintaining a watch.

Your notion that "impeding the progress" out weighs "keeping a lookout" or
maintaining a safe speed, is just plain silly.

It is possible to cross a shipping lane in a reasonable fog if *everybody*
is obeying the rules.






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.

You make a lot of assumptions. I hope that you don't assume that I would
set off on a 14 trip if thick fog was forecast !






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.

I don't remember saying those words. Can you point me to the relevant
post? I suspect that you are playing context games.

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?

I'm never eager to cross in fog. The last time was incredibly hard work.
I was not able to rely on the crew to keep a proper watch, and spent 14
hours peering into the fog.


snip
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?

Yes, of course. In exactly the same way, a large tanker travelling
without a proper lookout, does so at his own risk.

You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?

If fog descends when the kayak is already in the TSS, then he cannot
guarantee that he will not impede a vessel.







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.

No, Jeff. You are completely wrong.
Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is *never* permitted. [full stop]


Perhaps you need to read this again. Pay special attention to "... shall
at all times.. ".
=================================
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.
=================================




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?

Yes! Everybody knows that there are drunks on the road.

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?

I haven't commented on your actual behaviour. I'm commenting on your
apparent inability to treat all the CollRegs equally. You seem to be very
willing to ignore bits of Rule 5, and at the same time you expand on the
words contained in Rule 2.





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?

See my other post.




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."

Oh, stop it!
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "


snip

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.


If I am correct, then whay do you keep asking the same question? Either
the CollRegs forbid the kayak from crossing the TSS, or they do not forbid
it.

You are trying to expand bits of the rules to suit your arguement, and at
the same time you are trying to ignore other bits.

You seem to think that the CollRegs are open to personal interpretation.





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?

I don't. I don't need to. We have agreed that the kayak may cross the
TSS, despite your claim that "he had no business to be there". It is up to
the kayaker to avoid impeding the passage of a vessel using the TSS. It is
also the duty of the vessels in the TSS to keep a good lookout, and to
travel at a safe speed. BTW, a "safe speed " does not mean that the
vessel has to stop. Any speed where the ship looses steerage would be
potentially unsafe.



Just because you don't understand
snip
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?

Lying???
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

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

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be?

That is not your decision, or mine. People have the freedom to go to sea,
if they wish.


This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the
kayak
should not be there.

Why not? We've already agreed that the CollRegs do not forbid the kayak
from crossing the TSS.







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.

I've answered it a couple of times, but you don't seem to like my answer.
The kayak has every right to be there. How he keeps a lookout is up to him.




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?

I've never said that he can ignore the rules. He is entitled to cross the
TSS at right angles, in a timely manner, without getting in the way of the
TSS users.


snip

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:


I have read them.

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

Rubbish! There is nothing "moot" about it. You are applying your
personal interpretation on the rules.



"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."
Nope! I won't paste your words again. I'm sure that you know what you
said by now.




"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."

I haven't said anything to dispute this, have I?



"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)."

So why did you jump in when I was debating this with Joe?

My only point, all along, is that travelling at 25kts, in fog, without a
proper lookout is against the rules.




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.

Very original, Jeff!!


Regards


Donal
--