"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
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?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.



Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.


They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.

You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.




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.

So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other
vessels will
be there? I suppose I might agree, but it seems rather pointless. But
this
logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit
anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof
that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the
risk"
of a collision.)

Twit!




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


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap
that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I
would
ignore the possibility that it might be there. Just the opposite is
true -
because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with
the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing
under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is
an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the
kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore
the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.







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?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?

You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.







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.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.








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?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?


Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

The rules apply to everybody.

Regards


Donal
--