"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you
know
you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in
the
fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.


So tell us. What do you think the ColRegs say? Especially regarding
kayaks in
a VTS. You keep saying that I should read the book, but its looking like
you
never have.

Jeff, Instead of posing "loaded" questions, why don't you post some facts?

You've asked about the CollRegs position on kayaks. Why don't you post the
relevant rule? The answer is simple. There isn't a rule that forbids the
passage of kayaks through a TSS in fog.


If you disagree with me, then post the rule.

You cannot .... because it doesn't exist.

Get real, Jeff!

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Rule 2(a) for instance, isn't technically broken until there is a "consequence."
Rules 9 and 10 aren't broken (in the case we're discussing), until a vessel is
impeded.

However, in the case of a kayak in thick fog, it has no ability to see the
traffic. We've stipulated that it is a poor reflector so it won't be seen until
the last second, and we've agreed that sound signals are unreliable. Thus, if
there is a meeting, there is virtually no way to the kayak to avoid impeding the
other vessel. If this happens, it will certainly be in violation of rule 9 or
10, probably 2(a), and possible a few others.

Frankly, I think mostly people would agree to this so far. So all that remains
is the final step: I claim that deliberatly putting oneself into a situation
where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in itself, frowned on by the
rule. As I've said, until an event actually occurs, the rule may not be broken,
but I think its close enough that its not unreasonable to say "he shouldn't be
there."

BTW, I think its possible to make a case the rule 2(b) actually does imply
putting oneself into the situation is a violation.


Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to
follow
the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can
assume
that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules.

You stated very little "plainly." But you started by saying they have the
same
rights as everyone; I claim they have different obligations.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? The CollRegs apply equally to all
vessels at sea.

Nonsense. Much of the rules are about differentiating the various types of
vessels and situations and giving them different obligations. Yes, as a whole
they apply equally, but that's a meaningless statement when looking at actual
situations.


If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

No. You started this by claiming the kayak has the right to cross
shipping
lanes in fog. Since the ColRegs specifically say they can't impede a
power-driven vessel in the VTS, they would be violating the rules just the
same
as the vessel that behaves erratically.

No, Jeff. They wouldn't..... not unless they actually *impeded* a genuine
TSS user.

The problem is the high likelyhood of impeding. And the fact that there is
nothing the kayak can do if it relealizes it is about to impede.


There is no guarantee that a kayak would actually impede a TSS user,
therefore your arguement is totally invalid.

That's a Neal argument: "if one kayak gets through unscathed, then the rules
clearly can't be applying to this situation."

In a crowded TSS, what are the odds that a kayak would couse a collision? 20%?
50%?


Furthermore, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the rules, then the
commercial ships would have to stop, wouldn't they? We all know that this
is not what happens in reality.


Commercial ship all have radar (large ones have at least 2) plus crews trained
on them. It does make a difference.

you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak
is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to
impede the
tanker.

I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS.


Bull****. You're saying he has the right to do it unless he doesn't. The
ColRegs say he doesn't have the right to impede. Without radar, in the
fog the
kayak can't tell if he might be impeding. Therefore, he shouldn't be
there.
Its really very simple. You're just so wound up pontificating that you
can't
see this.

The CollRegs also state that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed. Using
your (twisted) logic, all commercial vessels should come to a complete halt
in thick fog.


Before radar, much traffic did stop. And there were a lot of accidents. Modern
procedures and equipment allow for safe operations in the fog.



What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.


You haven't given any answers. You've only claimed you know everthing
and your
not sharing.

Sorry, Jeff. You are the person who appears inconsistent.

You are claiming that a kayaker must keep out of fog because he *might*
breach a CollReg.

Not because he "might" breach the ColReg. The uncertainty is that he "might"
have an encounter where he is obligated to take an action. At that point, he is
unable to act. Its the fact the he is deliberating putting himself into a
situation where he cannot fulfill his obligation that make this different.
That, plus the high likelyhood of it coming to pass.

At the same time you suggest that commercial vessels may
definitely breach a CollReg, or two(safe speed & lookout).

Where have I ever said its OK to not have a lookout, or procede at an unsafe
speed. Once again, you're resorting to blatant lies. A clear sign you know
you've lost this.



I are obviously nuts!

Donal

I couldn't have said it better!