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

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.

Good, leave it at that and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your inability to accept the vagaries of the COLREGS is
getting really boring.

So where does it say in the rules I'm not allowed to bore you?

I stopped replying to you because it was clear you had no interest in the aspect
of this I found most interesting, but since you insist:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.
Frankly, I wasn't thinking in terms of ColRegs, other than perhaps Rule 2(a).
"Having business" or even "having the right" are not terms from the ColRegs,
they are judgment calls on my part about the propriety of the actions. I didn't
even mention the ColRegs until you insisted that was the issue.

I didn't contest your claim that until the kayak actually impedes a vessel its
not in violation of Rule 10. My point has been that starting out on a venture
will likely result in a situation where the kayak is unable to fulfill its
obligations is wrong. You've agreed it may be foolish and foolhardy. You
agreed that the kayak would likely be held liable (though the large ship may
also have some liability). The real issue for you seems to be whether its
appropriate for us to judge an action before the law has been broken.

My feeling is that if someone says "There's a fair chance I will be in
violation, and I have no intention or ability to prevent this from happening,"
then I can say he has no business doing it. Whether he has the "right" to do it
depends on how you define "right." It doesn't necessarily stem from legalities
of the ColRegs.

As for the ColRegs, they are designed to prevent collisions, or perhaps its
better to say "reduce the risk of collision" when vessels are in proximity.
Basing your whole argument on what the rules say when the kayak is not in
proximity to other vessels is not very interesting. However, when the kayak is
in proximity to other vessels in a shipping lane, it has neither the ability to
see or be seen, and likely has no means of taking effective action to make the
situation better. This, I think you might agree to. At this point the kayak
is leaving to blind chance whether it impedes, causes a collision, or otherwise
violates the rules.

My claim is that while up until the moment this happens the kayak may not be in
violation of the letter of the law, deliberately putting oneself in this
situation violates the spirit of the law. I claim this is wrong, and I claim
the ColRegs imply it is wrong.

I'll toss one more thing out for consideration:
Rule 5 (Lookout) says that a lookout must be maintained "at all times." There
is no qualification that allows you to say that the rule isn't broken until
there's an incident. Its very simply, a vessel without a proper lookout is in
violation. The courts have held that this is especially true in the fog, and
that the lookout must have no other duty assigned, other than to be a lookout.
Again, in the fog the "dedicated" lookout is considered essential and mandatory.
Its always been standard procedure on my boats, and others I've been on, that
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation; and I've usually told someone
explicitly that they are the dedicated lookout. Since this is effectively
impossible for the kayak to fulfill this obligation, he is in violation. Any
special consideration we might give to a single-hander of a larger boat in good
weather, is forfeited by the kayaker. Proceeding promptly across a channel
requires significant effort, maintaining a true course requires focus on the
compass, simply maintaining stability in the ocean requires focus on the water
ahead. There is no stretch of the imagination that allows you to say that the
kayak is fulfilling its obligation to maintain a lookout; it is in violation
regardless of whether other vessels are impeded.

Sorry if this bores you Rick.

Cheers,
Jeff