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

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the
ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without
interpretation.

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


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog
(with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


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

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?


The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions. The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.


Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.



Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the
law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?






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.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak
has no
business out there.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.




So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be
there.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?




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?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


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.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with
hundreds
of thousands of passages.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?




Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee,"
its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to
avoid
impeding.





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.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that
I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way
and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by
my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed
that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have
someone
think its OK to be out there.


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?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in
accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it
don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill
its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained
its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the
ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25
knots?




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.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs
is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only
claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my
logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much
from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS,
only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting
oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in
itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly
lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are
specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with
vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?



Regards


Donal
--