"Rick" , sounding more like Jax every day, wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with the law
is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted to
say
that, am I?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to. But I already agreed: Yes, in all
cases where one is compliant with a law, one is compliant with the law. But
trying to prove something with a tautology just makes you look like a fool.


So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such as
not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality? If I design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

And while the ColRegs don't specifically mandate crew size, it is the role of
the courts to interpret the meaning of a "proper lookout." The have stated in
many opinions, that in the fog, lookouts must be dedicated seamen, so that they
can "exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken." They have
specifically stated that in the fog, the lookout duties cannot be shared with
the helmsman. And while small boats are given some leeway in good visibility,
or close to shore, they are not exempt in the fog.

And as you know, the opinions of the courts effectively become part of the law,
and it is the duty of a master to be familiar with them. Or did that go over
your head?