"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the
issues.

First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word" on
the
law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say.

I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has overruled
the CollRegs?

I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to interpret.


There are a number
of issues that are left entirely to the courts, including the meaning of
phrases
such as "proper lookout" and "safe speed." Attempting to intuit the
exact
meaning of these phrases (as well as many other aspects of the ColRegs)
without
considering the applicable court decisions is futile. For reference, see
my
extract of Farwell's a couple of weeks ago, or I can repost.

I've no idea what Farwell's is.



Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping when
a
hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of
history:
The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall, in
the
fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of the
meaning
of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the
stopping
distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules, however,
wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and the
use of
radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe speed
at
all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a "safe
speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the concept
of
"moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially without
radar,
the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water,
dedicated
shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down below
steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the
safe
speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of
conditions.

I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain steerageway.
I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I don't
complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother to
sound their fog horns.


In
the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation
Safety
Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but which
slowed
to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe speed;
the
fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the poor
quality
of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel,
near
shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been.

The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large ship
traffic
should stop.

I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop.

We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For
the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is
strongly
frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing
below
steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe. And
what is
the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be
hundreds,
perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to "reverse
engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed
visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing to
permit
a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be considered a
"moderate speed."

You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger ships -
I
claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10 are
essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not
impede"
larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS, and,
if not
using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When you
consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from
well
offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they are
favored by the rules in almost every situation.

My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that
would create a very dangerous situation.


This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the fog
in the
shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've every
addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large
vessel in
the TSS.

I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that you
want to see. I'll try again.

Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in a
TSS.

Visibility 200 yards.

Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn.

Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the
witnesses).

How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame?

This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility;
it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the fog.
Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is the
obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there
exists
the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is it
that
the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities?

It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it
will get caught in fog.


Regards


Donal
--