"Donal" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be
able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.
But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its
OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.
Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one?
The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop.
However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees
visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.
What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes
across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to
blame?
Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your
point?
You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation.
Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the
rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.
The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This
doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you
*cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try
to balance them all *equally*.
I would agree there are such situations. However, in this very basic case, the
courts have given plenty of guidance.
As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.
No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping
lanes and TSS's?
Why, then, must power give way to sail?
In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is
favored.
There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules.
This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition,
and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the
meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations.
These
rulings become guidelines for the future.
I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another
country as evidence. Have you?
The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants.
Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they
sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court:
"The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to
become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is
manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the
maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar
construction ... by the courts of this country."
I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the
law so
that its now something different from what you think.
I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion.
I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs.
Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that
explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and
that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically
says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate
the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or
"augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works.
The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it
is what the courts say it means.
It's common sense. No more, no less!
It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules
aren't needed, because its all "common sense"?
No.
I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense.
You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships.
As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one?
That's a bit of a "bias."
Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.
You haven't read the rules lately, have you?
It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.
Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail."
Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog.
Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.
Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?
I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately
responsible for avoiding a collision.
You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs.
Each vessel does have that responsibility. However it doesn't extend so far
that each vessel is repsonsible for being able to stop in time, regardless of
the stupidity exercised by the other vessel. The fact that there's a collision
means that the actions of both vessels will be closely scrutinized. It doesn't
mean they both are at fault.
And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.
That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way
to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies
that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels
have been
held blameless.
Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.
Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a
good reference that backs that up.
OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame.
Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be
there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing
that.
Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.
Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it
overrules the
law!
No, I didn't.
I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules"
to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there.
What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to
sail upon the sea.
I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs.
What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?
What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the
water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep
trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view.
Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems
rather subtle for you.
Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it
with a
crash stop, its in violation.
That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the
ship.
A single ship in a narrow lane, maybe. In good conditions a kayak can sustain
well over 4 knots. However, after paddling out 15 miles, fighting a chop, etc,
its not clear to me how well they would fare in the English Channel. What kind
of visibility do they have from one foot above sea level?
You keep asking me for links to court cases;
how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?
This fellow was blind!!!!
http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/
He did have a sighted guide, and a deisel powered escort boat.
Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like
you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law
is
the most important thing.
No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also
trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not
agree with.
I haven't ignored a single rule. I've only pointed out that the courts have
interpretted them a certain way.
You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That
may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak
has no business in a TSS.
I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel.
Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,
I don't think that is 100% true.
Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?
When did I say that?
and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me
wrong at
any point.
You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you?
What is the "radar only" issue? If you trying to get be to defend Joe's claim,
I won't.
Sorry Donal, I think Otn is right - you are just a simple simon.