"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"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.

So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs????





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.


[sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly.

I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there.

The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship
might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout.




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?


Of course.
You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in TSS's
or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense!

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.


In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not?





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 read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You need
to re-word it.

Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove difficult to
understand.







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.

The US courts?

Really, you are being a bit thick!







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."


Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's,
or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had
to give way to sail.



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?

I don't need to. I understood them the first time around.



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.

I think that I've already answered this stupid question.

If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer.





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.

If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would
give him 100% of the blame.

snip
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.

Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As always
you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs.

Rule 2, Part *b*

"(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to
all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances,
including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a
departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. "

In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing
his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed.

In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he
cannot avoid hitting a small vessel.


snip

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.

Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet.

You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would
not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me
to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large
vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs
because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship.

troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant
powerboater. /troll


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?

Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am.

You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a means
of keeping a lookout.





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.


Otn was paying me a compliment ... which I don't deserve.

However, as I'm a fair-minded individual, I'd like to say that nobody will
ever insult you, or otn, by comparing you to Simple Simon.



Regards

Donal
--