"Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1
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????
Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the courts has
been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts'
decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this
yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law
intends; your way is just making it up.
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.
As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk.
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!
Its the practical truth almost everywhere I've been. Certainly in terms of
numbers, the vast majority of small boats would generally only encounter large
ships in a narrow channel or shipping lane. Most of the exceptions I can think
of would be medium sized ferries or barges that are on secondary routes. Even
then, most of the encounters would be in the harbors that would be narrow
channels for the larger ship.
I can only think of a handful of times where I felt I was clearly the stand-on
vessel with respect to a large ship; compared to hundreds of times I've been
obligated "not to impede."
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?
Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18, which
starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require." And it
isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or RAMs.
And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must give
way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are
constrained.
Didn't they teach you anything in that class? Did you really take it, or was
this another "practice" thing with your friends?
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.
Maybe this is why you have so much trouble with the ColRegs - too many big
words. They're simply saying because its important to have common international
laws, the courts of one country should adopt the rulings of other countries.
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!
Donal, its clear you have no interest in actually learning this stuff. If you
did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's.
Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including quotes
indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author of
Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you can go
and learn something.
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.
So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point?
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.
Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years, have you?
And it shows!!
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.
You've said you don't think its important since there are few TSS's. Its really
one of the dumber things you've said.
Or were you refering to where you said you haven't read them lately?
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.
Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't get it
started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll give
you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the "Inevitable
Accident":
"There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the
surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both vessels
are at fault."
As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases where
one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling that I
found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant disappeared
from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered it to
Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run. Scully was
found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights.
http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc
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.
Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own limitations?
How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at bare
steerageway?
Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be compliant
with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"? Frankly,
you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling!
The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under 2(a),
since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT the
"ordinary practice of seamen."
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.
Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the
inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick that
until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence" the law
had not been broken.
Once again, you're just making up nonsense to try to prove I'm wrong, but you've
failed misreably at every turn.
troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant
powerboater. /troll
Weren't you a powerboater? I think you should try to educate yourself first.
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.
Back to the Cowardly Lying, again. What a loser you are. All you've done here
is shown you have no real knowlege of the rules. Neal would have one word for
you: Putz!