"Donal" wrote:
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.
I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"?
You stated that the are times when its impossible to satisfy all of the
obligations of the Colregs, and thus each master must decide the proper course
of action. I've been trying to say that the courts have given guidance in many
of these matters, and its the obligation of the master to appreciate these
opinions.
The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the
conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this
means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions.
So you're saying that its OK to proceed at a speed where it might be impossible
to stop for something spotted visually?
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.
Exactly!
If the ship doesn't keep a proper lookout, then he is as culpable as a drunk
driver!
So if a ship kept a proper lookout, even if the fog was too thick for anything
to be seen, it would be OK?
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.
I'm impressed by your determination to display such intrangisence in a
public forum.
As a general rule, power must give way to sail. This applies unless
special circumstances apply. These "special" circumstances include "narrow
channels" and "Traffic Seperation Schemes".
In the other 99.99% of the seas, the CollRegs grant a superior status to
sailing vessels.
"Superior status"? I'm not sure I'd use those words, but what's you point? In
the majority of places where small vessels and large ships meet, the large ships
are favored by the rules. That's the simple truth, and you know it.
snip part of discussion that was too complicated for Simple Donal
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.
That statement only proves that you are absolutely convinced that you are
right.
I don't think I've said anything that taken in its context, was wrong. Maybe
that's why you keep reverting to lying about what I said.
I don't understand why you should be completely right, and I should be
completely wrong.
The problem is, you've always assumed my comments about "lookouts" were in
support of Joe, which was certainly not true. And you've assumed that my
comment that a kayak "has no business" being in a TSS in the fog was an opinion
about the law, which was also not true.
When you start your arguments on faulty premises, you usually end up in the
wrong.
After all, I didn't ask a daft question like "Where does it say .....
[etc]".
But the odd thing is, you never did answer the question. You've even come
around to agreeing with me. But you're either too dense to see it, or too
stubborn to admit it.
You've admitted that if a lookout is maintained, it OK to continue at a speed
that will be too fast to stop in time to avoid a collision with something
spotted visually. How is this different from running essentially on radar
alone?
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?
Really.
TSS's do not cover the majority of cruising grounds. That is just plain
stupid!
I'll admit I'm not familiar with British waters, but there are very few parts of
the US East Coast where large ships are not "confined" to narrow channels or
TSS's. Chesapeake Bay, for instance, has a channel running its full length.
The vast majority of the large ships stay in this channel, and its branches, and
are thus favored by the rules. This is repeated in virtually all the cruising
grounds on the East Coast. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of small
boat sailing, and cruising takes place in waters that large ships can't get
close to; and most places where they might meet the large ships are in "narrow
channels" as refered to by rule 9. I haven't mentioned "Constrained by Draft"
since CBD is not included in US Inland rules, but this is another rule that
favors large ships.
TSS's cover less than 10% of the area that I sail in .... in fact they cover
even less!
Portmouth Channel doesn't count as a "Narrow Channel"? I don't see your point
about "surface area" - all that counts is where are the likely meetings, and
which vessel is favored.
Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years,
have you?
And it shows!!
Cheap shot, Jeff. I had a very good Teacher.
I'm exercising great restraint here ...
I think that you were taught by a power boater!
I've had many teachers over the years. I still have my copy of the rules from
before the ColRegs were written. However, over here, "professional" licenses
focus almost entirely on power boats. BTW, my most recent teacher was
formally the master of the U.S. Coast Guard Barque Eagle.
However, the only real difference we've had over the rules is the role the
courts play in the interpretation. I've maintained that the courts have an
active role in interpretation, and that masters are bound by their decisions.
I base this on reading such texts as Farwell's, and court opinions.
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
I'm getting "Page cannot be displayed".
Is there something wrong with the link? I've tried it 4 times.
Sorry - that's one of those links tat's only valid for a a few hours. Try:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf
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?
I know about the kayak's limitations. The kayak will be able to keep a
lookout and make sure that it can stop before it collides with anything, as
long as the helmsman keeps an eye on thr mirror. If he hears a fog horn,
then he will be able to stop until it passes.
The mirror??? Good Grief!
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!
I'm saying that if the ship observes the letter of the law, then he will
stop. However, all users of the sea recognise that ships keep moving in
fog.
As do the courts.
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."
Neither is travelling at 25 kts in the same conditions.
Once again you are being selective.
Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when
you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong.
I've only said that its possible for the ship to be traveling within the
guidelines endorsed by the courts and still not be able to see the kayak in time
to stop. In such a situation, however, the kayak is clearly not compliant with
its basic obligation.
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.
Then you were completely wrong. By your own admission, no violation takes
place until the kayak acytually *impedes* a ship.
As where am I wrong? I didn't say the kayak was breaking a law. I said "he had
no business being there." NOT illlegal, just STUPID! Why is this concept so
difficult for you? You really aren't very bright, are you?
Oh dear!
You *did* ask where the CollRegs forbade the use of Radar as the only
method of keeping a lookout
Donal, the cowardly liar comes out again!!
You've given up entirely so your only recourse is to lie about what I said.
You're just a cheap troll, Donal. You started down this path based on faulty
assumptions about what I said, and now you're too much of a coward to admit you
were wrong about that.