"Donal" wrote in message
...


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is
that?

I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.) doing
thing that I think is downright crazy. I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean they
should be doing it.

Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed, killing two
of the crew.

I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.


I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that the
courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court
decisions.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business"
being there.
You are using double standards.


There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a speed
endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a situation
where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed out
the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it would
only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're using
double standards.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace.


You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it.



I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a lookout
must be maintained "at all times." Do you have a lookout posted now? Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a slip? I
posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important
principle. There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.


You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a
TSS.

And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.


Can't you see that you are biased?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there, and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.



The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly no
ability to avoid impeding a ship. Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something. What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that
this has happened.


There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not always,
does not need a lookout.



We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily!


And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy.

-jeff