"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"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.

Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?



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.

Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.




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 haven't yet managed to view the evidence. I may be wrong, but I don't
think that you have provided a link.



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."

I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.




Do you have a lookout posted now?

No.


Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a
slip?

I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip.


I
posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very
important
principle.

Quite right!

There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.

Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?





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.

So what?

What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.




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.

Did you also think that the ships should proceed as if you might not be
there? Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts, without sounding fog
horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?





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).

You repeatedly asserted that a kayak could not *guarantee* that it would not
impede a large ship if it crossed a TSS in fog. Why did you feel that it
was important to make this assertion?



And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly
no
ability to avoid impeding a ship.

There you go again!

A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.


Why are you criticising me? I really don't know. You seem to be
reasonably familiar with the CollRegs, and yet you constantly say that I am
wrong in my interpretation of the same rules. The funny thing is that I am
not *interpreting* the rules. I am just quoting them. You are the one who
is trying to *interpret* them.


I've said that it is a breach of the regs to proceed without a proper
lookout in fog. You asked me where the CollRegs forbade the use of a
"radar only" lookout. I quoted you the rule. You still seem to think that
because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there.


Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something.

I like your use of the word "embarking". I doubt that many kayakers would
"embark" on a crossing of a TSS in fog.

Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.



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.

So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?




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.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?





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


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

Maybe ..... maybe.


I respond to each post as I read it.


If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect
that he will succeed.





Regards


Donal
--