Now, now, you're back to misrepresenting what I have said.

"Donal" wrote in message
...
In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".

This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.


I didn't say precedents are recognized, but I did say the courts have
acknowleged its in everyone's best interest to have common a interpretation of
the rules. Many British cases are mentioned in the American texts.




If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in
a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak
has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does.

I agree. Everybody involved has responsibilities.

My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there", or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".


When did I say anything remotely resembling that? You however, stated in this
post that a ship should travel at least at steerageway. From that speed it
would be impossible to stop for a kayak. Our disagreement is not over the
actions of the ship, but over how to rationalize the seeming discrepancy with
the rules.


the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.

I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.


So you advocate breaking the rules? I still have trouble understanding what
your argument is here.





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

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.

Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.


Again, I never said that. I said that in most cases (certainly on the US East
Coast) where small boats would meet a large ship, Rule 9 or 10 apply, and thus
the ship is the "favored" vessel.


The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to
avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as
responsible to avoid collision as is the ship.

I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.


Again, you are saying exactly what I did not say! I explicitly said, many
times, from the start, that kayak is not in violation of rule 9 or 10 until it
"impedes" or rule 2 until there is a "consequence." In fact, it seems that
you're taking my words and claiming them as yours!

I have said that it is not proper (again - this is not a claim of legality) for
a vessel to put itself into a situation knowing it does not have the means to
fulfill its obligations.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?

Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue
..... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular
nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international"

It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.


So you're ignoring the quote I gave from a US court explaining how they feel it
necessary to stay in line with international rulings. You seem to be fighting
this tooth and nail, but to what purpose? You've already claimed its
appropriate that ships should continue at least at steerageway, are you saying
that's in violation of your local rulings? Are you claiming that British
courts see thing differently from US courts? Or are you just using this as a
stupid excuse to deny the significance of any claim I might make?