"Donal" wrote in message
...
Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall
at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says,
"except when
its not convenient."

Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1.

Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"?

How did you get it there? Levitation?


Why are you so determined to twist the rules?


Not twisting - just pointing out that the rule is not an absolute. If you don't
like the case of being in a slip, consider being at anchor. Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at anchor?



Sorry, Donal. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You are expected to
understand
the interpretations of the courts. While a court may not feel bound by
the
ruling of a lower court in a different jurisdiction, the courts appreciate
that
it is everyone's best interest to have a common body of law. In the text
I've
quoted most often, a number of the precendents cited are British. I even
provided a quote where they say that common interpretations are important
in
international law.

You are beginning to talk absolute rubbish(again).

National courts do *not* accede to precedences that have been set in foreign
courts, unless those courts have been set up as the result of an
international treaty. Your constitution would not allow a foreign court to
hold precedence over one of your own courts. Our constitution, likewise,
would not allow a Boston court to set a precedent.


So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed greatly
from the US interpretation? No? Why do you think that is? I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that courts see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its appropriate to cite any
case that shows the concepts.

And remember, the comments that really started this were about Joe's actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?




No, no, no! I'm saying that *all* vessels are equally governed by the
CollRegs.

I accept that big ships should be shown a bit of lattitude. However, I
also say that small vessels should be shown the same lattitude. *You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an obligation to obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've never made any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as interpreted by the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

You've even gone as far as to say that
commercial shipping is favoured under the CollRegs.

In a Narrow Channel or a TSS they are "favored." Or do you disagree? Whenever
I point this out, you get very quiet.


That is an incredibly
stupid position, when the CollRegs clearly state that "power shall give way
to sail".

At all times? Have you never read the rules? Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"? As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"? But we've been through
this before. You keep bringing it up even though you know you're wrong - isn't
this a definition of insanity?



Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts,

it is not my position to judge a "safe speed"

Answer the question. You feel in a position to castigate any kayaker who
suddenly gets enveloped by fog.

You ignore every argument I make. Yet you demand I answer your questions. You
are a hypocrite, aren't you?

I'm being perfectly honest - I can't make a judgement given the scanty
information. 25 knots would seem rather fast for any waters I commonly cruise
in, but I can't say about the HSC, or the middle of the Bay of Fundy, or a lot
of other places I don't frequent. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the
courts might dictate what a safe speed is for a given situation?



without sounding fog horns,

The would be wrong

and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

A visual watch is required, but what that really implies varies with the
situation. Maybe you could give us some examples from your local courts.

Why? Is a visual lookout required, or not?

So, is it legal to single hand? Is it proper for a helmsman to also be the
lookout? Can someone maintain a visual watch and a radar watch at the same
time?

How is it possible to paddle a kayak in the open ocean, and still maintain a
proper watch? Isn't continuous vigilance required?

These are all issues the courts have addressed - why do you claim their opinions
have no bearing on this discussion?


Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs at face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always keep a lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though that's too fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK to break the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the concepts in the rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way it works in the
US.



Jeff, you seem to be going off the deep end.

Do we have to look up court rulings before we accept any of the CollRegs?
Get a grip!!

Perhaps I should quote from Farwell's, the standard US text, one more time:
"Whatever one thinks of the legal setup, ... the mariner must obey the law as he
finds it - and that means in practice, how the admiralty judges interpret it.
.... It remains only for the mariner to familiarize himself with the gist of the
important decisions, many of which are set forth in textbooks dealing with the
subject."

Perhaps it would be wise for you find out how this works in your country. I
think there may have been a gap in your education.



We keep going around this one issue: the rules seem to imply (thought they
don't
say explictly) that in zero visibilty, the only safe safe speed is "zero."

So why don't you argue that ships should come to a complete stop in fog?

Because the courts have ruled that is not always necessary.



You have argued that a "kayak has no business being there", and yet the
CollRegs do not support you.

One more time: I have not tried to claim that being there is a violation of the
rules. I've only claimed that it is a foolhardy thing to do. That is the
meaning of "have no business being there." Do you have some learning disability
that prevents you from understanding this?



You are a hypocrite.

How so? My position is perfectly consistent. Your's however, is hypocritical.



There is no other speed that would permit a tanker to proceed without
having the
risk of hitting an unseen tiny vessel. My claim is that the courts have
said
that it is permissible to proceed under certain situations. Your claim
sometimes seems to be that the letter of the law must be followed, and
other
times you seem to say that breaking the law is inevitable.

You keep claiming that the ship *may* break the law, and that the kayak may
*not*. I see nothing in the CollRegs to support your position.

This is probably why you are not an admiralty court judge. They are the ones
who say what the rules are, not you. The ships and the kayak must follow their
guidance.




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

No, fog usually occurs when I expect it. I think you may need a better
teacher.

I use the weather forecast. What system do you have for predicting fog?

I use a variety of inputs, the forecast being one of them. I have never seen
fog when conditions were not ripe for it. The forecast is often inaccurate -
claiming the fog didn't clear when the forecast said it would is no excuse.