This is really getting pointless. You keep making arguments that are totally
irrelevant.

First of all, your issue about court jurisdictions is meaningless. I'm not
claiming that British courts have to follow Boston precedents. I've only
claimed that British courts decide what the meaning of "proper lookout" and
"safe speed" is for their jurisdictions, just as US court do for theirs.
Whether or not they come to similar decisions may be meaningful to someone, but
it really doesn't matter here. I've offered case from a variety of
jurisdictions that show that they all make interpretation that differ from the
apparent letter of the law.

Your bizarre attempt to prove that I have some "bias" is also meaningless. In
some cases sail is favored over power; in other cases not. In some situations
large ships are favored, in other situations not. To make any claim of bias
without reference to some context is meaningless. In my 45 years of sailing,
there's only been a few times that I've been the stand-on vessel WRT a large
ship; there have been hundreds of times where I have avoided impeding a vessel.

Arguing over what is "navigable" is also meaningless - you admitted that
sometimes one might anchor in navigable waters. And sometimes a lookout is
needed, most times it is not. A frankly, arguing that the ColRegs are specific,
and then trying to apply a dictionary definition doesn't make any sense at all.
I found three definitions that were all slightly different, but could all be
interpreted as "if you could get there, its navigable." And one offered "By the
comon law, a river is considered as navigable only so far as the tide ebbs and
flows in it."

My point in this is that the words of the ColRegs are not considered an
absolute, even though they may appear to be. It is the courts that decide the
meaning of such terms as "proper lookout" and "safe speed."

As to my post that started this: I had stayed out of the discussion at first
since I didn't know what to make Joe's claim. However, your claim the 25 knots
is clearly too fast is not supported in the rules, as interpreted by the courts.
In addition, the rules do not specifically say that one person cannot be the
visual watch, the radar watch, and the helmsman. All of these issues are a
matter of interpretation of the courts - it is not for you or I to pass
judgment. I've admitted that I have problems with the visual watch being the
same as the radar watch, but I've seen Maine Lobstermen do it every day.
Running that fast is also outside my experience but its obvious that that too is
also done everyday.

You keep claiming I'm using my own interpretation of the rules. In fact, that
is exactly what I'm not willing to do. All I've said is that it's up to the
courts to determine what is a safe speed and what is a proper lookout. I've
quoted at length the standard text in this country - you've dismissed that as
having no relevance. Why is that? Because it is used in this country? I've
cited a number of court cases, from the US, Canada, and Britain. You ignore
most of them, while claiming French courts won't honor American decisions.

I've gone so far as to dig up a major case that occurred only a few miles from
where you sail, in almost the exact waters of our hypothetical kayak. I called
it a "gift" because in the report they specifically question the safe speed
under Rule 6. However, the report also suggests that higher speeds than bare
steerageway are probably appropriate, and the court decision didn't even
question the speed. It seemed to me that they sent a clear message that if the
radar watch had been more vigilant, the speed of 29 knots would have been OK.
The other ferry was doing 21 knots - it was found blameless by the court.

You claim that I've "painted myself into a corner," that my position is
"untenable." On the contrary, it would seem that your own local courts have
taken a position similar to mine.

As to the kayak - I stand by my claim that it "has no business being in a TSS in
the fog." You keep insisting that has no basis in the ColRegs, but my claim is
not that this is a legal issue, it is a practical one. a question of prudence.
You've claimed it could easily come to pass that someone cold get caught out in
an unexpected fog, and while there is some truth to that, I still don't buy it.
In places where fog is common, such as Maine or the Channel, there is not such
thing as "unexpected fog." On the contrary, there is unexpected clarity on
occasion.

And why you repeatedly misrepresent my original comments is totally beyond me.
I can only assume you are a compulsive liar. Frankly, your entire behavior in
this is not that of a sane person. You've fought tooth and nail on points where
you're both wrong and irrelevant. You've insisted that court rulings have no
meaning to you. You've denied that legal texts have any bearing on this.
You've claimed I'm making personal judgments when all I've done is said the
courts have the final say. You've insisted the ColRegs must be taken literally,
but then you keep saying how they can be ignored when its suits you.

I've had enough, Donal, I'm not playing anymore.