|
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1 The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop. However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees visually. To do so would be even more dangerous. So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs???? Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the courts has been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts' decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law intends; your way is just making it up. I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"? The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions. You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation. [sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly. I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there. The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout. As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk. Exactly! If the ship doesn't keep a proper lookout, then he is as culpable as a drunk driver! As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are correct. Joe is absolutely certain. No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Of course. You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in TSS's or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense! Its the practical truth almost everywhere I've been. Certainly in terms of numbers, the vast majority of small boats would generally only encounter large ships in a narrow channel or shipping lane. Most of the exceptions I can think of would be medium sized ferries or barges that are on secondary routes. Even then, most of the encounters would be in the harbors that would be narrow channels for the larger ship. I can only think of a handful of times where I felt I was clearly the stand-on vessel with respect to a large ship; compared to hundreds of times I've been obligated "not to impede." Why do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping lanes and TSS's? Why, then, must power give way to sail? In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is favored. In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not? Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18, which starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require." And it isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or RAMs. And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must give way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are constrained. I'm impressed by your determination to display such intrangisence in a public forum. As a general rule, power must give way to sail. This applies unless special circumstances apply. These "special" circumstances include "narrow channels" and "Traffic Seperation Schemes". In the other 99.99% of the seas, the CollRegs grant a superior status to sailing vessels. Didn't they teach you anything in that class? Did you really take it, or was this another "practice" thing with your friends? The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants. Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court: "The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar construction ... by the courts of this country." I read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You need to re-word it. Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove difficult to understand. Maybe this is why you have so much trouble with the ColRegs - too many big words. They're simply saying because its important to have common international laws, the courts of one country should adopt the rulings of other countries. So you weren't able to translate the sentence into simple English? Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or "augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works. The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it is what the courts say it means. The US courts? Really, you are being a bit thick! Donal, its clear you have no interest in actually learning this stuff. Untrue! If you did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's. Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including quotes indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author of Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you can go and learn something. That statement only proves that you are absolutely convinced that you are right. I don't understand why you should be completely right, and I should be completely wrong. After all, I didn't ask a daft question like "Where does it say ..... [etc]". No. I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense. You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships. As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one? That's a bit of a "bias." Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's, or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had to give way to sail. So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point? Really. TSS's do not cover the majority of cruising grounds. That is just plain stupid! TSS's cover less than 10% of the area that I sail in .... in fact they cover even less! Big ships are usually powered by engines. The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail. You haven't read the rules lately, have you? I don't need to. I understood them the first time around. Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years, have you? And it shows!! Cheap shot, Jeff. I had a very good Teacher. I think that you were taught by a power boater! It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of sailing vessels. Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail." Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog. I think that I've already answered this stupid question. If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer. You've said you don't think its important since there are few TSS's. Its really one of the dumber things you've said. Or were you refering to where you said you haven't read them lately? Unhelpful comment. Don't you think? Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame. Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a good reference that backs that up. OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame. If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would give him 100% of the blame. Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't get it started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll give you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the "Inevitable Accident": "There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both vessels are at fault." As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases where one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling that I found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant disappeared from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered it to Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run. Scully was found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights. http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc I'm getting "Page cannot be displayed". Is there something wrong with the link? I've tried it 4 times. snip What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs? What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view. Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems rather subtle for you. Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As always you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs. Rule 2, Part *b* "(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. " In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed. In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he cannot avoid hitting a small vessel. Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own limitations? How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at bare steerageway? I know about the kayak's limitations. The kayak will be able to keep a lookout and make sure that it can stop before it collides with anything, as long as the helmsman keeps an eye on thr mirror. If he hears a fog horn, then he will be able to stop until it passes. Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be compliant with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"? Frankly, you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling! I'm saying that if the ship observes the letter of the law, then he will stop. However, all users of the sea recognise that ships keep moving in fog. The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under 2(a), since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT the "ordinary practice of seamen." Neither is travelling at 25 kts in the same conditions. Once again you are being selective. snip I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel. Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet. You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship. Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick that until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence" the law had not been broken. Then you were completely wrong. By your own admission, no violation takes place until the kayak acytually *impedes* a ship. Once again, you're just making up nonsense to try to prove I'm wrong, but you've failed misreably at every turn. troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant powerboater. /troll Weren't you a powerboater? I think you should try to educate yourself first. Yes, I was. That is why I can see both sides of the arguement so clearly. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, I don't think that is 100% true. Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate? When did I say that? Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am. You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a means of keeping a lookout. Back to the Cowardly Lying, again. What a loser you are. All you've done here is shown you have no real knowlege of the rules. Neal would have one word for you: Putz! Oh dear! You *did* ask where the CollRegs forbade the use of Radar as the only method of keeping a lookout. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
Donal wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1 The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop. However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees visually. To do so would be even more dangerous. So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs???? Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the courts has been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts' decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law intends; your way is just making it up. I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"? The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions. Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a result... Cheers |
And ???????
"MC" wrote in message -
Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a result... The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Nor is it appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS. |
And ???????
I disagree. A safe speed can be zero and that is why the sound signal is
changed to reflect that. Suppose your radar set is broken??????? Cheers Jeff Morris wrote: "MC" wrote in message - Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a result... The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Nor is it appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS. |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote: Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the courts has been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts' decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law intends; your way is just making it up. I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"? You stated that the are times when its impossible to satisfy all of the obligations of the Colregs, and thus each master must decide the proper course of action. I've been trying to say that the courts have given guidance in many of these matters, and its the obligation of the master to appreciate these opinions. The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions. So you're saying that its OK to proceed at a speed where it might be impossible to stop for something spotted visually? The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout. As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk. Exactly! If the ship doesn't keep a proper lookout, then he is as culpable as a drunk driver! So if a ship kept a proper lookout, even if the fog was too thick for anything to be seen, it would be OK? Why do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping lanes and TSS's? Why, then, must power give way to sail? In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is favored. In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not? Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18, which starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require." And it isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or RAMs. And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must give way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are constrained. I'm impressed by your determination to display such intrangisence in a public forum. As a general rule, power must give way to sail. This applies unless special circumstances apply. These "special" circumstances include "narrow channels" and "Traffic Seperation Schemes". In the other 99.99% of the seas, the CollRegs grant a superior status to sailing vessels. "Superior status"? I'm not sure I'd use those words, but what's you point? In the majority of places where small vessels and large ships meet, the large ships are favored by the rules. That's the simple truth, and you know it. snip part of discussion that was too complicated for Simple Donal If you did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's. Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including quotes indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author of Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you can go and learn something. That statement only proves that you are absolutely convinced that you are right. I don't think I've said anything that taken in its context, was wrong. Maybe that's why you keep reverting to lying about what I said. I don't understand why you should be completely right, and I should be completely wrong. The problem is, you've always assumed my comments about "lookouts" were in support of Joe, which was certainly not true. And you've assumed that my comment that a kayak "has no business" being in a TSS in the fog was an opinion about the law, which was also not true. When you start your arguments on faulty premises, you usually end up in the wrong. After all, I didn't ask a daft question like "Where does it say ..... [etc]". But the odd thing is, you never did answer the question. You've even come around to agreeing with me. But you're either too dense to see it, or too stubborn to admit it. You've admitted that if a lookout is maintained, it OK to continue at a speed that will be too fast to stop in time to avoid a collision with something spotted visually. How is this different from running essentially on radar alone? As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one? That's a bit of a "bias." Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's, or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had to give way to sail. So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point? Really. TSS's do not cover the majority of cruising grounds. That is just plain stupid! I'll admit I'm not familiar with British waters, but there are very few parts of the US East Coast where large ships are not "confined" to narrow channels or TSS's. Chesapeake Bay, for instance, has a channel running its full length. The vast majority of the large ships stay in this channel, and its branches, and are thus favored by the rules. This is repeated in virtually all the cruising grounds on the East Coast. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of small boat sailing, and cruising takes place in waters that large ships can't get close to; and most places where they might meet the large ships are in "narrow channels" as refered to by rule 9. I haven't mentioned "Constrained by Draft" since CBD is not included in US Inland rules, but this is another rule that favors large ships. TSS's cover less than 10% of the area that I sail in .... in fact they cover even less! Portmouth Channel doesn't count as a "Narrow Channel"? I don't see your point about "surface area" - all that counts is where are the likely meetings, and which vessel is favored. Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years, have you? And it shows!! Cheap shot, Jeff. I had a very good Teacher. I'm exercising great restraint here ... I think that you were taught by a power boater! I've had many teachers over the years. I still have my copy of the rules from before the ColRegs were written. However, over here, "professional" licenses focus almost entirely on power boats. BTW, my most recent teacher was formally the master of the U.S. Coast Guard Barque Eagle. However, the only real difference we've had over the rules is the role the courts play in the interpretation. I've maintained that the courts have an active role in interpretation, and that masters are bound by their decisions. I base this on reading such texts as Farwell's, and court opinions. Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame. Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a good reference that backs that up. OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame. If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would give him 100% of the blame. Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't get it started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll give you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the "Inevitable Accident": "There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both vessels are at fault." As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases where one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling that I found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant disappeared from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered it to Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run. Scully was found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights. http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc I'm getting "Page cannot be displayed". Is there something wrong with the link? I've tried it 4 times. Sorry - that's one of those links tat's only valid for a a few hours. Try: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed. In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he cannot avoid hitting a small vessel. Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own limitations? How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at bare steerageway? I know about the kayak's limitations. The kayak will be able to keep a lookout and make sure that it can stop before it collides with anything, as long as the helmsman keeps an eye on thr mirror. If he hears a fog horn, then he will be able to stop until it passes. The mirror??? Good Grief! Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be compliant with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"? Frankly, you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling! I'm saying that if the ship observes the letter of the law, then he will stop. However, all users of the sea recognise that ships keep moving in fog. As do the courts. The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under 2(a), since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT the "ordinary practice of seamen." Neither is travelling at 25 kts in the same conditions. Once again you are being selective. Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong. I've only said that its possible for the ship to be traveling within the guidelines endorsed by the courts and still not be able to see the kayak in time to stop. In such a situation, however, the kayak is clearly not compliant with its basic obligation. I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel. Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet. You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship. Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick that until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence" the law had not been broken. Then you were completely wrong. By your own admission, no violation takes place until the kayak acytually *impedes* a ship. As where am I wrong? I didn't say the kayak was breaking a law. I said "he had no business being there." NOT illlegal, just STUPID! Why is this concept so difficult for you? You really aren't very bright, are you? Oh dear! You *did* ask where the CollRegs forbade the use of Radar as the only method of keeping a lookout Donal, the cowardly liar comes out again!! You've given up entirely so your only recourse is to lie about what I said. You're just a cheap troll, Donal. You started down this path based on faulty assumptions about what I said, and now you're too much of a coward to admit you were wrong about that. |
And ???????
If my radar was broken, a safe speed might well be zero. All I'm saying is that
thick fog does not require that all shipping must stop everywhere. At least, that's not the way the courts have interpreted it. Are you claiming that is a sailboat is crossing a shipping lane and fog closes in they should drop their anchor immediately? Should they drift randomly? "MC" wrote in message ... I disagree. A safe speed can be zero and that is why the sound signal is changed to reflect that. Suppose your radar set is broken??????? Cheers Jeff Morris wrote: "MC" wrote in message - Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a result... The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Nor is it appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS. |
And ???????
Jeff Morris wrote: If my radar was broken, a safe speed might well be zero. All I'm saying is that thick fog does not require that all shipping must stop everywhere. At least, that's not the way the courts have interpreted it. Are you claiming that is a sailboat is crossing a shipping lane and fog closes in they should drop their anchor immediately? Should they drift randomly? A TSS, narrow channel, and sea lane (or shipping lane), can be three different things. Anchoring may be an option. Drifting, may be an option, though vessels should avoid anchoring in a known TSS lane. "MC" wrote in message ... I disagree. A safe speed can be zero and that is why the sound signal is changed to reflect that. Suppose your radar set is broken??????? Cheers Jeff Morris wrote: "MC" wrote in message - Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a result... The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Not necessarily so .... not apt to happen, but not necessarily so. Nor is it appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS. Anchoring in a narrow channel, is done (preferably off to the side). Anchoring in most TSS, is not done, but can/may be if conditions warrant. otn |
And ???????
Jeff Morris wrote: If my radar was broken, a safe speed might well be zero. All I'm saying is that thick fog does not require that all shipping must stop everywhere. At least, that's not the way the courts have interpreted it. Are you claiming that is a sailboat is crossing a shipping lane and fog closes in they should drop their anchor immediately? Should they drift randomly? If they are safe speeds for the vessel in those condions and places then yes. Otherwise no. You see the COLREGS does cover it... Cheers |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong. Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me? Regards Donal -- BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do justice to it. |
And ???????
You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. -jeff "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong. Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me? Regards Donal -- BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do justice to it. |
And ???????
BTW, there was a news report here last night. As you might know, we've had a
record deep freeze for the last several weeks. A 55 foot wooden fishing boat decided this was a good time for fishing, so they left Sandwich Harbor on the Cape Cod Canal, transited the canal which was kept open by ice breakers, but apparently got holed by ice as they exited the canal. Their engine died, and they ended up aground on Hog Neck. Rescue was problematical - the large boat couldn't get close, the small boast didn't want to leave harbor, an attempt by foot failed. Finally a helicopter was brought it to lift off the crew, providing good footage for the evening news. The final line of the news report was "A Canal official said, 'They had no business being out there.' " -jeff "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong. Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me? Regards Donal -- BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do justice to it. |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote ... I don't go into London any more. I got a parking ticket for being 3 minutes late, about 10 years ago. I haven't been back since. Scofflaw! In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. that's not true, here. SV |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. Ok. How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was a breach of the CollRegs? I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff. I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained, but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's. Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly). 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However, the English Channel is a completely different place. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned me. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. .... and mine! Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. Ok. How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was a breach of the CollRegs? 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. I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff. 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 know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained, but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's. Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious. Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing what he was talking about - I'm not willing to do that. Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly). 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However, the English Channel is a completely different place. IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel crossing. Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of the Bay of Fundy. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned me. I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. 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. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. ... and mine! mine too. -jeff |
And ???????
Scott Vernon wrote:
In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. that's not true, here. Used to be true here, then we got 'No fault insurance', (read as "money grab for insurance companies"). Cheers Marty |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. Ok. How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was a breach of the CollRegs? 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 was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff. 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. 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. I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained, but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's. Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious. 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. Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly). 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However, the English Channel is a completely different place. IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel crossing. Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of the Bay of Fundy. You're correct. The P&O Condor service is a high speed (35 kts+) service. I believe that they slow down in fog, to about 20 kts. However, I would stress the word "believe". I really do not know where that impression comes from. I usually see the Condor on crossings to Cherbourg(three times). I would have been fairly close to it on both my crossings in fog. I suspect that I saw it on one of the foggy trips, but I cannot be certain. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned me. I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception. You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a TSS. Can't you see that you are biased? The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout. The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS. 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. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. ... and mine! mine too. We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily! Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... BTW, there was a news report here last night. As you might know, we've had a record deep freeze for the last several weeks. A 55 foot wooden fishing boat decided this was a good time for fishing, so they left Sandwich Harbor on the Cape Cod Canal, transited the canal which was kept open by ice breakers, but apparently got holed by ice as they exited the canal. Their engine died, and they ended up aground on Hog Neck. Rescue was problematical - the large boat couldn't get close, the small boast didn't want to leave harbor, an attempt by foot failed. Finally a helicopter was brought it to lift off the crew, providing good footage for the evening news. The final line of the news report was "A Canal official said, 'They had no business being out there.' " -jeff A couple of years ago, an eccentric gentleman hit the headlines here. He was determined to go sailing in a home made boat - and he used a road map instead of charts. His story hit the national(and boating) press, after 19 rescues by the RNLI. Many people called for regulations. My opinion was that the sea should be free for everybody. The people said that we shouldn't fund such incompetence. *I* said that if we want to enjoy freedom at sea, then we must tolerate the occasional idiot. The people said that he was costing us too much. *I* said that freedom does have a small price. Fortunately, the people recognised that the freedom of the sea is fairly important. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"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 |
And ???????
"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 -- |
And ???????
After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like
me can take the time to snip the useless parts, so can you.... too long and everyone loses interest) Donal wrote: Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog horn? Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the point or advantage? After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident. ..... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no accident, don't get caught.) 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. Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt. 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. He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy waterway", you assume. You also don't know how good a visual lookout he is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he is or is not a menace. 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. I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) .... conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions warrant. 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? 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". 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. 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. horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch? BG You're reaching to try and make a point ... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same. ..... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship. 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? 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" otn |
And ???????
I think Otn answered most of these points - its nice to have someone in
agreement with me. Comment interspersed ... "Donal" wrote in message ... 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? Perhaps. Not sounding the whistle is certainly wrong, but its not my place to judge the "safe speed." However, the the ship can rectify their situation simply by throttling back and turning on the horn. What can the kayak do other that whine the the fog was not expected? 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. Doing something where the inevitable result is breaking the law is not right. Claiming that the sun was shining when you left port is not an excuse for not having lights. 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. Sorry, the only writeup of the results that I remember is on a subscription service. The original reports made it sound like the ferry ran down the fishing boat, but it was the opposite - the small boat hit the side of the ferry at speed. 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. 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." I posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important principle. Quite right! So you blantantly ignore the rules but expect total compliance from everyone else! Is that your point? That its OK to violate the rules when you want to? 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? 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 keep asking me to cite British case, but you've never mentioned any. What's the matter, don't you have courts there anymore? 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. But then you say you don't intend that to mean that all traffic should stop. However, that is the only logical response - if the ship knew there was a kayak and didn't stop it would be reprehensible. You seem to keep flip-flopping on this; what are you really saying? 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? A ship should always assume there is a possibility. Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts, it is not my position to judge a "safe speed" 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. 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? It is the responsibility of every seaman to be prepared to fulfill its obligations and handle situations that could reasonably be expected to arise. This is articulated quite clearly in Rule 2(a). The law even has a provision for "inevitable accidents" arising from situations that could not have been foreseen. However, they are very rare, less than 1% of the cases in US law. It is generally held that simple weather events (such as fog) or mechanical problems that could have been prevented with better maintained are not an excuse. 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. Are you saying that the kayak is not obligated to "not impede" the ship in the narrow channel or TSS? 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. 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." 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. 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 only showed that the law requires a visual lookout even when there is zero visibility, something I conceded in the original post. You still seem to think that because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there. Duh! That is my position. I don't claim its illegal to be there, I claim its a stupid thing to do. 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. You're right, most have better sense than that. 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. 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? You keep harping on this. Are you claiming that all ships in the Channel are running without lookouts, without whistles, always traveling at an unsafe speed? I would agree that when they do so, they are wrong. 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? Perhaps you can provide a link where a British court has differed significantly from an US ruling. You seem obcessed with claiming that texts and rulings from the US have no bearing in International waters, but you never provide any alternatives. You have no credibility on this issue until you do so. If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect that he will succeed. Don't be upset by jaxie, he's just a child. |
And ???????
Jeff Morris wrote:
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. 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." Just my two cents, COLREGS, 'Regulations for the Avoidance of Collisions at Sea' (sic); being in a slip is not "At Sea", Colregs do not apply IMHO Cheers Marty |
And ???????
You need look no further than the first sentence to see the applicability:
1(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. If the slip is in waters connected to the sea, they are applicable. I'll admit the my logic is strained, but the "letter of the law" is clear: a lookout is required at all times, even when anchored, moored, or tied up to a dock. It is only because of court interpretation that this rule is "relaxed." Donal is claiming that courts do not have a part in this process; this is simply a case where it should be clear to anyone that they do. But I appreciate that you're still reading this. -jeff "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: 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. 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." Just my two cents, COLREGS, 'Regulations for the Avoidance of Collisions at Sea' (sic); being in a slip is not "At Sea", Colregs do not apply IMHO Cheers Marty |
And ???????
Jeff Morris wrote:
You need look no further than the first sentence to see the applicability: 1(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. If the slip is in waters connected to the sea, they are applicable. I'll admit the my logic is strained, . But I appreciate that you're still reading this. Yes, it does seem to be getting a bit pendantic, consider, is a slip navigable waters? Perhaps we should debate the number of angels per pin head (I'm not talking about Bob, tho' he can use all the help he can get). Cheers Marty |
And ???????
We cold play all sorts of games around this - if a slip is oversized, are you in
"navigable waters" when you pass through the mouth? I recall at least one court case where it was felt that a ship at a dock should have a lookout to warn off passers-by because it was sticking out past the end of the dock But if this issue seems too pedantic, just consider the case of vessels anchored: How many people have kept an all-night watch on an anchored vessel? Certainly, one can find conditions where one should, and perhaps other times when one needn't bother. However, there are not such qualification in the rules: a lookout is always required. It is the role of the courts to advise us on when that is truly so. -jeff "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: You need look no further than the first sentence to see the applicability: 1(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. If the slip is in waters connected to the sea, they are applicable. I'll admit the my logic is strained, . But I appreciate that you're still reading this. Yes, it does seem to be getting a bit pendantic, consider, is a slip navigable waters? Perhaps we should debate the number of angels per pin head (I'm not talking about Bob, tho' he can use all the help he can get). Cheers Marty |
And ???????
"otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net... After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like Apoligies. I do usually snip. Donal wrote: Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog horn? Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the point or advantage? Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel. Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently fixed aloft. I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely ignorant of the other. After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident. .... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no accident, don't get caught.) I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last time that I crossed in fog. 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. Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt. I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that personal freedom is more important. 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. He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy waterway", you assume. I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that it was a fairly busy part. of the river. I've repeatedly said that when You also don't know how good a visual lookout he is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he is or is not a menace. He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs' requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing". snip I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute. I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) .... conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions warrant. I agree. snip 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. 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. 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". horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch? BG You're reaching to try and make a point ... Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up about it? That's why I bought a radar. I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on the bow" in fog. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same. .... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship. I agree. snip 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. Sorry about the lengthy answer. You'll have to ask fewer questions next time!!! Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
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? |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... I think Otn answered most of these points - its nice to have someone in agreement with me. Comment interspersed ... "Donal" wrote in message ... 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? Perhaps. Not sounding the whistle is certainly wrong, but its not my place to judge the "safe speed." However, the the ship can rectify their situation simply by throttling back and turning on the horn. What can the kayak do other that whine the the fog was not expected? 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. Doing something where the inevitable result is breaking the law is not right. Claiming that the sun was shining when you left port is not an excuse for not having lights. 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. Sorry, the only writeup of the results that I remember is on a subscription service. The original reports made it sound like the ferry ran down the fishing boat, but it was the opposite - the small boat hit the side of the ferry at speed. 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. 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"? Why are you so determined to twist the rules? I posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important principle. Quite right! So you blantantly ignore the rules but expect total compliance from everyone else! Is that your point? That its OK to violate the rules when you want to? 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? 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. You keep asking me to cite British case, but you've never mentioned any. What's the matter, don't you have courts there anymore? 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. But then you say you don't intend that to mean that all traffic should stop. However, that is the only logical response - if the ship knew there was a kayak and didn't stop it would be reprehensible. You seem to keep flip-flopping on this; what are you really saying? 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. You've even gone as far as to say that commercial shipping is favoured under the CollRegs. That is an incredibly stupid position, when the CollRegs clearly state that "power shall give way to sail". 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? A ship should always assume there is a possibility. 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. 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? Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs at face value? 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!! 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? It is the responsibility of every seaman to be prepared to fulfill its obligations and handle situations that could reasonably be expected to arise. This is articulated quite clearly in Rule 2(a). The law even has a provision for "inevitable accidents" arising from situations that could not have been foreseen. However, they are very rare, less than 1% of the cases in US law. It is generally held that simple weather events (such as fog) or mechanical problems that could have been prevented with better maintained are not an excuse. 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. Are you saying that the kayak is not obligated to "not impede" the ship in the narrow channel or TSS? 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. 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? You have argued that a "kayak has no business being there", and yet the CollRegs do not support you. You are a hypocrite. 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. 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? Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"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. |
And ???????
Donal wrote: Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel. Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently fixed aloft. I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely ignorant of the other. They're not ignorant of each other, in most cases, but may have developed different ways of handling each other. There tend to be two basic situations involving ships and small boat meetings. The one on one, open ocean, where hopefully the ship sees the small boat (we all know that conditions may not make this easy) and reacts according to the rules .... no real excuse not to .... and the area where there are many small boats around going in all directions (this applies to fishing fleets also). In the latter case, experience has taught many of us, that the best plan of attack is to maintain course and speed, and eg (you didn't hear me say this) screw the rules. Why? Simply stated, a particular small boat may only be seeing the ship and it's collision course, where as, from the bridge, the ship sees numerous small boats on collision course, and to maneuver for one may throw a whole bunch of other's into trouble. Problem is, some ships have carried this "hold course" to all conditions of meeting small boats ( Some may use this to say rule 2 applies), which though not correct, is a fact of life the small boater must deal with .....I won't go in to who's to blame for this condition. I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last time that I crossed in fog. I find this number hard to believe, but my familiarity with the area is distant and only a few times, so I can't comment from a shipboard perspective. Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt. I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that personal freedom is more important. Sorry, killing 3 people, in a vain attempt to save one fool, rubs me wrong. I realize that people get caught in conditions the could not have planned for, but too many people are using their "personal freedoms" to act irresponsibly and without thought as to the consequences. 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. He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy waterway", you assume. I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that it was a fairly busy part. of the river. My guess is he was talking about the Mississippi, possibly a departure area of "The Jump", which is a busy area, but 99% is commercial, and talks freely to each other. The other area was the Houston Ship Channel ..... a mixed bag of traffic, again, highly regulated, with known areas of "recreational traffic". In either area, depending on the boat, operator, equipment, etc., I would not consider 25k to necessarily be bad or good. You also don't know how good a visual lookout he is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he is or is not a menace. He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs' requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing". Different commercial operations, world wide will run under different conditions ...1,2,3, however many people. Having done the "one man" as well as many others, I cannot say that a particular system is unsafe, although I prefer numerous "mark one eyeballs" when possible. I DO disagree with anyone who is acting as radar observer to be totally and solely immersed in the radar, especially if they are the only one at the controls, but even then, the conditions may warrant such actions ..... main point .... without being there at the time, it's extremely hard to say what is/was correct or incorrect..... or complied with the rules, for the conditions. 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. EG NO comment on British courts. I think here we would need someone familiar with "Admiralty Law" to comment. In the US, I believe it's the Federal Courts which hear and pass on most cases, regarding maritime matters, not State courts. The precedence for maritime matters go way back over centuries, and doubtfully, any maritime nation, would not need to go out of it's own country to find the needed precedence for a particular case, but there is nothing to say they won't or can't (This was my weakest subject at school). I believe, also, that the IMO, falls under an international treaty .... again, I mention this only to emphasize that I don't think this is in the nature of one country trying to supersede or over ride, international law ....this would be a whole other thread. 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", Your impression ..... I did not get the same. You can never assume that some idiot may not be rowing across the Atlantic (fools seem to try it regularly, nowadays). What you do is make your decisions and base your actions on the probabilities, and never lose sight of the fact you may be wrong .... it's a juggling act, which unfortunately doesn't always work out in your favor .... just like so many things we do. or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping a lookout by sight". I think you will find this issue being argued more and more ..... what's apt to give you the best warning in fog? A constant visual out the window look, a constant radar watch, or a split between the two? Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up about it? That's why I bought a radar. You may be right, you may not have been able to see him, the conditions may be such that it's unsafe to have a lookout on the bow, etc.. As to the fog horn, I've run well offshore along the US West Coast (50-100mi) in thick fog for days on end ....shut the damn thing off .....if someone comes close or you think you may have a target, resume sounding. Again, I don't know the conditions you were under, think your numbers are high, but can't really comment. I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on the bow" in fog. G As would any recognized maritime nation. However, FOC is becoming, and possibly always has been a myth. It should be COC (Company of Convenience). FOC is no guarantee that you are dealing with some third rate ship or crew, nor is the fact that a ship registered in a "Maritime Nation" any indication that it will be ( though an indication) well run. I've been aboard too many ship's of all flags in the past dozen years to believe otherwise. 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. In truth, would it make a difference if the ship was doing 12k or 25k in fog if it suddenly spotted a kayak? .... 6k? .... bare steerageway? If they are running a TSS, they are expecting (rightly or wrongly) that this is their 2mi (or whatever) wide lane where they should be able to be safe from vessel's that don't belong there in a way that impedes their progress. They are doing their part by staying in their lane, they expect the small boat to do theirs and stay out of the lane or at least not impede their passage. Do you see all the possible errors in this way of thinking? Do you see all the possible errors in thinking a kayak has any business in a TSS in fog? All arguments aside ..... don't expect a ship to slow in fog, be blowing fog signals, have a lookout on the bow ....expect the worst, and avoid a TSS like the plague, in all conditions of visibility. 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. Don't know the area. It may be less stupid to stay where he is. If he decides to go across, he must understand that he is equally responsible to avoid collision, and he must take all precautions within his power to do so, realizing that he will be a highly invisible target, both on radar and visually. 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? No one's saying that ... the ship and the kayak deserve the same "mercy", the ship and kayak have the same responsibilities, and both must understand their limitations and the total number of possible repercussions .... problem is ..... ship meets kayak in fog, kayak loses, and ship probably won't have a clue it was there. 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. I think I'm the one who suggested staying where he is. The Colregs were originally written to cover larger vessels. It's been years of trying to change and adapt them to include the burgeoning population of small recreational vessels, with sometimes questionable results. I don't think Jeff has stated that a vessel may proceed at an unsafe speed, but rather that the speed that the ship may consider safe, may not be the speed that YOU consider safe 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. A slow moving ship with a proper lookout, cannot guarantee that it won't collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on it's radar. snip I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS. It may be, by being there, if there was an alternate course of action possible. Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee" that it will not impede. Possibly true 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. I think you may not be understanding which national courts may be being discussed ..... again, we need to have an "Admiralty" lawyer comment on this area. otn phew |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "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? They aren't very navigable when I'm parked there! 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? It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it? I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower. This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water". IOW, a big ship would have no business there. I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong? 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? Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think. They are governed by the national constitution. No? No. So what? Why do you think that is? Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework, of their own country. 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. What nonsense!!! 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? If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts, in fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error. I really doubt that you can produce such evidence. 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. Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does it say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"? Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"? 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? Of course not! *You* suggested that the rules had a general bias towards commercial shipping. Let me quote you(again) - "No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. " The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail". 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? Nope! Have you never read the rules? Yes! Aren't you ignoring where it says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"? No, I'm not ignoring that bit. As in, "those places where large ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"? Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you really think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that? Puleeeease, Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion. If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise irrelevant sh*te when I see it. 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? Couldn't I ask you the same question? 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? Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"? Where did I ever complain about the speed alone? Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts, using Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout? Let's face it. You defended Joe's position. You are trying to extract yourself from an untenable situation. It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection. Admit it. 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? Yes it is. So what? These are all issues the courts have addressed - why do you claim their opinions have no bearing on this discussion? Why don't you post a link? 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. Again, post a link! 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. I recipriocate. 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. Wow!!! Let me tell you something. Fog sometimes appears when it isn't forecast. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message ... Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1. Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"? How did you get it there? Levitation? They aren't very navigable when I'm parked there! So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the ColRegs? You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you should be a judge. Do you agree the the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at anchor? It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it? I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower. This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water". What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats touch bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's possibly the stupidest thing I've heard you say! So what about an anchor light? Not needed because the rules don't apply to you? Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and Jax on the stupidity scale! IOW, a big ship would have no business there. I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree. I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong? Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And although there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving, there have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable. This would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where another vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather. My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost everyone, including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK, because the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the rules. You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your judgement on what's important. That's what we call "anarchy." So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed greatly from the US interpretation? Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think. They are governed by the national constitution. What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow American precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is the mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you claiming its doesn't work that way where you are? Why do you think that is? Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework, of their own country. So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus assume I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not interpret the law? Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no bearing? Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does not, in effect, become part of your law? 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. What nonsense!!! Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You seem to feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else should abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think they were that bad! 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? If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts, in fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error. As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job. I already cited a British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than running on visual only. How much higher in a given situation is something for the courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was that there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away. I really doubt that you can produce such evidence. I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even know if there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK. But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to back up any of your claims? *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. Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does it say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"? I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context, you're changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar. I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the helmsman is steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but the courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar. Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been playing the fool every night for the last month. Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"? Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming its a wise choice? 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? Of course not! *You* suggested that the rules had a general bias towards commercial shipping. Let me quote you(again) - "No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. " I stand by that - its absolutly correct. Are you claiming Rules 9 and 10 don't exist? Have you ever read them? You might try to claim rules 9 & 10 don't apply as often as I claim, but certainly when they do apply, the large ship is favored. The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail". Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules say, do you? I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of: Rule 18 Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; a vessel engaged in fishing; a sailing vessel. Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels or a TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also, that Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only case in the rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog. So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially small powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the blanket statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of understanding of the rules. Have you never read the rules? Yes! It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago. Aren't you ignoring where it says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"? No, I'm not ignoring that bit. As in, "those places where large ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"? Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you really think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that? Puleeeease, Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion. you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually! If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise irrelevant sh*te when I see it. Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of most people that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's reality. You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a large ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the Chesapeake, or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick look at the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of miles of Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't often go out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a Rule 9 or 10 situation. The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels, mainly because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal. Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"? When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly liar? Where did I ever complain about the speed alone? Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts, using Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout? Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep accusing me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue to play the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre compulsion to be an asshole? Let's face it. You defended Joe's position. No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as absolute as you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've even said 12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper speed should be, never having been there. You are trying to extract yourself from an untenable situation. I have no need. I am content in my tenability. It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection. Admit it. As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". 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? Yes it is. So what? These are all issues the courts have addressed - why do you claim their opinions have no bearing on this discussion? Why don't you post a link? I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just claimed that nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have no bearing? 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. Again, post a link! Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and read it. This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might be hard to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook. |
And ???????
OK, Since Donal seems incapable of doing his own research I thought I might do
it for him. Here are two reports on an incident between the Dover High Speed Ferry, and another ferry in fog. Unfortunately, although both reports cite "failure to keep a proper lookout" they aren't clear on what would have corrected that. Since there were two visual lookouts posted, I assume the issue was with the radar watch, which was clearly flawed. The Rule 19 violation I assume had to do with not slowing when the radar image was distorted in the minute before the collision. The comments seem to complain about a lapse of vigilance, as opposed to inappropriate procedures. I'm sure that Donal will say this supports his claims about the lack of lookouts. However, I note that this was not considered a breach of Rule 6 "Safe Speed," nor was there any other mention that the speed itself was a primary cause. The high speed ferry was doing 38 knots earlier, and was still doing 29 at the time of the collision. The other ferry was doing 23 knots, I think. I also found mention of a request of a follow-up study to generate guidelines for a safe speed, but I haven't found any indication of this actually happening. Enjoy the gift, Donal. http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.n...D?opendocument 8 April 2003 MASTER OF HIGH SPEED FERRY SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED IN DOVER At a hearing today at Dover Magistrates Court the Captain of the Luxembourg registered high speed ferry "Diamant" was convicted of failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to conduct his vessel appropriately in fog. The "Diamant", a high speed ferry operated by Hoverspeed on the Dover - Ostend service, was approaching Dover at about 1000 on 6th January 2002 with 148 people on board. At that time the visibility was reduced by dense fog. With 3.5 miles to go, and at a speed of about 30 knots, the "Diamant" collided with the outbound freight ferry "Northern Merchant" which had 103 people on board. The investigation by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency determined that the Captain had failed to use his radar properly to determine the movements of the "Northern Merchant" and on the basis of this mistake had effectively turned into the other ship instead of away from it. District Judge Riddle fined Jean Ramakers, a Belgian national, £1500 for the offence relating to lookout, and £1500 for the offence relating to navigation in fog. Costs of £1500 were also awarded the MCA. Summing up, Judge Riddle said "This incident occurred in a busy seaway and near a port, where the failure to keep a proper lookout and to conduct a vessel properly can potentially have serious consequences. This can range from a near miss to a catastrophic incident. The highest standards of conduct must be expected of those in charge of such ships. Even minor lapses must be accounted for and punished, and cannot be ignored." Captain John Garner, the MCA's Deputy Director of Operations and Chairman of the UK High Speed Craft Advisory Group, said after the case "The consequences of Captain Ramakers errors should send a clear reminder to the operators, masters and crews of high speed ferries to remain constantly vigilant and to maintain the highest professional standards. Fog in the Dover Strait is common and the operation of a high speed service must contain sufficient safety measures to overcome the hazard to safe navigation that this can present" http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-ne...tions_2003.htm Defendant: Jean Ramakers Date of Offence: 6th January 2002 Offence: Failure to keep a proper lookout by all available means and failure to conduct his vessel appropriately whilst in restricted visibility. Details: This incident took place approximately 3 ½ miles east of the Eastern entrance to Dover Harbour in thick fog on 6th January 2002. NORTHERN MERCHANT, a UK flag truck ferry of 22152gt, had just left Dover for Dunkirk and was clearing outbound traffic whilst increasing to passage speed. DIAMANT, a Luxembourg flag Incat 81 type high-speed ferry, was inbound Dover from Ostend. In poor visibility, DIAMANT struck the NORHTERN MERCHANT. There were no serious injuries on board either vessel, but the damage to DIAMANT resulted in her withdrawal from service for extended repairs to the bow and starboard prong. DIAMANT had left Ostend as normal, but in reduced visibility. The bridge team, Master, Chief Officer, Chief Engineer and lookout was supplemented by an additional lookout. The passage proceeded under normal conditions until the DIAMANT entered the English Inshore Traffic Zone at the CS4 buoy. At that point the visibility had deteriorated further, and the Master, aware that his berth in Dover was occupied, took the opportunity to reduce speed from 38 knots to 33 knots to delay his estimated time of arrival. It was at this time that both Master and Chief Officer acquired the departing NORTHERN MERCHANT on ARPA. The closest point of approach closed to 3 cables on the starboard quarter and a slight alteration to port was made to open the point of approach. At this time the Master believed that the NORTHERN MERHCANT was on a reciprocal course, and allowed the range to close. The DIAMANT bridge team were well aware of the developing situation and were looking and listening for the NORTHERN MERCHANT. At about this point the fog signal from the NORTHERN MERCHANT was heard, apparently to starboard, and both the Master and Chief Officer noted the radar echo slightly distort radially, so that the bearing discrimination became impossible. The master altered course to port to open the range. Some thirty seconds later the NORTHERN MERCHANT appeared right ahead and beam on. An emergency turn to port was initiated, which served to reduce the force of the impact. The defendant admitted to failing to keep a proper lookout and failure to conduct his vessel appropriately whilst in restricted visibility, under the following offences; COLREG 5 (lookout) COLREG 19 (conduct of vessels in restricted visibility). Penalties: £1500 per offence and £1500 costs |
And ???????
I get the feeling that although he had ARPA, he failed to properly use
it. With ARPA there should have been no guess work ....course, speed, CPA, Rel.motion should have been known. otn |
And ???????
Something did not work properly with the radar procedures. In the aftermath,
they ran simulations with the ships and an action item that came out of that was a meeting with the radar manufacturer to find out why it didn't work as it should have. Unfortunately, all the reports I found were rather terse - if it had been the NTSB they would have listed model numbers, etc. The US reports however, are usually fuzzy on the law until you get up to the appeals level. One thing I found surprising while perusing the British "prosecution" reports was the large number of boats prosecuted simply for not traveling properly in the Dover TSS. One boat's defense was that their electronics failed and they didn't have a paper backup, so they were also fined for not having a proper chart. "otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... I get the feeling that although he had ARPA, he failed to properly use it. With ARPA there should have been no guess work ....course, speed, CPA, Rel.motion should have been known. otn |
And ???????
For better or worse. here's the complete report on the Dover Ferry incident.
Note that this is not the court findings, nor do they feel bound be court precedents, or make any attempt to place blame. The actual prosecution was much more limited in scope, and only found fault under Rules 5 and 19. It would be possible to find something in this report to support almost any position. On the issue of safe speed: "Recognising that there is always a possibility that small vessels and other floating objects might not be detected by radar at an adequate range (Rule 6(b)(iv)), it follows that a speed which relies on radar for detecting vessels at a sufficient range so as to be able to avoid collision, in accordance with the Collision Regulations, should not be regarded as a safe speed. "However, the practicality of following the above criterion in conditions of severely restricted visibility is questionable (eg the need to maintain steerage in conditions of zero visibility). Additionally, the commercial viability of shipping would be in danger of being undermined if the criterion was strictly applied, particularly in areas prone to restricted visibility. "In view of the above, a more pragmatic approach might be appropriate, such that a degree of reliance on radar for detection might be acceptable following a reasoned assessment of the risks in doing so." http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ety_507877.pdf |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the ColRegs? You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you should be a judge. I most certainly do *not* feel free to apply my personal interpretation to the CollRegs. Surely, you must see that *you* are the one who is constantly suggesting that the CollRegs can be "interpreted". You have previously chastised me for suggesting that the words should be taken at face value ... and now you are suggesting that I am placing my personal interpretation on the Regs. Perhaps you will accept the definition of the word "navigable" as provided by the Chambers Dictionary. "navigable (of a river, channel, etc) deep enough and wide enough to be passed by ships, etc; dirigible." You see, Jeff. I made NO personal interpretations. My slip is not navigable. It cannot be "passed" by any floating object. When I am berthed there, it is very much *not* navigable. Do you agree the the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at anchor? It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it? I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower. This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water". What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats touch bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's possibly the stupidest thing I've heard you say! Good! 'Cos it isn't very stupid when you think about it. I've described a dead end, and you are claiming that it is "navigable". Please re-read the definition of "navigable". A dead-end cannot be navigable. So what about an anchor light? Not needed because the rules don't apply to you? Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and Jax on the stupidity scale! You are recycling your insults. It didn't help your case the first time. It doesn't help your case this time. IOW, a big ship would have no business there. I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree. I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong? Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And although there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving, there have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable. This would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where another vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather. Agreed. My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost everyone, including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK, because the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the rules. You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your judgement on what's important. That's what we call "anarchy." What nonsense! You are trying to say that courts around the world can overrule the wording of the CollRegs. Your opinion is much closer to anarchy than mine. I am trying to say that the CollRegs are worded very carefully, and that we should not try to second guess what the authors intended. They actually wrote their intentions. When they say that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing, they really meant to say that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing. When they said that a vessel should maintain a speed that was appropriate for the conditions, they didn't mean that Joe could race about at 25 kts in thick fog. So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed greatly from the US interpretation? Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think. They are governed by the national constitution. What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow American precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is the mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you claiming its doesn't work that way where you are? Why do you think that is? Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework, of their own country. So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus assume I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not interpret the law? No. What makes you think that? Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no bearing? No. Why do you ask this question? Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does not, in effect, become part of your law? I'm really beginning to think that you didn't understand a word that I wrote. 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. What nonsense!!! Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You seem to feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else should abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think they were that bad! You seem to be suggesting that a court ruling in one country could influence a court's decision in a different jurisdiction. Can you understand that I have a difficulty with that proposition? I suspect that you might be suffering from a little insularity. Can you imagine a court in Boston allowing its judgement to be influenced by a French case? Of course not. Believe it, or not, a French court would not give any weight to a decision in an American court. 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? If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts, in fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error. As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job. Didn't you? So why did you question *me* for criticising Joe's attitude? In case you don't rember, this all started when I suggested that Joe was in breach of the CollRegs for doing 25kts in fog, using the Radar as a lookout. You did *not* feel the need to question Joe. You did ask me to show where the CollRegs said that you couldn't navigate under radar alone. Why on Earth did you pose that question? I already cited a British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than running on visual only. How much higher in a given situation is something for the courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was that there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away. Ahhhh! You didn't like to see a foreigner criticise a fellow American??? That sounds like a pretty poor defence to me. I really doubt that you can produce such evidence. I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even know if there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK. But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to back up any of your claims? *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. Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does it say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"? I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context, you're changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar. I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the helmsman is steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but the courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar. Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been playing the fool every night for the last month. Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"? Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming its a wise choice? Don't ask silly questions. I have repeatedly said that a kayak could get caught out in an unexpected fog. It really has nothing to do with wisdom - and everything to do with the vagaries of the weather. The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail". Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules say, do you? In fact, I do. I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of: Rule 18 Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; a vessel engaged in fishing; a sailing vessel. Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels or a TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also, that Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only case in the rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog. So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially small powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the blanket statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of understanding of the rules. I'm almost reduced to your level of ad hominem response by this silly comment. The rule says that power shall give way to sail *except* in the following circumstances. Have you never read the rules? Yes! It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago. Aren't you ignoring where it says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"? No, I'm not ignoring that bit. As in, "those places where large ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"? Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you really think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that? Puleeeease, Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion. you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually! No, I asked a serious question. You *did* use quotation marks. Thar would lead many people to believe that you were actually quoting from something. Do the words "those places where large ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another" actually appear in the CollRegs? Perhaps you would like to admit that you were being "creative" when you wrote those words? Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest, once again, that I am either stupid - or a liar. Maybe, you will be honest and admit that you just made those words up. If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise irrelevant sh*te when I see it. Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of most people that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's reality. You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a large ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the Chesapeake, or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick look at the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of miles of Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't often go out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a Rule 9 or 10 situation. The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels, mainly because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal. Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"? When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly liar? When I first pointed it out you asked me "where ...." etc. If you really believed that you would have questioned Joe's position - and not mine. Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts, using Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout? Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep accusing me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue to play the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre compulsion to be an asshole? Personal attacks won't help us to reach agreement. Your initial question was something like "where in the CollRegs does it say that you can't say that you can't keep a lookout under Radar alone?" I posted a reply, and you disagreed with me. I've no idea *why* you wanted to disagree with me ... but you did. That was your choice. On the one hand you had someone(Joe) who claimed that doing 25kts on a busy waterway, in fog, without a proper lookout, was safe. On the other hand you had someone (me) who pointed out that this behaviour was in contravention of rhe CollRegs. You didn't question Joe, and you did question me. Now you say that I was right, and that Joe was wrong, and yet you are still arguing with me. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be on some sort of mission. Let's face it. You defended Joe's position. No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as absolute as you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've even said 12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper speed should be, never having been there. Are you saying that you have never encountered shipping in fog?? If so, why the hell have you engaged in this conversation? It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection. Admit it. As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". So why did you question *me*, when I was stating that one should always have a visual and a hearing lookout? Why didn't you question Joe? I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just claimed that nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have no bearing? Not really. I'm claiming that "National" court rulings can have no influence on an "International" treaty. 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. Again, post a link! Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and read it. This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might be hard to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook. Do you really think that I am a liar? .... Or do you think that you have painted yourself into a corner? Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"otnmbrd" wrote in message link.net... Donal wrote: Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel. Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently fixed aloft. snipped to maneuver for one may throw a whole bunch of other's into trouble. Problem is, some ships have carried this "hold course" to all conditions of meeting small boats ( Some may use this to say rule 2 applies), which though not correct, is a fact of life the small boater must deal with ....I won't go in to who's to blame for this condition. I don't really disagree with you here. I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last time that I crossed in fog. I find this number hard to believe, but my familiarity with the area is distant and only a few times, so I can't comment from a shipboard perspective. If JohnE is still lurking, then perhaps he will comment. Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt. I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that personal freedom is more important. Sorry, killing 3 people, in a vain attempt to save one fool, rubs me wrong. I realize that people get caught in conditions the could not have planned for, but too many people are using their "personal freedoms" to act irresponsibly and without thought as to the consequences. I see it differently. I don't know where you got your "3 people" from. The reality is that many people, perhaps many millions, enjoy the freedom of the sea for every rescuer who loses his life. I don't think that lack of "certification" is a major cause of emergency rescue. I suspect that lack of maintenance is the main trigger for rescue service involvement. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
Donal wrote: Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently fixed aloft. G many of the ones I know, turn their "fishing" lights on when they leave the dock, and never turn them off till they tie back up. Sorry, killing 3 people, in a vain attempt to save one fool, rubs me wrong. I realize that people get caught in conditions the could not have planned for, but too many people are using their "personal freedoms" to act irresponsibly and without thought as to the consequences. I see it differently. I don't know where you got your "3 people" from. Was an example, but don't doubt that I can find any number of rescuers killed in those numbers while trying to rescue one person in many areas, much less just boating ..... know of a rescue swimmer, and crew from a CG boat lost..... The reality is that many people, perhaps many millions, enjoy the freedom of the sea for every rescuer who loses his life. I don't think that lack of "certification" is a major cause of emergency rescue. I suspect that lack of maintenance is the main trigger for rescue service involvement. What kind of certification are you talking about? Maintenance is only one reason ....lack of experience and basic knowledge and good judgment have to rank right up there. otn |
And ???????
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com