Should all shipping shut down in the fog?


For perfect safety, yes indeed. Is it a perfect world? Hmmm....



Peter Wiley wrote:
By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

And it would run the price of gas up when the refineries couldn't get deliveries
on time.

I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so. But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
....
I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in
the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks,
sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might
have
'every right' to do so. But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks
on
the interstate. Try it some time.


I'm glad there are a few who agree with me. I believe Rick is thinking that
when I said kayaks don't belong there I was claiming that large vessels have a
right to run them down. I was never trying to imply that. In fact, my real pet
peeve is the sportfishermen that think because a ferry (with high quality radar
and a trained crew) can safely do 8 knots on a well known route, they are free
do 35 knots in the fog.

Aside from the foolishness of taking a small boat in a traffic in the fog, the
ColRegs are quite specific, in Rules 9 and 10, that they don't belong is some
places when they are unable to see or be seen by other vessels.

Further, I claim that Rule 2 also frowns on foolish behavior. In very simple
wording it requires everyone act in a seamanlike manner. This would include
staying out of the way of large ships, and also maintaining a extra slow speed
where small boats would frequent.

If you cruise in coastal Maine, you will frequently see sea kayaks with radar
reflectors on the stern, often on a short pole. However, the consensus is that
this is only partially effective - its worth doing for the times it helps, but
it isn't reliable enough to make it safe in channels. Fortunately, they
normally stay close to shore.

DSK wrote:

I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

What "business" the kayaker has there is his, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways. That is not theory, it
is law and fact. Learn to deal with that reality. The kayaker is
obliged to follow the COLREGS and VTS rules just as you do in your boat.

But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is." What
you "believe" to be right or wrong in the operation of a vessel seems to
be a bit askew for both water and interstate highway operations.

Rick

Rick wrote:

What "business" the kayaker has there is his

His suicidal tendencies, perhaps?

, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

Agreed.

However, if a commercial vessel runs aground & is damaged by trying to avoid a kayaker,
the kayaker is liable for damages to the ship and under some circumstances is liable to
the shipper for the cargo.



There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways.

As long as he's not obstructing commercial or military traffic, agreed. However, the
"right" to recreate in shipping lanes is restricted.


.... Learn to deal with that reality.

Well, the rules are written in plain black & white. Is that "reality" enough for you?



No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

Excuse me, while hitchhiking or operating non-motorized vehicles is illegal on some
interstate highways & local expressways, there is no statute mentioning tiddlywinks or
badminton or a host of other unlikely and unwise activities.




All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is."

Hmm, seems to me that you might benefit from that prescription yourself.

DSK

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that you can maintain a proper lookout with radar
alone?


Thats what I'm claiming Donal. I would not suggest it running a
strange river for the first time, but if you have navigated the same
area many times and you know it like the back of your hand then you
can safely run it with a quality fine tuned radar.

Emmmm... Aren't we discussing the Coll Regs? The International Rules
for
the avoidance of Collisions??

I don't see how "familiarity" with a particular stretch of water can
help
you avoid a collision.



So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================

Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility.

Jeff. It isn't moot. "at ***all**** times .... by sight and sound...".


Regards

Donal
--

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


I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses
an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?


Read the Coll Regs!


I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However, I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.


Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.




Grow up, Donal!




Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker
within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.

What do you mean?

He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker.


Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?

Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.



Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing
situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?



Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?



The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.


It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40
knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong.
You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases.
"Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds
of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area.


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


No, he isn't.
You seem to be saying that the kayak has no rights at all.


I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog, and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes
with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Ahhh! Good. You realise that the kayak will sometimes be the "stand
on"
vessel!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


Regards


Donal
--

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
What "business" the kayaker has there is his, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

You're ignoring the possibility that the readers of this forum are more likely
to be in the small boat than driving the tanker. You're taking a very
self-centered view of this.


There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks,
sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might
have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways. That is not theory, it
is law and fact. Learn to deal with that reality. The kayaker is
obliged to follow the COLREGS and VTS rules just as you do in your boat.

Double talk. The ColRegs are very clear that vessels in TSS and Narrow Channels
have obligations which are impossible for a kayak to fulfill in the fog. This
is a very simple point in the rules, but you keep acting like you've never heard
of it. Bottom line is, you're dead wrong: the rules make it pretty clear that
the small vessel must not impede the large one. How do you do this if you can't
see it?



But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

In other words, it perfect legal to do it, as long as they don't break the law?
Or are you claiming that because its "posted" a driver need not be concerned
about the possibility? This is exactly the same situation as the kayak. Its
both illegal and foolish to play in the highway, and to paddle in the TSS in the
fog. The driver of the tanker ship/truck should stay alert for the possibility,
but we (society) recognizes that there is likely little that can be done to help
someone who insists on foolish behavior.



All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is." What
you "believe" to be right or wrong in the operation of a vessel seems to
be a bit askew for both water and interstate highway operations.

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world works. Why
don't you just share it?

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:



I disagree with the proposition that a Radar watch(at 25 kts) can be
considered " an effective lookout".

I'd tend to agree with you. Mind you, radar can be *very* good. We have
2 on our icebreaker and I've steered through heavy sea ice using the
radar image to see where the leads are. Lotta fun and it doesn't really
matter if you turn a little wide or tight since it's OK to crunch over
stuff in the way.

That situation seems quite different to doing the same thing in a busy
waterway.



Anyway, if damn fools are considered as worth the trouble of saving,
then running at 25 knots on radar only in heavy fog isn't prudent.
Personally, I wouldn't regard anyone stupid enough to go out onto a
busy waterway, in heavy fog, sans lights, radar reflector, radar, sound
signals, radio and in a hull that is a poor radar reflector as worth
saving. Anyone that stupid is a hazard to navigation and we're all
better off without them.

I don't really disagree with you.

I'm simply saying that I don't think that travelling in a busy waterway at
25 kts using radar alone is semsible - in any state of visibility.



Regards

Donal
--

I'm simply saying that I don't think that travelling in a busy waterway at
25 kts using radar alone is semsible


Semsible???? WOW!!!

Bwahahahahaa!

RB

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================

That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility.

Adding radar (required on all large ships) raises the "acceptable" speed a bit.
As I mentioned in the case of the Fast Cat Ferry, it was going 13.4 knots
shortly before the collision - this was not considered a factor in the
collision. Given that there was "zero visibility" we have to view this as
effectively running on radar alone.


Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility.

Jeff. It isn't moot. "at ***all**** times .... by sight and sound...".

I don't see your point here at all. Are you claiming that all traffic should
stop in thick fog? This is clearly not what happens. The laws and the court
rulings allow continuing, within limits, on radar alone. Clearly society has
determined that the value of continued commerce outweighs the risks to some
vessels.

If you're going to fantasize about a better world, how about one without the
common cold?