And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
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.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and lived? Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

BTW, did you have a reflector? Do you know what your radar visibility is?




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.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too subtle
for you.

....
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.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.




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?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS. Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.




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?

Get the hell out, quickly! The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel. Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across. That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it? What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the rest of
the day.




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.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word. But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have to.
But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



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.



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?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on its own
special circumstances. Further, as Rick has claimed, I don't think I can second
guess the courts, and I don't know of any such precedent. However, I would have
little sympathy for a kayaker who crossed the Bay of Fundy, knowing that he
would cross the path of the Fast Cat, likely in thick fog. On the other hand,
there is a 35 knot ferry on the Boston/Salem run that I think should drop its
speed for the last 3 miles of its trip, rather than the last half mile as it now
does. The last time I had to use its channel in the fog I was terrified it was
going to run up my butt! And I have radar and a good reflector. However, this
is because the Cat uses the small channel that is the only alternative to the
primary large ship channel - it does this to save 1/4 mile on the trip.



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.

Ah, the "Neal" argument! But you know this is not what we're talking about.


You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


OK. I'll do that. ... Nope, still no indication you've read them.

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there. How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

I am not going to assume who will get the most blame or why.

Rick

And ???????
 

In article , Donal
wrote:

"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.

I can see a chunk of ice the size of a kayak or smaller on the radar.
Ice doesn't carry radar reflectors and is only half a metre or less
above the surface. It is possible.

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.

With that I agree, but it depends on the circumstances. People by &
large can ride bicycles on most roads here in Australia, and do, mixing
with traffic weighing 100X as much and moving 4X as fast. I regard this
as stupid behaviour and give them as much room as possible, but I'm not
going to travel at bicycle speeds just on the off-chance that they
might wander in front of me. Not doing stupid manoeuvres is their
responsibility, mine is to drive predictably so they can figure out
where I'm going to be. I don't see the situation on water as all that
different *if* we're talking about a busy commercial waterway. You can
argue Colregs & road rules all you like and courts may or may not
decide certain actions were imprudent but *none* of that will
invalidate the laws of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum. I
rode motorcycles for years and I can assure you that following the
rules is poor consolation when you're lying in a hospital bed after an
idiot car driver didn't.

PDW

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

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

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law says
he shouldn't. Just like you have a right to play in the street or rob a bank.
Interesting.


No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there. How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.


If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

I am not going to assume who will get the most blame or why.

So now you're saying it doesn't matter what you do; someone else will make an
arbitrary decision. Interesting.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't? And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?
Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have right-of-way
over oil tankers?

And ???????
 

In article .net,
Rick wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

So, what you're saying is that a kayak has the *right* to be in a
designated shipping channel, in fog?

No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there.

There's a big difference between 'can be there' and 'has every right to
be there'. Whch one are you arguing?

How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

Yeah and you evade the point. In fog, a kayaker in a shipping channel
cannot tell if they're impeding or going to impede commercial traffic
and they have an obligation not to. Therefore, they should *not* be in
a shipping channel under such conditions.

If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

That'd be fun. The skipper of a tanker has a choice between running
down a kayaker who is in violation of the Colregs by defn - impeding
commercial traffic - or causing an environmental disaster if the tanker
runs aground, gets holed and oil leaks out, not to mention putting the
crew at risk. I know what I'd do.

That's how the world works, get used to it.

PDW

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
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.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know
you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

I listened out for their fog horns as we approached. I altered course so
that I would cross at right angles.
Most of the ships had slowed down to between 8-12 kts. Of the four times
that I crossed a lane in fog, I only came close enough to one ship to
discern the lookout on the bow.




What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.


Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes very
much.







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.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the
progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no
ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without
lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.



I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to think that stupid
kayakers will have ever even heard of the CollRegs.

In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.



...
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.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak
to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.

A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the CollRegs.

=================================
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.
=================================


What part of the above rule allows a commercial craft to travel without
keeping a lookout? Does it say that you don't have to keep a lookout
because Rule 2 says that the other sailors should be intelligent enough to
realise that you might come out of the fog at 25 kts without a lookout?









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?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in
a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS.

NO, you have not.

You misquoted one of the rules on one occasion, and I corrected you.

There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

You seem happy to ignore the very specific wording in the rule about keeping
a lookout ("sight and hearing"), and yet you are relying on your own weird
interpretation of Rule 2 to guarantee that a kayak could never be expected
on a river in fog.


This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.

No, Jeff. Your one sided interpretation of the rules is childish.

You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be necessary.


At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.









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?

Get the hell out, quickly!

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.


The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.


That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask the
question?









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.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word.

No it isn't. It is *very* different.


But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have
to.

Please tell me where the CollRegs *explicitly* state that a kayak may not
cross the TSS in restricted visibility. At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.


But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can
fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



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.



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?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots
is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on
its own
special circumstances.

Joe claimed that it was safe to travel at 25 kts without any lookout other
than Radar.

There are *NO* special merits at all.

A vessel is obliged to keep a lookout by sight and hearing. No ifs, No
buts. No exceptions. No personal interpretations.

The rule is absolutely crystal clear. It does not allow for any special
circumstances at all.

Perhaps you need to read it again, because you really do not seen to be
able to grasp it.
=================================
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.
=================================




Further, as Rick has claimed, I don't think I can second
guess the courts, and I don't know of any such precedent. However, I
would have
little sympathy for a kayaker who crossed the Bay of Fundy, knowing that
he
would cross the path of the Fast Cat, likely in thick fog. On the other
hand,
there is a 35 knot ferry on the Boston/Salem run that I think should drop
its
speed for the last 3 miles of its trip, rather than the last half mile as
it now
does. The last time I had to use its channel in the fog I was terrified
it was
going to run up my butt! And I have radar and a good reflector. However,
this
is because the Cat uses the small channel that is the only alternative to
the
primary large ship channel - it does this to save 1/4 mile on the trip.



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.

Ah, the "Neal" argument! But you know this is not what we're talking
about.


You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


OK. I'll do that. ... Nope, still no indication you've read them.

Well, at the risk of becoming tiresome [there's a line for you]


=================================
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.
=================================


Have you read this one?




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law says
he shouldn't.

There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.

Until or unless the kayaker impedes the tanker no rules are broken.

You never have a "right" to kill someone on another vessel. Sorry if
that upsets you.

So now you're saying it doesn't matter what you do; someone else will make an
arbitrary decision. Interesting.

Far from arbitrary. They will make an assignment of blame based on the
circumstances and action taken or not taken.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Rick

And ???????
 

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations,
and
its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog
(and
even
that would often be considered excessive). But there are no fixed
rules
for
this.

What do you mean by "no fixed rules"??

Do the ColRegs mention a speed limit? The only say a "safe speed." It is
up to
the captains, local authorities and,with hindsight, the courts, to
determine
what a safe speed is in a given situation.


25kts in fog without a proper lookout is safe?




AFAIK, there are very strict rules that govern the behaviour of vessels
in
fog.

That's the problem. You don't know, but you're assuming there are such
rules.
I thought you took the YachtMaster course - what did they teach you there?

That 25 kts in fog wasn't safe unless you were able to avoid any vessel that
you were likely to meet.

What did they teach you?




Are you suggesting that big ships are exempt from the Coll Regs?

Now you're talking like an idiot. You're assuming there are fixed speed
limit
somewhere in the ColRegs, and I'm advocating ignoring them.

25kts in fog without a proper lookout is safe?






I'm sure the Bar Harbor Fast Cat Ferry doesn't slow much in the fog,

My copy of the Coll Regs does not mention the "Bar Harbour Fast Cat
Ferry".
I was under the impression that the Coll Regs were more authoritive than
your local ferry's skipper.


You're blithering again. Why do you claim the ferry ignores the ColRegs?
I
mention this particular vessel because its speed and route has been
studied
carefully. And it travels regularly in the fog.

No, I am telling you that I don't give a sh%t about the conduct of your "Bar
Harbour Fast Cat Ferry". I prefer to rely on the CollRegs.







and
there is a chance some idiot is crossing the Bay of Fundy in his sea
kayak.


I don't believe that "idiocy" is an issue when trying to determine
"stand
on" status. Am I wrong?


How is "standon status" involved here? Are you claiming that a kayak is
"standon" in the fog? What DO they teach you in YachtMaster class?

Read the CollRegs. There is nothing that says that a kayak should not
cross a TSS. There is at least one rule that says that all vessels must
travel at an appropriate speed *and* keep a proper lookout.






There's always "the slightest chance," someone could be rowing across
the
Atlantic. Should all traffic stop because of a slight possibility?

Read the Coll Regs. I believe that the issue is covered.

Yes it is:

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the
owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences ...
of the neglect of any precaution which
may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case.

This means, amongst other things, that stupid behaiviour is frowned upon.

It also means that you are attempting to place your own personal
interpretation of the rules above the actual wording of the rules.

Let's look at Rule 5 again.
=================================
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.
=================================


What part of the above Rule do you not understand? Is the word "Every"
confusing you? Perhaps you think that "Every" actually means "Some"???

Maybe the bit where it say "at all times" is not very clear to you.

Is it possible that you think that "sight and hearing" actually means
"Radar"?

I could go on with this analysis, but neither of us would enjoy it.





A row boat has the same right as an oil tanker to use the Atlantic. The
Coll Regs were designed to make it safe for both of them.


Sure. If it takes the same precautions. Radar. Radar reflector. Full
time
watch. Frankly, I think long distance single handers are clearly breaking
the
rules.

That is a seperate discussion.







Absolutely. Positively. Meditate on Rule 2 for a while. Every
seaman
would
agree its folly to cross a shipping lane in the fog in a stealth
kayak.


Where can you buy one of these "stealth kayaks"?

Well, this is all a bit hypothetical. You started it questioning if the
ColRegs
require a radar reflector.

Actually, I started it by saying that travelling at 25 kts, in fog, without
any lookout other than a Radar watch, was in contravention of the rules.
You instantly grabbed the end of the stick that was clearly labelled "Wrong
end" and tried to beat me with it. You also made the incorrect assumption
that I have little regard for the CollRegs. You compounded that error by
assuming that I had not studied the CollRegs, and passed an examination.
Finally, you made the greatest error of all. You assumed that my modesty
about my knowledge of the CollRegs meant that I don't take them seriously.











Are you so far out on this limb that you are having to use the concept
of
fictional craft to back up your position?

I haven't bothered to look at Rule 2, .... because your position seems
ludicrous. I have read the Coll Regs in the past, and I believe that
each
vessel has a duty to keep an adequate lookout.

Jeez Donal, is this another case of "I don't know the rules but they must
say
what I think is right"?

No, Jeff. It is another case of "You are so far off base that I can't be
bothered to get the CollRegs out."







You seem to be suggesting that vessels have an obligation to be seen!!!

Well Golly! I think you're finally catching on!!! The court's have
ruled over
and over again that a vessel forfeits its rights (I know this isn't the
right
way to say this) if it doesn't show proper lights, or sound the proper
signals.

I agree. However, a kayak does NOT have to show any lights in daylight
fog. Nobody has suggested in this thread that the kayak was not making
sound signals.


They have also held that its OK travel at some speed if a proper radar
watch is
maintained.

Are you saying that the courts have overturned the CollRegs??
I would be very interested to see a reference of some sort. Can you
provide any evidence to back this up?


They have also held that vessels shouldn't leave dock, or cross
channels if they don't have radar.

Good Grief! I wouldn't like to suggest that you were being enonomical
with the truth, but could you tell us more about this?

Of course. How does a vessel without radar do this in the fog?

By travelling slowly ... and keeping a lookout. If the fog is very
thick,
then the vessel travels *very* slowly.


You mean like not crossing a shipping lane?

The rules also apply to the vessels in the shipping lane, don't they?


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"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.

Why not?

Are you claiming that all traffic should
stop in thick fog?

No! All vessels should not exceed a safe speed.


This is clearly not what happens. The laws and the court
rulings allow continuing, within limits, on radar alone.

The CollRegs do not allow travelling 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.
=================================


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?

I'm simply suggesting that the CollRegs should apply.

Earlier, you claimed that I didn't know the CollRegs. Now you seem to be
claiming that commercial considerations should outweigh the CollRegs.
Which is it, Jeff?



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

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

"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.

I can see a chunk of ice the size of a kayak or smaller on the radar.
Ice doesn't carry radar reflectors and is only half a metre or less
above the surface. It is possible.

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.

With that I agree, but it depends on the circumstances. People by &
large can ride bicycles on most roads here in Australia, and do, mixing
with traffic weighing 100X as much and moving 4X as fast. I regard this
as stupid behaviour and give them as much room as possible, but I'm not
going to travel at bicycle speeds just on the off-chance that they
might wander in front of me. Not doing stupid manoeuvres is their
responsibility, mine is to drive predictably so they can figure out
where I'm going to be. I don't see the situation on water as all that
different *if* we're talking about a busy commercial waterway. You can
argue Colregs & road rules all you like and courts may or may not
decide certain actions were imprudent but *none* of that will
invalidate the laws of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum. I
rode motorcycles for years and I can assure you that following the
rules is poor consolation when you're lying in a hospital bed after an
idiot car driver didn't.

Once again, I don't disagree.

A Google will show that I never expect the other boat to know the Regs, be
sober, or to even be in command of his/her vessel.

I run a "dry" boat, but I don't agree with legistlation about alcohol for
pleasure boat sailors.

I believe in the "freedom of the seas".


I also believe that doing 25kts in a busy waterway, relying on a radar as
your only lookout, is stupid.



Regards


Donal
--