"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

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

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

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

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.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.



Regards


Donal
--

G Interesting thread .... shame I can't totally agree and/or disagree,
with anyone.
There are some boats with some operators, under some conditions where I
would consider 25k, in fog, reasonable and safe. There are some boats
with some operators, under some conditions where I would consider 25k,
in fog, unsafe .... etc.
Simply because someone is running in fog, on radar, does not mean they
don't have a lookout.
Safe speed can be 25k, one minute, and 0 k, the next .... most high
speed ferries can stop in their own length .... so forth and so
on....... Rule 2 applies to all at all times, under all conditions.

G

otn

Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout. Where did
I say that

Comments interspersed ...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"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.

If you were close enough to see a lookout on the bow, and this was real fog, you
were probably impeding their progress and in violation of the rules.

I hope you realize that fog signals are very unreliable for determining
direction and distance.



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.

You're right. They forbid the small boat from impeding the progress of the
large one. How do you propose to do that?




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

What makes you think that I said that?


Because you followed a claim that you studied the rules with the claim that you
cross the channel in the fog. Forgive me for assuming there's some coherence to
your thoughts.



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

But you claim its the "ordinary practice of seamen" to cross shipping lanes in
the fog without one. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to you?


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.

That's very good. If you thought you had zero radar visibility, would you be so
eager to cross in the fog?

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.

So doesn't this mean that the kayaker that ignores the rules does so at his own
risk? You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?




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?

Now you're putting words in my mouth - I never advocating this. In fact, quite
the contrary. Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is only permitted where small boat would not be likely
to travel. Vessels regularly do things in the middle of the ocean that would
not be permitted under rule 2 in an inner harbor.


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

In fact, the reason I brought this up is that I've heard kayaker claim, more
than once, that they obviously have right-of-way over large ships. Fortunately,
most sea kayakers know this is not true.


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

So if I said drunks don't belong on the road, you would call me stupid for
thinking there are no drunks? Why is it so hard to believe that I'm extra
cautious because I know there are a few kayakers dumb enough to be were they
don't belong?


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.

Again with the stupid comments! How many times do I have to say I'm not
endorsing Joe's actions?


...
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.

Perhaps I should repeat what I said befo

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

I also claimed that with the lookout, a boat is effectively running on radar
alone if there is zero visibility. This is accepted practice in many areas,
including TSS zones, and offshore. In spite of what you think the ColRegs mean,
it is permitted by local authorities and the courts.

You're the one who keeps adding "25 knots" and "busy waters." I've never
suggested this is appropriate.



=================================
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?


It doesn't. Where did I ever say it did? I only said that in zero visibility a
vessel is effectively on radar alone. What part of this do you not understand?
Your kayaker, in zero visibility has no input? Why is this better?

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.

I misquoted? Now you're just lying. Whenever I've quoted the ColRegs I've
extracted the text directly and indicte it as such.

I said, not quoting but paraphrasing "The rules are quite also explicit that the
rowboat should avoid crossing a VTS channel." The rule actually says "A vessel
shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes ..." Its a pretty
big stretch to call this a "misquote"!


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

Your correct. My claim has been that the ColRegs forbid the kayak from impeding
the progress of vessels, and that in the fog, it is impossible to fulfill this
obligation. Although I've said this a number of times, you haven't addressed
this at all.



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


Let me repeat, the ColRegs state an obligation that is impossible for the kayak
to fulfill. How do you refure this?


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.

When did I ever claim a lookout is not needed? You keep makeing this up. When
did I ever claim a kayak could never be expected on a river in a fog? You're
just making this up.

Let me ask you this: Do you think drunks should be allowed to drive? If you
answered no, do you assume there are never drunks on the road?




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.


Which side do you think I'm on?

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.


You're lying here again. Where did I say that?


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.

No. I think you're unable to read what I've said. You have this fantasy That
I'm advocating something I'm not.

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.

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be? This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the kayak
should not be there.



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.

Then how does the kayak ensure it will not impede a vessel? This is the
essential point you keep ignoring.



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?

You've claimed repeatedly that the kayak has the right to be there. Are you
agreeing now that there are limitation on its behavior?

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.

Can you explain how the kayak avoids impeding vessels it cannot see?

At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.

Can you explain why you keep bringing this up? I never said a lookout is not
needed. BTW, what kind of lookout do you think the kayak can maintain in the
middle of the English Channel? How well can it see in the chop and swells?



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.

As I've said many times, I'm not defending Joe's comments. However, IIRC, he
didn't quite say that, he merely implied that in low visibility most of the
input is from the 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.


You really have an obsession with this, don't you?

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

OK, I agree. I always agreed. I never said anything different.


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


Wow. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't read. Here's quotes of mine,
all taken from responses to you. I feels like you haven't read one of them:

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

"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). "

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

"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."

"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)."

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.

Cheers,
Jeff

You might not agree with all I've said, but I think I can agree (as usual) with
what you've said.

I'm curious: I've claimed at times that Rule 2 has some very deep implications
that require reasonable behavior. In particular, if 99% of "seamen" consider
some practice foolish, it probably violates rule 2. If they consider it
reasonable, it is probably "legal" under rule 2. In this case I might apply
this concept to rowboats in shipping lanes in the fog. How do you feel about
this? Am I stretching it, or is this an appropriate use of rule 2?


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
news
G Interesting thread .... shame I can't totally agree and/or disagree,
with anyone.
There are some boats with some operators, under some conditions where I
would consider 25k, in fog, reasonable and safe. There are some boats
with some operators, under some conditions where I would consider 25k,
in fog, unsafe .... etc.
Simply because someone is running in fog, on radar, does not mean they
don't have a lookout.
Safe speed can be 25k, one minute, and 0 k, the next .... most high
speed ferries can stop in their own length .... so forth and so
on....... Rule 2 applies to all at all times, under all conditions.

G

otn

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

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

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

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

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.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You really were
trolling, weren't you?

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

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

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

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

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.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

Which lookout is for all practical purposes useless as his vision is
less than the stopping distance in the case of large commercial
shipping. I stipulate the Colregs says there must be one, but there's
little point. My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs. If a kayaker
gets reduced to berley we can give them a Darwin award. Stupidity has
its consequences and they weren't obeying the Colregs because if they
got hit, they were obviously in a position to impede the commercial
vessel in the shipping lane. So sad, too bad.

I'm not allowed to run down pedestrians on the road but courts have
aquitted drivers who've run over & killed people asleep/drunk lying in
the road, on the rare occasion that a charge has been laid. There's a
reasonable assumption that such activities won't happen and when they
do, too damn bad for the idiot.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

PDW

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
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?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.


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.

So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other vessels will
be there? I suppose I might agree, but it seems rather pointless. But this
logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the risk"
of a collision.)


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


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I would
ignore the possibility that it might be there. Just the opposite is true -
because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?


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?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs. Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk, you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?




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.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker." That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with yourself
if someone died based on your advice?



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?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS." Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk." If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then you have
no business starting out.

Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the way
back to Hanseatic cogs....



The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....



In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

No excuse for that IMHO.



The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he can't
get run over twice!


If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

But a certain C&C 32 might leave an ugly smear.....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Read carefully because I am not going to bother with this anymore. You
have become Nil.


Jeff Morris wrote:


Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the kayak
complies with this in the fog.

Until and unless the kayaker impedes a vessel it is not impeding a
vessel. What part of that is so tricky for you to understand. The mere
presence of the kayak in the waterway in fog does not constitute a
hazard to navigation or an impediment to any vessel.


I would also claim its in violation of rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.

I would claim your position is absurd and groundless.


So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other vessels will
be there?

The kayak has every right to be there and is under no obligation to
guarantee anything. It only has an obligation to not impede a vessel
operating in the VTS and to adhere to the COLREGS.

You are bound and determined to find some semantic method to get someone
to say or imply that the kayak has "rights" of some sort that you don't
agree with ... you are wasting your time and mine.


logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the risk"
of a collision.)

Think whatever you like. The CG officer is much closer to the truth than
you are. If you go 100 knots and don't have a wreck then nobody will say
much. When you do wreck at that speed everyone will have something to say.


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I would
ignore the possibility that it might be there.

I wrote or thought no such thing, you are becoming delusional now. A
competent master would never ignore the possibility of anything and will
operate accordingly.

because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

This seems to reflect the problem you are having. Operating a vessel is
not an activity that can be defined and controlled by a set of unbending
and finite rules. It is not like programming a logic controller. You
seem to require a book of instructions, a guide for each decision and a
response to every possible input. Life on the bridge just doesn't follow
your need for handholding.

Yes, you must assume that if a kayak is there and is crossing the
channel, it is doing so at right angles and will avoid coming under your
bows. If it angles into your path and you run it over then the CG will
determine and apportion blame. If the kayak screwed up royally you
probably will not get much blame. If you were going 30 knots the outcome
will probably be very much different.


However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

If I were to take your position I would say you were insane and
violating the rules to row your dinghy in the anchorage because you
expect other boats to avoid you.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Your understanding is not required. They have a right to be there. They
have an obligation to follow the COLREGS.


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs. Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there.

Just why, pray tell, can it not "fulfill the obligations of the
COLREGS?" It is not terribly obvious.


Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it can't
or won't comply with the regulations?

You are making assumptions that you simply have no evidence, no all
seeing eye to make. Just what tells you the kayak cannot comply? If the
kayaker chooses to not comply that is a different story and has nothing
to do with what you think kayaks as a class of vessel should be or are
allowed to do.

Your personal opinions are not the controlling regulations. You will
operate your vessel in accordance with the COLREGS and the VTS rules,
not by what you "believe" to be the "right" way. If you don't then be
ready and willing to accept the judgment of those who do see the
difference between your opinion and personal need for order, and the
reality of maritime law and operations.



For all of your theoretical talk, you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?

I don't see why one couldn't. Ships and boats of all sizes and types
have fulfilled that obligation in reduced visibility for many
generations without benefit of radar, gps, or lawyers.


It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker." That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Not only is it "linguistically true" it is operationally true. Like it
or not, whether it scares the **** out of you, it is legal and practical
and happens often enough to keep people like you upset. The only
bull**** in this thread is from you claiming that some classes of vessel
have no "right" to operate where and when it makes you nervous and
confuses your limited comprehension of vessel operations.

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

No one needs my advice to go kayaking or not. This is still a "free
country" in many aspects and where and when someone chooses to go
kayaking is still one of those freedoms.

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS." Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk." If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then you have
no business starting out.

Got some news for you, "in accordance with the COLREGS" is the nearest
you are ever going to get in your search for the guidebook of what to do
when and where. If you insist on "winging it" prepare for a fall. If you
need more than that then you have little business on the water in other
than clear daylight operations with no other vessels within sight. But
before you get too comfortable make sure you know the signals for a
submarine surfacing ... just in case.

And few results of any action are all that obvious when examined by a CG
hearing officer in a marine accident board. Judging by your comments in
this thread, what is "obvious" to you might have difficulty staying
afloat in a CG hearing room.


Rick

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

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

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible to
run under radar alone.


Regards


Donal
--