MC wrote:

No, you owe me! I posted the name boat that, in a comparable size range,
has a higher LPS than a Micro.

1- no, you didn't
2- even if you had, I had to explain the bet five times and let a week or more go by
while you furiously searched & searched for an answer that you hoped would fool
somebody.


Therefore you lose. It's that simple.

Correct, except for one small detail.


....Since you will keep acting in this childish way I will have no
further discussions with you.

That'd be great. Send a check and quit posting to this newsgroup.

DSK

MC wrote:

...
Next he'll become abusive...

Meaning Rick? You two make quite a handsome couple.

DSK

MC wrote:

...
Next he'll become abusive...

Meaning Rick? You two make quite a handsome couple.

DSK

MC wrote:

...
Next he'll become abusive...

Meaning Rick? You two make quite a handsome couple.

DSK

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

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

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you
know
you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in
the
fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.


So tell us. What do you think the ColRegs say? Especially regarding
kayaks in
a VTS. You keep saying that I should read the book, but its looking like
you
never have.

Jeff, Instead of posing "loaded" questions, why don't you post some facts?

You've asked about the CollRegs position on kayaks. Why don't you post the
relevant rule? The answer is simple. There isn't a rule that forbids the
passage of kayaks through a TSS in fog.


If you disagree with me, then post the rule.

You cannot .... because it doesn't exist.

Get real, Jeff!




Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to
follow
the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can
assume
that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules.

You stated very little "plainly." But you started by saying they have the
same
rights as everyone; I claim they have different obligations.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? The CollRegs apply equally to all
vessels at sea.





If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

No. You started this by claiming the kayak has the right to cross
shipping
lanes in fog. Since the ColRegs specifically say they can't impede a
power-driven vessel in the VTS, they would be violating the rules just the
same
as the vessel that behaves erratically.

No, Jeff. They wouldn't..... not unless they actually *impeded* a genuine
TSS user.

There is no guarantee that a kayak would actually impede a TSS user,
therefore your arguement is totally invalid.

Furthermore, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the rules, then the
commercial ships would have to stop, wouldn't they? We all know that this
is not what happens in reality.








you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak
is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to
impede the
tanker.

I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS.


Bull****. You're saying he has the right to do it unless he doesn't. The
ColRegs say he doesn't have the right to impede. Without radar, in the
fog the
kayak can't tell if he might be impeding. Therefore, he shouldn't be
there.
Its really very simple. You're just so wound up pontificating that you
can't
see this.

The CollRegs also state that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed. Using
your (twisted) logic, all commercial vessels should come to a complete halt
in thick fog.




I am not going to waste a bunch of time on this with you, if you can't
comprehend the fact that there is no compilation of precise rules to
cover each and every possible combination of weather, visibility,
traffic, vessel type, and operator mindset then you should stay home or
at least stay away from other boats in all conditions.

I think this should apply to you.

You don't appear to "think" at all.




What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.


You haven't given any answers. You've only claimed you know everthing
and your
not sharing.

Sorry, Jeff. You are the person who appears inconsistent.

You are claiming that a kayaker must keep out of fog because he *might*
breach a CollReg. At the same time you suggest that commercial vessels may
definitely breach a CollReg, or two(safe speed & lookout).

You are obviously nuts!




Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"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.



Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.


They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.

You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.




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.)

Twit!




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?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.







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?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?

You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.







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?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.








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."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?


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.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

The rules apply to everybody.

Regards


Donal
--

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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?


Why not?


Do we not have free access to the sea?

Does somebody own the sea?




Regards


Donal
--

"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.
=================

Absolutely correct!




Regards


Donal
--

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

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....

Yeah but technology has moved on since those days.

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....

Wouldn't work with my ship. CP prop, you'd need to declutch fast and
the engines/gearboxes don't like that.....

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!

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities,

All rights are balanced by responsibilities.


Have you forgotton where I came in on this?

25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway, with no lookout other than
radar???????


Please, Peter, try to be sensible!


Regards


Donal
--

I don't know ... do water jet propulsors cavitate in full reverse?

Or is it possible that this system adjusts the throttle automatically for
maximum thrust?


"MC" wrote in message
...
Good lord. Do they really think that full astern the best way to slow a
fast vessel? Do you think they felt the extreme cavitation?

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

This is for a vessel 91 meters long, d5617 tons, carrying 900 passenges and
240
cars.

From the accident report:
"After the collision, a speed trial was performed on board the "INCAT 046"
with
three engines in service, as they were the night of the collision, to
determine
the crash stop distance of the vessel. This was done by taking her to a
preset
speed and then setting the engine control to 100 per cent power astern. At a
speed of 10 knots the ferry was able to come to a complete stop within 111
m, in
about 30 seconds. The speed was then increased to 14 knots and the test
performed again. The ferry was able to stop within 163 m, in about 45
seconds."

From a Navy evaluation:
"In addition, it demonstrated the capability of performing a "crashback"
(i.e.,
coming to a dead stop) from 46 knots in just a third of a mile. This is
amazing
for a vessel of this size, especially compared to a modern aircraft carrier
that
requires approximately 2 miles to stop."
http://www.tea.army.mil/pubs/nr/depl...HSSarticle.pdf

I admit this isn't pulling that many G's, but out of 900 people, many of
which
could be walking around, I'm sure they would end up with more than one
lawsuit.

BTW, this was originally built for the Bass Strait run.


"MC" wrote in message
...

Do you really mean 10 knots to full stop in 110 meters? If so, that's a
fairly gentle stop from a slow 'fast cat'.

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:


"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it

does

an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full

stop in

110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?