And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

.... and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

The only one whining (or hurling feeble insults) is you.

DSK

And ???????
 

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

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Good, leave it at that and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your inability to accept the vagaries of the COLREGS is
getting really boring.

So where does it say in the rules I'm not allowed to bore you?

I stopped replying to you because it was clear you had no interest in the aspect
of this I found most interesting, but since you insist:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.
Frankly, I wasn't thinking in terms of ColRegs, other than perhaps Rule 2(a).
"Having business" or even "having the right" are not terms from the ColRegs,
they are judgment calls on my part about the propriety of the actions. I didn't
even mention the ColRegs until you insisted that was the issue.

I didn't contest your claim that until the kayak actually impedes a vessel its
not in violation of Rule 10. My point has been that starting out on a venture
will likely result in a situation where the kayak is unable to fulfill its
obligations is wrong. You've agreed it may be foolish and foolhardy. You
agreed that the kayak would likely be held liable (though the large ship may
also have some liability). The real issue for you seems to be whether its
appropriate for us to judge an action before the law has been broken.

My feeling is that if someone says "There's a fair chance I will be in
violation, and I have no intention or ability to prevent this from happening,"
then I can say he has no business doing it. Whether he has the "right" to do it
depends on how you define "right." It doesn't necessarily stem from legalities
of the ColRegs.

As for the ColRegs, they are designed to prevent collisions, or perhaps its
better to say "reduce the risk of collision" when vessels are in proximity.
Basing your whole argument on what the rules say when the kayak is not in
proximity to other vessels is not very interesting. However, when the kayak is
in proximity to other vessels in a shipping lane, it has neither the ability to
see or be seen, and likely has no means of taking effective action to make the
situation better. This, I think you might agree to. At this point the kayak
is leaving to blind chance whether it impedes, causes a collision, or otherwise
violates the rules.

My claim is that while up until the moment this happens the kayak may not be in
violation of the letter of the law, deliberately putting oneself in this
situation violates the spirit of the law. I claim this is wrong, and I claim
the ColRegs imply it is wrong.

I'll toss one more thing out for consideration:
Rule 5 (Lookout) says that a lookout must be maintained "at all times." There
is no qualification that allows you to say that the rule isn't broken until
there's an incident. Its very simply, a vessel without a proper lookout is in
violation. The courts have held that this is especially true in the fog, and
that the lookout must have no other duty assigned, other than to be a lookout.
Again, in the fog the "dedicated" lookout is considered essential and mandatory.
Its always been standard procedure on my boats, and others I've been on, that
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation; and I've usually told someone
explicitly that they are the dedicated lookout. Since this is effectively
impossible for the kayak to fulfill this obligation, he is in violation. Any
special consideration we might give to a single-hander of a larger boat in good
weather, is forfeited by the kayaker. Proceeding promptly across a channel
requires significant effort, maintaining a true course requires focus on the
compass, simply maintaining stability in the ocean requires focus on the water
ahead. There is no stretch of the imagination that allows you to say that the
kayak is fulfilling its obligation to maintain a lookout; it is in violation
regardless of whether other vessels are impeded.

Sorry if this bores you Rick.

Cheers,
Jeff

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.

And you are wrong in your belief that the kayak "has no
business" being in shipping lanes in the fog. It has as much
"business" there as any other vessel.

There is no law against it. Your choice to make no reference
to or claim about the COLREGS only shows that you chose to
avoid reference to the only law that governs such activities
and which very clearly contradicts your "belief."

Whether it is wise, an example of good judgment, or sane to
do so is not part of the law. The fact is the kayak has as
much "business" there as an aircraft carrier, a tanker, a
Bayliner, or a daysailer. The COLREGS do not give
"commercial vessels" any particular rights.

You can dig as deep as you like, interpret COLREGS any way
you like but the fact remains that the kayak has every right
to be there. When you are asked to sit on a CG accident
investigation board you may inject your beliefs. Until then
your beliefs have absolutely no impact on the facts of what
any other boater is permitted to do.

Rick

And ???????
 

I've watched this argument go from somewhat logical to somewhat
absurd. At first, I think you all had valid points, however, you guys
seem to have brought this disagreement down to the lowest common
denominator... bickering.

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

It may not be technically illegal, but I'm willing to be that if the CG
spotted a kayaker in the middle of the bay in heavy fog and bad
conditions, they would pluck him out immediately. They would not
wait for it to become dangerous or for him to impede traffic, because
it would already be dangerous.

The kayaker, with some exceptions probably, has no business in
these conditions whether or not he causes a problem with a tanker.

I don't know about "wise," but having good judgement is exactly what
the CG would be looking at as they retrieved someone. For example,
if there was a kayaker out there in bad conditions, but he had with him
a chase boat, then the CG would probably not do anything. If though,
the person was out there by himself, I'm convinced they would come up
close, assess the situation carefully, and probably pull him.

Now if you guys are going to continue to bicker, you might want to just
get a room somewhere. You're starting to sound like you're married...
to each other!

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

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the
ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in
the fog.

And you are wrong in your belief that the kayak "has no
business" being in shipping lanes in the fog. It has as much
"business" there as any other vessel.

There is no law against it. Your choice to make no reference
to or claim about the COLREGS only shows that you chose to
avoid reference to the only law that governs such activities
and which very clearly contradicts your "belief."

Whether it is wise, an example of good judgment, or sane to
do so is not part of the law. The fact is the kayak has as
much "business" there as an aircraft carrier, a tanker, a
Bayliner, or a daysailer. The COLREGS do not give
"commercial vessels" any particular rights.

You can dig as deep as you like, interpret COLREGS any way
you like but the fact remains that the kayak has every right
to be there. When you are asked to sit on a CG accident
investigation board you may inject your beliefs. Until then
your beliefs have absolutely no impact on the facts of what
any other boater is permitted to do.

Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
So when you say "well within the bounds of most people to easily stay upright"
does that mean that out of 900 tourists given no warning, a number would land on
their butt?

Possibly, but I didn't consider the sensation to be all that greater
than correcting for normal seaway motion when moving .... just longer in
duration.

How quickly does the thrust get reversed? 35 knots is 60 feet/second - if it
takes several seconds to do the reverse, that leaves well under a boatlength for
the serious deceleration.

I couldn't give you numbers, but the maneuver consist of moving a "pot"
over the "jet" thrust to redirect flow and I'd put it in the 2-3 second
category.

This reminds me of another question I've had for a "pro." How quickly do you
figure a helmsman would react to a hazard in the water, especially given no
warning. For combat situations, I've heard it varies between a second or two
for the pro, to about 6 seconds for the civilian. From my own experience, I
feel like I respond pretty quickly if an event is something that I'm
anticipating, but the last I had a "close encounter" in the I was disappointed
that I felt like 2 or 3 seconds passed before I reacted. However, I was able
to do a crash stop before things got hairy, the T-boat that would have hit me
never flinched.

-jeff

Tough to say and would depend on many factors, not the least of which is
the particular helmsman (pro or civilian). One big factor will be
experience level .... to see, assess, understand, and react, based on
past experience with similar situations. The attention level of the
particular helmsman (either pro or civilian) at the right moment will be
another factor.

otn

And ???????
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

And ???????
 

You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

And ???????
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

And in your case, bickering.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?


Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

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

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the
ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without
interpretation.

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


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog
(with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


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

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?


The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions. The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.


Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.



Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the
law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?






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.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak
has no
business out there.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.




So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be
there.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?




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?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


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.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with
hundreds
of thousands of passages.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?




Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee,"
its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to
avoid
impeding.





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.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that
I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way
and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by
my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed
that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have
someone
think its OK to be out there.


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?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in
accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it
don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill
its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained
its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the
ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25
knots?




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.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs
is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only
claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my
logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much
from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS,
only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting
oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in
itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly
lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are
specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with
vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?



Regards


Donal
--