poor you!

Cheers

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

Jeff Morris wrote:

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to.

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

What a load of crap. Kayaks were designed and built for
travel in the open waters of the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska. Kayaks regularly travel the open waters of the North
Pacific from Vancouver Island to Alaska and the Aleutians.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality?

Designer? I don't think who designed it matters to anyone.
If you meant the design, then you're the one who said it
made a kayak illegal, not me.

If a boat can hold only one person that person is the total
crew required to fulfill any and all regulatory requirements.

If I design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

Not if it can maintain a speed below 100 knots when 100
knots is unsafe.

Tautology? You are the one arguing ad nauseum that paddling
a kayak in fog is illegal.


Rick

Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."
That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

It seems to me that by claiming a couple of posts in the dozens
made by you is blustering, etc., and calling me names, you've
made the case quite eloquently that you can't defend your position.
I have not obfuscated one single thing in any of my posts. If you
think I'm wrong, you can simply ignore me, or, if you're game,
talk to a CG office and see what they say.

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Rick asked:

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

And stated:

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.

To which Ganz replied:

The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

So that bit of opinion, blustering, righteous indignation,
and bickering pretty much wraps this up.

Your answer would make Jax or Nil extremely proud that they
have an apprentice in the seedy business of obfuscation and
evasive responses to simple questions.

Rick

??

"MC" wrote in message
...
poor you!

Cheers

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of
good seamanship?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Just curious.

otn

Rick wrote:
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

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."

Good, that is precisely the point that it was so difficult
to get across.

The original poster ... long since lost in the fog ...
stated categorically that it was illegal, prohibited by
COLREGS. The fact is it is not and that was what I was
trying so hard to get across.

Anyone posting that an act is illegal when it is not is
doing a great disservice to those who come here for information.

That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot recall any post by any
poster claiming kayaking in dense fog across a busy shipping
channel or VTS was prudent. Every single poster other than
myself claimed without qualification that there was one
reason or another that it was illegal, prohibited, or a
violation of some such clause of some law or another.

There is a big difference between stupid and illegal, most
of the posters here seem to have trouble differentiating.

Rick

otnmbrd wrote:

Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of good
seamanship?

It all depends on the distance, volume of traffic,
visibility, and local knowledge combined with communications
available.

If I were halfway across Puget Sound or Jaun de Fuca,
between the lanes and got caught in fog good seamanship
would be required to get back to shore, wouldn't it.

Leaving Port Angeles for Victoria in a zero vis fog would
not be the act of a prudent mariner.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?

See above.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?

See above. A good ear, a pair of eyes, a handheld radio and
a flashlight might do the job nicely. Most seakayakers carry
much much more in this part of the world.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Due regard? All that means is being aware both situationally
and "environmentally" and being prepared for any reasonable
but unplanned circumstance that might arise. The same regard
as any prudent marine would take before leaving the dock.

Rick

Not sure who you're asking, but....

No. None of these. While not technically illegal, that person would
probably be removed from the scene if the CG happened on them
or someone reported them... which I will neither confirm nor deny.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of
good seamanship?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Just curious.

otn

Rick wrote:
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

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

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to.

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.


You've regularly snipped the majority of of my comments because you refused to address them. You
even snipped my answer to this question so you could make your lame point.You're a real piece of
work, Rick!

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

What a load of crap. Kayaks were designed and built for
travel in the open waters of the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska. Kayaks regularly travel the open waters of the North
Pacific from Vancouver Island to Alaska and the Aleutians.


Finally a relevant point. Of course, the Bering Sea is not quite the Dover Straights, and the
tourons that bought their kayak at LL Bean last week are not in the same league as the
Native-American paddlers, but you do have a point.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality?

Designer? I don't think who designed it matters to anyone.
If you meant the design, then you're the one who said it
made a kayak illegal, not me.

When did I say it was illegal? I said "they had no business out there." THat's an opinion that
they should be there. You keep claiming I don't have a right to an opinion, and that no except the
courts and you have the right to comment on the law.


If a boat can hold only one person that person is the total
crew required to fulfill any and all regulatory requirements.


That's the law? I'd certainly like to see that one! Its not in the ColRegs.



Tautology? You are the one arguing ad nauseum that paddling
a kayak in fog is illegal.

No, I didn't say that. You're the one saying that I claim my opinion has the force of law. Its my
opinion, and its shared by almost everyone, including you. But it isn't the law.

Rick wrote:

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Hey!! I thought *I* was the one with an agenda, and I resent having to share it with
Jeff!

DSK