And ???????
 

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

I never said that - Here's the original quote:

The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

I absolutely never "stated categorically that it was illegal"; that is a
boldface, cowardly lie!

There is one place that I said that I didn't think they had the right to do it,
but that was after I said that the ColRegs never talks about "rights," something
we know you understand. And I'll stand by that: I don't think someone has the
right to do something where the inevitable result is breaking the law and
endangering people. They may have the "legal right" to do it, but that doesn't
mean that they have the right to do it. And while you may not agree with me, it
isn't a outrageous position to take. There are many ways to define "rights"
and many legal actions that most would agree someone doesn't have the right to
do.

The only time I mentioned the ColRegs was to claim that rules 9 and 10 (and
possibly 2) imply that the kayak shouldn't be there because they state
responsibilities that the kayak can't fulfill. I've agreed that it isn't
strictly illegal until a vessel is impeded, you've agreed that being there is
probably foolish and foolhardy. Why are you so bent out of shape? Take some
medication, Rick!


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

Where did I say it was illegal? Another lie!


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.


Saying "they have no business being there" or "they shouldn't be there" is not
the same as claiming its illegal or prohibited. This is all your fantasy!


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

There is a big difference between saying some is wrong and something is illegal.
You seem to have missed that.

And ???????
 

I'm the one with the agenda. It's obvious.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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

And ???????
 

Uh, oh. I hope the conspiracy cops don't see this!


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I'm the one with the agenda. It's obvious.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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

And ???????
 

comments interspersed:

Rick wrote:
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.

I believe we've been discussing "fog", no visibility. The kayaker may
have a hand held radio, but it's range will be highly limited, so his
immediate knowledge of traffic density may also be, coupled with the
fact that he'll have little if any ability to determine CPA's or best
maneuvers, and as we all agree, will be a poor radar as well as visual
target..... so, although you're above factors are part of the mix to
determine "good seamanship", I could/would probably argue their status
of importance, overall.

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.

Good seamanship might involve sitting still in the separation zone and
waiting for clearing or the possible assistance of another vessel,
either with radar or a visual fix, to guide you safely across and clear
of the TSS.

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

G Especially since there be a couple of good bars and hotels there, to
wait things out.

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


See above.

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.

In fog, I can't see any of the above as being all that good .... ears,
lie in fog .... eyes, can't always see far enough .... a hand held
radio, may be of some assistance ... a flashlight, limited in usefulness
in fog (especially if you expect some ship to be able to see it)..... a
portable GPS, useful, but......

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
I disagree. I think it means that due regard to the dangers of crossing
the TSS may mean it's not a good idea and should be avoided in a kayak,
in fog, AND I think rule 2 is saying that.
In clear visibility, the kayaker may cross, as long as it doesn't
impede, but in fog, it's ability to proceed safely in a known area of
high traffic density, will be limited and require a departure from that
rule.
I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

otn

And ???????
 

Even paranoid people can have people following them....

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Uh, oh. I hope the conspiracy cops don't see this!


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I'm the one with the agenda. It's obvious.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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

And ???????
 

otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family
activity. I wouldn't do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century
of (mostly) successful zero vis high speed navigation up an
down the inside passage between Seattle and Alaska. Those
waters were heavily populated with small tugs, dugout
canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and ill
equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that
record but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful
passages through some of the most restricted waters on the
planet speaks to the value of the eye and ear.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

And ???????
 

I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998 it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the national average.

--
-jeff

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family
activity. I wouldn't do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century
of (mostly) successful zero vis high speed navigation up an
down the inside passage between Seattle and Alaska. Those
waters were heavily populated with small tugs, dugout
canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and ill
equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that
record but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful
passages through some of the most restricted waters on the
planet speaks to the value of the eye and ear.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

And ???????
 

Sounds like terrorism to me. I think we should get Tom Ridgid involved
immediately.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational
boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998
it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the
national average.

--
-jeff

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just
the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family
activity. I wouldn't do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century
of (mostly) successful zero vis high speed navigation up an
down the inside passage between Seattle and Alaska. Those
waters were heavily populated with small tugs, dugout
canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and ill
equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that
record but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful
passages through some of the most restricted waters on the
planet speaks to the value of the eye and ear.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998 it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the national average.

I think we need more regulations! They must be guilty of
something!

Rick

And ???????
 

Kayaks should be required to have radar, including a dedicated watch.


"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:
I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational
boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998
it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the
national average.

I think we need more regulations! They must be guilty of
something!

Rick