And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

What do you think the backseater does on the 2-place models?

Rick

And ???????
 

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

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

What do you think the backseater does on the 2-place models?

Serve drinks?

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:
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.

G A different time, of many fewer boats and the majority who did it as
a profession, not a weekend recreation. We can talk of all those who
made these trips, but we can't ignore all those who tried and failed,
because they had limited resources.

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.

Here we could disagree. If the kayak, without radio, approaches a known
TSS, in fog, and continues on across that TSS, then, it may not be
illegal, it may not violate a regulation, but it definitely goes against
the issues of good judgment, common sense, good seamanship, and prudent
behavior, considering the conditions ..... which violates Rule 2.

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

This whole thing started out because someone could not accept that some
activities which they think are insane may be quite commonly performed
by some people with a higher degree of experience and equipment in some
areas, but should not be attempted by the average operator of a
recreational boat. What is totally foolhardy or imprudent to some, is
not necessarily so for others, be they commercial or recreational boater.

In addition, the interpretation of rule two and how it applies to
actions one should, should not, could, could not, will, will not take,
is open for discussion .... I personally put a high degree of emphasis
on this particular rule, as I consider it the catch all, of all rules
..... if it isn't specifically written .... then Rule 2, covers it.

otn

And ???????
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:48:23 -0500, 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....



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....
Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good, even using the astern throttle to
stop the shaft won't stop it before the ship runs over the kayaker. Someone who
kayaks in shipping lanes in reduced visibility must want a 'Darwin Award'
really, really bad.

JJ




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

James Johnson
remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply

And ???????
 

otnmbrd wrote:

A bunch of stuff with which I can find little to disagree.

So, can we all have a nice group hug, it is getting dark and
foggy here and I want to go kayaking in the Lake Union Ship
Canal.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Rick" , sounding more like Jax every day, wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with
the law
is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted
to
say
that, am I?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to. But I already agreed: Yes, in
all
cases where one is compliant with a law, one is compliant with the law.
But
trying to prove something with a tautology just makes you look like a
fool.


So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such
as
not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by
the
ColRegs.

It isn't my usual style to respond like this, but I feel that in this
instance it is necessary to let you know my true feelings.
"Awww for F*cks sake!!"

The CollRegs do not discuss suitability!


This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

Rubbish.



And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality? If I
design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

Read the CollRegs. It is covered.




And while the ColRegs don't specifically mandate crew size, it is the role
of
the courts to interpret the meaning of a "proper lookout." The have
stated in
many opinions, that in the fog, lookouts must be dedicated seamen, so that
they
can "exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken." They have
specifically stated that in the fog, the lookout duties cannot be shared
with
the helmsman.

You are the person who started this by thinking that a Radar watch was
sufficient.


And while small boats are given some leeway in good visibility,
or close to shore, they are not exempt in the fog.

Please quote an instance where the courts have suggested that a kayak needed
somebody standing on the bow to keep a lookout. I suspect that you have
really gone off the deep end in your attempts to keep your ludicrous
position alive.



And as you know, the opinions of the courts effectively become part of the
law,
and it is the duty of a master to be familiar with them. Or did that go
over
your head?

As I have already asked - please provide specific references.

Perhaps it is time that you took me up on my offer to let you off the
hook???
Trolling, or ignorant???



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

ROFL

otn

Rick wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

A bunch of stuff with which I can find little to disagree.

So, can we all have a nice group hug, it is getting dark and foggy here
and I want to go kayaking in the Lake Union Ship Canal.

Rick

And ???????
 

James Johnson wrote:

Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good, even using the astern throttle to
stop the shaft won't stop it before the ship runs over the kayaker.

Why do you think the shaft has to be stopped?

Rick

And ???????
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

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

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



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?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in the
matter. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. Fog
can descend when it is not expected. The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the
unexpected can happen. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.


Regards


Donal
--





DSK

And ???????
 

And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

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

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



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?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that
taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with
ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. Fog
can descend when it is not expected. The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that
the
unexpected can happen. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.


Regards


Donal
--





DSK