And ???????
 

Or not...

"Rick" wrote in message
nk.net...
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.


Rick wrote:
Why do you think the shaft has to be stopped?

So that the prop won't chop the kayaker to bits as he goes under the hull.

DSK

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

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.

Yes it is. It is clearly a violation of ColRegs on several counts. Does that
mean they'll lock somebody up for doing it? No, AFAIK violating COlRegs does
not carry mandatory sentencing.



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.

IIRC nobody said it was insane, either. For a person who is very quick to
accuse others of poor reading comprehension, you have a dim grasp of the
preceding posts in this thread.

We said it was stupid & dangerous, not insane and/or illegal.

One of the things that I see all too often is racing sailboats playing chicken
with commercial traffic. Often, the skipper with the lack of sense to cross in
front of a barge or freighter will be rewarded by a better finish while those
who practice seamanship will come in behind. Not only is it against ColRegs
and good seamanship, it is against the racing rules too. So far I have only
once seen one DSQ awarded for this behavior.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

You seem to be disagreeing with my claim that the courts have the right to
interpret, modify, and even augment the rules, so I'm re-posting this snip from
Farwell's, 6th edition. This makes it pretty clear that the "law" is not just
the specific words in the ColRegs.

As for specific references to cases involving Kayays in TSS's reviewed by higher
courts, I never seen such a case in Farwell's, so I can only extrapolate from
other examples. Most of the citings involving small boats in the fog are along
the lines of "Although the rowboat was reckless in its attempt the cross the
river, the tug was assigned liability for not posting a lookout on its hip tow."
Because the legal texts are advising ship's masters, they don't focus much on
the responsibilities of kayaks.

Texts advising the paddler usually focus on the stupidity of being in traffic in
the fog, including the limited effectiveness of radar reflectors, not the
legality. (Although recently I've seen the "shall not impede" rule quoted more
often.) One problem, however, is that the rules in non-ColRegs waters are
often quite different. In many states, in inland lakes and rivers, rowboats,
canoes, and kayaks are given absolute right-of-way over powerboats. While this
may be appropriate, some kayakers will claim that this rule extends out onto the
ocean.

However, the legal point the Rick has been bringing up has to do with whether we
can say that something is illegal before an incident has occurred. After there
has been a "consequence" of an action, almost everyone has agreed that the kayak
would likely be assigned a significant portion of the blame (unless, of course,
the tanker really screwed up!).

Other comments interspersed.

From the chapter on Principals of Marine Collision Law:

Rules Modified by Court Interpretation
A fourth principle of the rules too often overlooked by the mariner in
his seagoing practice of collision law is that to avoid liability he must know
not only what the rules applicable to a given situation provide but what the
federal courts have interpreted them to mean. Judicial interpretation has,
in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it
has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the
rules themselves, such as efficient whistle or siren, flare-up light, proper
lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of
seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus
established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has
filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this.
...
Third, judicial interpretation has
been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to
the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or con-
flicts in the latter.
....
Whatever the mariner thinks of the legal setup, which has the effect
giving the courts more authority over the rules of the road than the
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, who enforces them through the
inspectors, the mariner must obey the law as he finds it- and that means
in practice, as the admiralty judges interpret it. Notwithstanding the
that in this country we do not have special admiralty courts, but
federal judge may be required to hear a collision case, it will be found
the decisions have been, as a whole, sound in seamanship as well as in law.



"Donal" wrote in message
...

snip

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!

So what do you think they mean when they say:

2(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all
dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including
the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these
Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

I don't think its too far-fetched to think that this is saying that because of
the "limitations" of a kayak, and the "immediate danger" of a TSS, the kayak
should not exercise its right to cross.

And aside from this, the courts have definitly ruled on suitable manning.
Undermanning is one of the issues that comes up often. One that I remember
involved a ship that had a bad passage and the crew was debilitated. Rather
than wait until they recovered, or ask for relief, they came into port claiming
NUC status. The courts held them fully liable for the consequences.



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

Rubbish.

see above.




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.


Putz. This was hyperbole! The fact that a vessel is physically capable of
doing something, doesn't mean that it can always comply with the rules when
doing it. Just as a fast boat should refrain from going fast in many
situations, a vessel with limited means for posting a watch should avoid heavily
trafficked areas in limited visibility.

Rick was claiming that a boat designed for one person is exempt from the
criteria normally applied; I don't believe that's true.


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.


No. You're reading into my comments something that isn't there, and certainly
not intended. I said that a lookout must be posted, but the helmsman is driving
effectively based on radar alone. In fact, the interpretations of the courts
have been specific that in the fog, the helmsman has to focus on the radar
and/or compass and is not a suitable lookout, therefore a second person on watch
is mandatory.



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.


Well, as I said, I don't have any legal precedents that specifically mention
kayaks, but there are numerous case where insufficient lookout has been deemed
the primary cause of a collision. As early as 1833 a sailboat was held liable
for having no one on deck except the helmsman, and that was in clear weather.
(The "Rebecca" NY 1833, I assume you don't need the federal case number). The
lookout must be specifically charged (The "Harry Lynn" Washington 1893). It
has been often held that the duties cannot be shared with the helmsman or
officer of the deck ("Kaga Maru" 1927; "Donau 1931). There is a long list of
cases on this point.

The requirements in the fog are stricter. Kayaks may not be mentioned, but I
believe they are covered as "every vessel." From Farwell's:
"Under the general admiralty rules it is the duty of very vessel, when
navigating in the fog, to maintain a lookout in proper position, who shall be
charged with no other duty. A local custom cannot excuse a vessel from
observing this rule" (citings to several cases removed).

Farwell's goes on in this vein for a number of pages on the various
implications, with comments as "such a lookout must have no other duties, such
as conning or steering the vessel," but is summed up nicely with "The law
contemplates that every vessel underway shall exercise vigilance which is
continuous and unbroken."

The obvious question here is do the standards for larger vessels apply to small?
I readily agree that small boats are given a lot of leeway in this regard in
good weather, and in very protected environments. But there is no justification
for this in the fog, in areas trafficked by large ships. I believe you've
already agreed with me that fog is not a condition where the recreational
skipper tells his crew "go on below, I'll handle this on my own." On the
contrary, the often relaxed atmosphere is replaced with increased vigilance and
dedicated lookouts.

Is there something about a kayak that implies they need less vigilance then
other vessels? Operating one, especially promptly crossing a channel in chop,
swells, and wakes, maintaining a course in the fog would seem to require a
virtually fulltime effort. Its hard to see how a singlehand kayak even begins
to fulfill its responsibility to maintain a proper lookout in adverse
conditions. You might be able to argue that a two-man kayak can do it, but that
would reduce their ability to quickly transit the zone. You've argued often
that ALL vessels must follow the rules, why are you claiming in this case that
kayaks are exempt?




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.


Was the Farwell's quote sufficient? Or are you claiming, like Neal, that
they're part of a great liberal conspiracy?


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


I'm not trolling. I've stood by everything I've said, shared my logic, provided
references, and explained which parts are simply my opinions. What have you
done, other than to blatantly lie about what I've said, and make vague
assertions that the ColRegs support your vague claims?

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

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.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS? I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short lived.

TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected. Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being there.

The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues. For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker, its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

And what of the responsibility of the kayak? Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right - the
kayaker has no business doing it.

But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

So that the prop won't chop the kayaker to bits as he goes under the hull.

Why would the prop "chop the kayaker to bits" and why would
he go under the hull of a ship?

Ricfk

And ???????
 

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

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.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and
suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS?

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would
clear at dawn (4 am).


I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.





If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to
a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred
yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the
basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short
lived.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to
do this every time that I go out.



TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???


Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected.

It depends upon the climate.


Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on
crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out
there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their
capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being
there.

And, as you can guess, I




The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that
it is true.


For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak







Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?




And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the
ship's crew!


Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.

You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.


Our CG doesn't operate 25 miles from shore.




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

Ours does.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.


Our CG doesn't operate 25 miles from shore.




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would
clear at dawn (4 am).


You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I think
you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is.


I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.


I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and before we
got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I had the
radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes.

Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We had
gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would hold off
until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we left
during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of Outward
Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig, used by
the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not stay that
night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have had a
serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on the
"main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside, where they
only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he took the
"main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to
do this every time that I go out.


Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards wide,
but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see kayaks out
there?



TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said "people do
it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion.


That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that
it is true.

Of course its true. But what's the point?




For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak


This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with "appropriate"
vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on radar
(or visually, until its too late), and you say the small boat doesn't have the
resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the
encounter in the first place.


Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?

In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've frequently
seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be crossing,
such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or
trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the skipper
is in the head!






And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the
ship's crew!

Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should spring
for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in practice
has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships gotta do.
We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its really
the needs of society and global economics that are running the show. We need
oil so we permit supertankers to exist. The interpretation of the ColRegs gets
adjusted to take this into account.



Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.


sure.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.


I never denied it.


You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.


I agree, the obligations of the ship are unchanged - sort of. At the risk of
opening this back up, I'll say what's been in the back of my mind all the time:

A powerboat in a harbor, say, in an anchorage, should be expecting a small
dinghy. To be prudent, it should be going dead slow in a thick fog, and be
assuming that a dink could appear at any moment. A ship that does not have this
capability, "has no business" being in the anchorage in the fog.

So while the fundamental obligations remain unchanged, the location and
circumstances mean that the details have changed. So in a sense, the
obligations do change - the changing parameters in the ""safe speed" equation
yield a different safe speed.

The test of Rule 2(a) can be applied - is this the behavior the "ordinary
practice of seamen"? If the answer is "Yes" then if everyone fulfills their
obligations under the ColRegs and the court interpretations, everything should
work out. But if one vessel does something out of the ordinary, then we have to
look carefully at the prudence of the actions. A big ship in a small boat
anchorage is not "ordinary practice," neither is a kayak in a shipping lane.
Both may be legal, but they are not prudent.

-jeff