"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340
I would say that on a whole
the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities
and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......

You crack me up, Mooron!

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340
| I would say that on a whole
| the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their
responsibilities
| and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......
|
| You crack me up, Mooron!

Ha Ha Ha.....

Seriously Jeff.... not all sailboats flaunt the regs like the large
commercial vessels do... nor with the overwhelming regularity of their
offences. We are under a much more policed and enforced platform.

CM

Capt. Mooron wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message

| I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a
| problem with the intent.

So seemingly you are inferring that no one but you has a grasp on the intent
of the COLREGS???
Crap.... I thought it was to keep boats from hitting each other. Are you
implying that everyone but commercial large vessel traffic should be subject
to the strictest definitions of the rules?


| I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and
| giving perspective from different operators and vessel types.

Well you know my views.... large commercial vessels should be strictly
regulated, the regulations should be enforced with an iron fist. You whine
about smaller vessels not adhering to the rules while dumping bilge water
and oil as well as being the biggest contributor of garbage dumped at
sea.... not to mention the sorry record for container loss. Unmanned
bridges, unseaworthy vessels and poorly trained foreign crews are the least
of the problems caused by the current status of the shipping industry at
sea.

How dare you even begin to preach rules and comprehension when your industry
so consistently fails to abide by rules you claim to have a better
understanding of!!

| However, after a point............

Yeah... after a point it becomes clear that you fail to comprehend the
basics. It's NOT Your Ocean! You only use it just like we do. You don't have
more of a right nor less of a responsibility. I would say that on a whole
the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities
and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......

CM





ROFLMAO

Welcome back

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message

| ROFLMAO
|
| Welcome back
|
| otn

Thanx dude! ;-)

CM

I'll concede that when a big ship screws up it can make a real mess, but in my
travels I've observed rather few instances of commercial violations. On the
other hand, I've observed that recreational boaters are very self-righteous
about the regs they chose to observe, while they blatantly ignore others.

A case in point: In Key West we stayed for several days at a luxury marina/time
share hotel. The majority of the boats were live aboard, and most never moved
from their slip. When I asked people what they did for a pumpout, they all said
they never use their head; they go up to the hotel (wink, wink)! We then moved
over to a different marina where we were located near the fuel dock and pumpout
hose. Invariably, when the commercial boats came to tank up, they also pumped
out. However, I hardly ever saw the recreation boaters pump.

Another issue: I've hardly ever felt at risk from a commercial boat - more
often I find them altering course to avoid me when several miles away (perhaps
my fame has spread?). Sportfishermen, however, are so obnoxious that its rare
that an day passes without getting buzzed by some monster doing 40 knots with
seemingly no one on the bridge.



"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340
| I would say that on a whole
| the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their
responsibilities
| and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......
|
| You crack me up, Mooron!

Ha Ha Ha.....

Seriously Jeff.... not all sailboats flaunt the regs like the large
commercial vessels do... nor with the overwhelming regularity of their
offences. We are under a much more policed and enforced platform.

CM

In retrospect Jeff.... I'll have to concur with your position regarding
obnoxious American boaters. These scofflaws will be the reason that very
soon everyone in the USA who desires to partake in boating of any kind will
have to have a boating license, with mandatory insurance and strict
enforcement by a large marine police force.... paid for by a new tax
imposed on the entire boating community.

I'm glad we don't have that type of irresponsible attitude here in Canada.
Then again we already have a mandatory Vessel Operators Card requirement and
very stiff fines for even minor infractions. A half liter of oil
accidentally spilled can cost you 10K in fines and HAZMAT Response costs.

Nope,,,, up here it's those damn commercial behemoths that are the primary
culprits in environmental terrorism.

CM


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
| I'll concede that when a big ship screws up it can make a real mess, but
in my
| travels I've observed rather few instances of commercial violations. On
the
| other hand, I've observed that recreational boaters are very
self-righteous
| about the regs they chose to observe, while they blatantly ignore others.
|
| A case in point: In Key West we stayed for several days at a luxury
marina/time
| share hotel. The majority of the boats were live aboard, and most never
moved
| from their slip. When I asked people what they did for a pumpout, they
all said
| they never use their head; they go up to the hotel (wink, wink)! We then
moved
| over to a different marina where we were located near the fuel dock and
pumpout
| hose. Invariably, when the commercial boats came to tank up, they also
pumped
| out. However, I hardly ever saw the recreation boaters pump.
|
| Another issue: I've hardly ever felt at risk from a commercial boat -
more
| often I find them altering course to avoid me when several miles away
(perhaps
| my fame has spread?). Sportfishermen, however, are so obnoxious that its
rare
| that an day passes without getting buzzed by some monster doing 40 knots
with
| seemingly no one on the bridge.
|
|
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Jeff Morris" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340
| | I would say that on a whole
| | the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their
| responsibilities
| | and a better track record of adherence to the regulations
imposed!......
| |
| | You crack me up, Mooron!
|
| Ha Ha Ha.....
|
| Seriously Jeff.... not all sailboats flaunt the regs like the large
| commercial vessels do... nor with the overwhelming regularity of their
| offences. We are under a much more policed and enforced platform.
|
| CM
|
|
|
|

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the
CollRegs.


I haven't found a good source to "free case studies" yet. I have posted
a link
to the Canadian Safety Board's ruling that 14 knots was a safe speed in
zero
visibility, and I posted a full page excerpt from the standard text on the
topic. I'll repeat the essential part:

"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 ... 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 conflicts in the latter."

You can chose to believe this is incorrect - maybe its time you did your
own
research.

At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a
kayak, yet
you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that.

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be
able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its
OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.

Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one?






I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the
authors
had the same idea.

In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car
behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the
actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was
reached.

After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one
driver
is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the
accident. (this is *UK* law).

At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS.

I believe that you know this, as well as I do.


What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes
across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to
blame?

Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your
point?





I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to
simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually
stop.


So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law?

Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are
saying
that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action,
within
sight of their victim in the TSS.


Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the
rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This
doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you
*cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try
to balance them all *equally*.

As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.

Why, then, must power give way to sail?







There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules.
This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition,
and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the
meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations.
These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another
country as evidence. Have you?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants.




The situation we're discussing is not a case where the rules must be
violated;
it is a case where the courts have ruled that steerageway should be
maintained,
and even higher speeds are permissible with good radar. In doing so, the
courts
have conceded that the kayak would be a severe risk if it cross a shipping
lane
in thick fog.






I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the
law so
that its now something different from what you think.

I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion.

I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs.





Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make
too
much
sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the
answer
is
clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the
small
boat
must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need
your
blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it
does).

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply
that
commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common
sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for
whatever
reason, should not be impeded.

It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules
aren't
needed, because its all "common sense"?

No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships.
Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.




The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your
point?

My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't
be
able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being
there".


popbably not.


What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow?
Then
the
ship might well be held blameless.


Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately
responsible for avoiding a collision.

You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs.



Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion,
then
you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to
make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog.

I never denied it - I've claimed it is an absolute requirement from the
beginning.






I've always agreed that if there was
anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced
the
risk,
it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak,
simply by
his
proximity to the ship is in violation.

And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way
to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies
that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels
have been
held blameless.

Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.





Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be
there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing
that.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it
overrules the
law!

No, I didn't.


I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules"
to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there.

What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to
sail upon the sea.

I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs.

What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


As in, it would be foolish
and foolhardy. "Common sense" say the kayak will be chum and the ship
should
be blameless; are you saying that's the law?
No.


It is true that a ship could be going too fast, and without a lookout, but
I
also claim it could be going at a "safe speed" (as defined by the courts)
and
have a "proper lookout" and would still be unable to stop in time to save
the
kayak. The kayak, however, is putting itself in a position where it is
very
likely it almost certainly would violate the rules if there was an
encounter.
Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it
with a
crash stop, its in violation.

That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the
ship.






Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast.

Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny
day.

Stranger things happen at sea.


Well, I could say "not very often," but inevitably this happens. However,
that
becomes the risk that the kayak takes. As I've said, I would have some
sympathy if it were a 100 yard channel, where the kayak could pick a
promising
moment to make a dash. However, a Channel crossing with its 5 mile lanes
is not
a proper place for a kayak. You keep asking me for links to court cases;
how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?

This fellow was blind!!!!
http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/





Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like
you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law
is
the most important thing.

No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also
trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not
agree with.

You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That
may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak
has no business in a TSS.

Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me
wrong at
any point.


You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you?


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be
able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its
OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.

Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one?


The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop.
However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees
visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.



What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes
across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to
blame?

Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your
point?


You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation.


Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the
rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This
doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you
*cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try
to balance them all *equally*.

I would agree there are such situations. However, in this very basic case, the
courts have given plenty of guidance.



As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.


No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping
lanes and TSS's?

Why, then, must power give way to sail?

In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is
favored.



There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules.
This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition,
and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the
meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations.
These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another
country as evidence. Have you?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants.


Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they
sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court:

"The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to
become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is
manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the
maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar
construction ... by the courts of this country."




I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the
law so
that its now something different from what you think.

I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion.

I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs.


Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that
explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and
that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically
says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate
the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or
"augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works.

The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it
is what the courts say it means.




It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules
aren't needed, because its all "common sense"?

No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships.

As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one?
That's a bit of a "bias."

Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

You haven't read the rules lately, have you?

It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.

Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail."
Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog.



Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately
responsible for avoiding a collision.

You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs.


Each vessel does have that responsibility. However it doesn't extend so far
that each vessel is repsonsible for being able to stop in time, regardless of
the stupidity exercised by the other vessel. The fact that there's a collision
means that the actions of both vessels will be closely scrutinized. It doesn't
mean they both are at fault.


And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way
to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies
that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels
have been
held blameless.

Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.

Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a
good reference that backs that up.

OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame.







Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be
there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing
that.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it
overrules the
law!

No, I didn't.


I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules"
to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there.

What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to
sail upon the sea.

I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs.

What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the
water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep
trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view.

Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems
rather subtle for you.


Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it
with a
crash stop, its in violation.

That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the
ship.


A single ship in a narrow lane, maybe. In good conditions a kayak can sustain
well over 4 knots. However, after paddling out 15 miles, fighting a chop, etc,
its not clear to me how well they would fare in the English Channel. What kind
of visibility do they have from one foot above sea level?

You keep asking me for links to court cases;
how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?

This fellow was blind!!!!
http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/


He did have a sighted guide, and a deisel powered escort boat.


Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like
you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law
is
the most important thing.

No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also
trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not
agree with.

I haven't ignored a single rule. I've only pointed out that the courts have
interpretted them a certain way.



You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That
may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak
has no business in a TSS.


I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel.

Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


When did I say that?



and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me
wrong at
any point.


You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you?

What is the "radar only" issue? If you trying to get be to defend Joe's claim,
I won't.

Sorry Donal, I think Otn is right - you are just a simple simon.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should
be
able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then
its
OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.

Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one?


The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to
stop.
However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything
it sees
visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.

So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs????





What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes
across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's
to
blame?

Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your
point?


You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous
situation.


[sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly.

I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there.

The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship
might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout.




Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the
rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This
doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that
you
*cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must
try
to balance them all *equally*.

I would agree there are such situations. However, in this very basic
case, the
courts have given plenty of guidance.



As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs
are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said
as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.


No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most
meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny
this?


Of course.
You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in TSS's
or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense!

Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about
shipping
lanes and TSS's?

Why, then, must power give way to sail?

In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the
sailboat is
favored.


In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not?





There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the
rules.
This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual
condition,
and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the
meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations.
These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from
another
country as evidence. Have you?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set
precedants.


Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because
they
sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court:

"The paramount importance of having international rules, which are
intended to
become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime
powers, is
manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the
maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a
similar
construction ... by the courts of this country."

I read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You need
to re-word it.

Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove difficult to
understand.







I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified
the
law so
that its now something different from what you think.

I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion.

I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs.


Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references
that
explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero,
and
that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that
specifically
says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to
appreciate
the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or
"augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works.

The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs
say, it
is what the courts say it means.

The US courts?

Really, you are being a bit thick!







It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the
rules
aren't needed, because its all "common sense"?

No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common
sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big
ships.

As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large
one?
That's a bit of a "bias."


Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's,
or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had
to give way to sail.



Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

You haven't read the rules lately, have you?

I don't need to. I understood them the first time around.



It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.

Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to
sail."
Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog.

I think that I've already answered this stupid question.

If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer.





Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more
lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are
ultimately
responsible for avoiding a collision.

You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs.


Each vessel does have that responsibility. However it doesn't extend so
far
that each vessel is repsonsible for being able to stop in time, regardless
of
the stupidity exercised by the other vessel. The fact that there's a
collision
means that the actions of both vessels will be closely scrutinized. It
doesn't
mean they both are at fault.


And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a
way
to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies
that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels
have been
held blameless.

Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you
could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.

Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little
child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please
site a
good reference that backs that up.

OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the
Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame.

If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would
give him 100% of the blame.

snip
What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about
the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on
the
water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep
trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view.

Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems
rather subtle for you.

Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As always
you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs.

Rule 2, Part *b*

"(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. "

In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing
his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed.

In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he
cannot avoid hitting a small vessel.


snip

I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action.
You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that
the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another
vessel.

Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet.

You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would
not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me
to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large
vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs
because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship.

troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant
powerboater. /troll


Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You
falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


When did I say that?

Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am.

You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a means
of keeping a lookout.





and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me
wrong at
any point.


You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you?

What is the "radar only" issue? If you trying to get be to defend Joe's
claim,
I won't.

Sorry Donal, I think Otn is right - you are just a simple simon.


Otn was paying me a compliment ... which I don't deserve.

However, as I'm a fair-minded individual, I'd like to say that nobody will
ever insult you, or otn, by comparing you to Simple Simon.



Regards

Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1

The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to
stop.
However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything
it sees
visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.

So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs????


Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the courts has
been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts'
decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this
yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law
intends; your way is just making it up.



You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous
situation.


[sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly.

I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there.

The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship
might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout.


As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk.


As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs
are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said
as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.


No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most
meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny
this?


Of course.
You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in TSS's
or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense!


Its the practical truth almost everywhere I've been. Certainly in terms of
numbers, the vast majority of small boats would generally only encounter large
ships in a narrow channel or shipping lane. Most of the exceptions I can think
of would be medium sized ferries or barges that are on secondary routes. Even
then, most of the encounters would be in the harbors that would be narrow
channels for the larger ship.

I can only think of a handful of times where I felt I was clearly the stand-on
vessel with respect to a large ship; compared to hundreds of times I've been
obligated "not to impede."


Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about
shipping
lanes and TSS's?

Why, then, must power give way to sail?

In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the
sailboat is
favored.


In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not?


Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18, which
starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require." And it
isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or RAMs.
And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must give
way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are
constrained.

Didn't they teach you anything in that class? Did you really take it, or was
this another "practice" thing with your friends?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set
precedants.


Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because
they
sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court:

"The paramount importance of having international rules, which are
intended to
become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime
powers, is
manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the
maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a
similar
construction ... by the courts of this country."

I read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You need
to re-word it.

Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove difficult to
understand.


Maybe this is why you have so much trouble with the ColRegs - too many big
words. They're simply saying because its important to have common international
laws, the courts of one country should adopt the rulings of other countries.



Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references
that
explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero,
and
that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that
specifically
says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to
appreciate
the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or
"augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works.

The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs
say, it
is what the courts say it means.

The US courts?

Really, you are being a bit thick!


Donal, its clear you have no interest in actually learning this stuff. If you
did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's.
Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including quotes
indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author of
Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you can go
and learn something.



No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common
sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big
ships.

As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large
one?
That's a bit of a "bias."


Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's,
or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had
to give way to sail.


So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point?



Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

You haven't read the rules lately, have you?

I don't need to. I understood them the first time around.

Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years, have you?
And it shows!!


It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.

Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to
sail."
Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog.

I think that I've already answered this stupid question.

If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer.

You've said you don't think its important since there are few TSS's. Its really
one of the dumber things you've said.

Or were you refering to where you said you haven't read them lately?



Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you
could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.

Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little
child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please
site a
good reference that backs that up.

OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the
Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame.

If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would
give him 100% of the blame.

Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't get it
started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll give
you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the "Inevitable
Accident":

"There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the
surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both vessels
are at fault."

As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases where
one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling that I
found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant disappeared
from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered it to
Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run. Scully was
found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights.

http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc



snip
What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about
the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on
the
water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep
trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view.

Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems
rather subtle for you.

Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As always
you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs.

Rule 2, Part *b*

"(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. "

In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing
his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed.

In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he
cannot avoid hitting a small vessel.

Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own limitations?
How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at bare
steerageway?

Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be compliant
with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"? Frankly,
you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling!

The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under 2(a),
since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT the
"ordinary practice of seamen."





snip

I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action.
You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that
the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another
vessel.

Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet.

You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would
not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me
to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large
vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs
because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship.


Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the
inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick that
until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence" the law
had not been broken.

Once again, you're just making up nonsense to try to prove I'm wrong, but you've
failed misreably at every turn.


troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant
powerboater. /troll

Weren't you a powerboater? I think you should try to educate yourself first.



Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You
falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


When did I say that?

Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am.

You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a means
of keeping a lookout.

Back to the Cowardly Lying, again. What a loser you are. All you've done here
is shown you have no real knowlege of the rules. Neal would have one word for
you: Putz!