Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
BTW, there was a news report here last night. As you might know, we've had a
record deep freeze for the last several weeks. A 55 foot wooden fishing boat decided this was a good time for fishing, so they left Sandwich Harbor on the Cape Cod Canal, transited the canal which was kept open by ice breakers, but apparently got holed by ice as they exited the canal. Their engine died, and they ended up aground on Hog Neck. Rescue was problematical - the large boat couldn't get close, the small boast didn't want to leave harbor, an attempt by foot failed. Finally a helicopter was brought it to lift off the crew, providing good footage for the evening news. The final line of the news report was "A Canal official said, 'They had no business being out there.' " -jeff "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong. Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me? Regards Donal -- BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do justice to it. |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Donal" wrote ... I don't go into London any more. I got a parking ticket for being 3 minutes late, about 10 years ago. I haven't been back since. Scofflaw! In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. that's not true, here. SV |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. Ok. How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was a breach of the CollRegs? I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff. I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained, but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's. Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly). 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However, the English Channel is a completely different place. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned me. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. .... and mine! Regards Donal -- |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. Ok. How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was a breach of the CollRegs? The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I wasn't agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with. I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff. I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact that movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that "safe speed" is not an absolute. I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained, but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's. Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious. Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing what he was talking about - I'm not willing to do that. Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly). 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However, the English Channel is a completely different place. IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel crossing. Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of the Bay of Fundy. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned me. I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. The concepts of "safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not willing to pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from where I sail. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. ... and mine! mine too. -jeff |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
Scott Vernon wrote:
In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. that's not true, here. Used to be true here, then we got 'No fault insurance', (read as "money grab for insurance companies"). Cheers Marty |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. Ok. How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was a breach of the CollRegs? The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I wasn't agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with. Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is that? I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff. I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact that movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that "safe speed" is not an absolute. I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users of the sea. Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous* lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has any "business" to be in a shipping lane. In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business" being there. You are using double standards. I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained, but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's. Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious. Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing what he was talking about - I'm not willing to do that. He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace. Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly). 25 knots would seem excessive if there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small boat not visible on radar is rather slim. It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However, the English Channel is a completely different place. IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel crossing. Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of the Bay of Fundy. You're correct. The P&O Condor service is a high speed (35 kts+) service. I believe that they slow down in fog, to about 20 kts. However, I would stress the word "believe". I really do not know where that impression comes from. I usually see the Condor on crossings to Cherbourg(three times). I would have been fairly close to it on both my crossings in fog. I suspect that I saw it on one of the foggy trips, but I cannot be certain. I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned me. I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception. You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a TSS. Can't you see that you are biased? The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout. The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS. The concepts of "safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not willing to pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from where I sail. I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that this has happened. This is certainly frowned upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread, thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat. ... and mine! mine too. We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily! Regards Donal -- |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... BTW, there was a news report here last night. As you might know, we've had a record deep freeze for the last several weeks. A 55 foot wooden fishing boat decided this was a good time for fishing, so they left Sandwich Harbor on the Cape Cod Canal, transited the canal which was kept open by ice breakers, but apparently got holed by ice as they exited the canal. Their engine died, and they ended up aground on Hog Neck. Rescue was problematical - the large boat couldn't get close, the small boast didn't want to leave harbor, an attempt by foot failed. Finally a helicopter was brought it to lift off the crew, providing good footage for the evening news. The final line of the news report was "A Canal official said, 'They had no business being out there.' " -jeff A couple of years ago, an eccentric gentleman hit the headlines here. He was determined to go sailing in a home made boat - and he used a road map instead of charts. His story hit the national(and boating) press, after 19 rescues by the RNLI. Many people called for regulations. My opinion was that the sea should be free for everybody. The people said that we shouldn't fund such incompetence. *I* said that if we want to enjoy freedom at sea, then we must tolerate the occasional idiot. The people said that he was costing us too much. *I* said that freedom does have a small price. Fortunately, the people recognised that the freedom of the sea is fairly important. Regards Donal -- |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message
... The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I wasn't agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with. Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is that? I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't presume to judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about smaller commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up. OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.) doing thing that I think is downright crazy. I've had kayakers ask me which way land was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any rocks along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean they should be doing it. Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident that I had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed, killing two of the crew. I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact that movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that "safe speed" is not an absolute. I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users of the sea. Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous* lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has any "business" to be in a shipping lane. I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that the courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court decisions. In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business" being there. You are using double standards. There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a speed endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a situation where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed out the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it would only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're using double standards. Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing what he was talking about - I'm not willing to do that. He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace. You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it. I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception. Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a lookout must be maintained "at all times." Do you have a lookout posted now? Do you have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a slip? I posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important principle. There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take precedence over the literal words in the rules. You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a TSS. And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy thing to do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here. Can't you see that you are biased? I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The last time I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there, and I had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel. The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout. The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS. Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated until a ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the actions (for rule 2). And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly no ability to avoid impeding a ship. Embaking on a venture like that may not be violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something. What if you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make it before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be reprehensible. The concepts of "safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not willing to pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from where I sail. I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that this has happened. There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean that a vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that there must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the collision. Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not always, does not need a lookout. We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily! And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy. -jeff |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I wasn't agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with. Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is that? I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't presume to judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about smaller commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up. OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.) doing thing that I think is downright crazy. Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog horn? I've had kayakers ask me which way land was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any rocks along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean they should be doing it. Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment, unless our actions threaten others. Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident that I had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed, killing two of the crew. I haven't yet managed to view the evidence. I may be wrong, but I don't think that you have provided a link. I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact that movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that "safe speed" is not an absolute. I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users of the sea. Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous* lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has any "business" to be in a shipping lane. I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that the courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court decisions. In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business" being there. You are using double standards. There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a speed endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a situation where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed out the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it would only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're using double standards. Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing what he was talking about - I'm not willing to do that. He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace. You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it. I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception. Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a lookout must be maintained "at all times." I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute. Do you have a lookout posted now? No. Do you have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a slip? I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip. I posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important principle. Quite right! There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take precedence over the literal words in the rules. Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea? You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a TSS. And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy thing to do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here. So what? What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave accordingly. Can't you see that you are biased? I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The last time I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there, and I had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel. Did you also think that the ships should proceed as if you might not be there? Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts, without sounding fog horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch? The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout. The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS. Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated until a ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the actions (for rule 2). You repeatedly asserted that a kayak could not *guarantee* that it would not impede a large ship if it crossed a TSS in fog. Why did you feel that it was important to make this assertion? And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly no ability to avoid impeding a ship. There you go again! A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar. What's the difference? I'll answer. The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching rules. Why are you criticising me? I really don't know. You seem to be reasonably familiar with the CollRegs, and yet you constantly say that I am wrong in my interpretation of the same rules. The funny thing is that I am not *interpreting* the rules. I am just quoting them. You are the one who is trying to *interpret* them. I've said that it is a breach of the regs to proceed without a proper lookout in fog. You asked me where the CollRegs forbade the use of a "radar only" lookout. I quoted you the rule. You still seem to think that because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there. Embaking on a venture like that may not be violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something. I like your use of the word "embarking". I doubt that many kayakers would "embark" on a crossing of a TSS in fog. Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a choice in the matter. What if you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make it before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be reprehensible. So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an adequare lookout? The concepts of "safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not willing to pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from where I sail. I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that this has happened. There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean that a vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that there must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the collision. Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not always, does not need a lookout. Which courts? Are they "International" courts? We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily! And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy. Maybe ..... maybe. I respond to each post as I read it. If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect that he will succeed. Regards Donal -- |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
And ???????
After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like
me can take the time to snip the useless parts, so can you.... too long and everyone loses interest) Donal wrote: Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog horn? Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the point or advantage? After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident. ..... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no accident, don't get caught.) Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment, unless our actions threaten others. Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt. He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace. He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy waterway", you assume. You also don't know how good a visual lookout he is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he is or is not a menace. I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception. Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a lookout must be maintained "at all times." I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute. I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) .... conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions warrant. Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea? In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation" courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The "little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules, but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling, which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations". What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave accordingly. If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does. horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch? BG You're reaching to try and make a point ... the point may be valid in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo. The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout. The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS. You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility? If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably. A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar. What's the difference? I'll answer. The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching rules. The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as responsible to avoid collision as is the ship. What if you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make it before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be reprehensible. So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an adequare lookout? Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same. ..... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship. Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not always, does not need a lookout. Which courts? Are they "International" courts? Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue ...... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international" otn |