I think Otn answered most of these points - its nice to have someone in
agreement with me.

Comment interspersed ...



"Donal" wrote in message
...
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?


Perhaps. Not sounding the whistle is certainly wrong, but its not my place to
judge the "safe speed." However, the the ship can rectify their situation
simply by throttling back and turning on the horn. What can the kayak do other
that whine the the fog was not expected?




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.


Doing something where the inevitable result is breaking the law is not right.
Claiming that the sun was shining when you left port is not an excuse for not
having lights.




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.


Sorry, the only writeup of the results that I remember is on a subscription
service. The original reports made it sound like the ferry ran down the fishing
boat, but it was the opposite - the small boat hit the side of the ferry at
speed.


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.


Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says, "except when
its not convenient."

I posed this before and I don't think you responded,
but its a very important principle.

Quite right!

So you blantantly ignore the rules but expect total compliance from everyone
else! Is that your point? That its OK to violate the rules when you want to?


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?


Sorry, Donal. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You are expected to understand
the interpretations of the courts. While a court may not feel bound by the
ruling of a lower court in a different jurisdiction, the courts appreciate that
it is everyone's best interest to have a common body of law. In the text I've
quoted most often, a number of the precendents cited are British. I even
provided a quote where they say that common interpretations are important in
international law.

You keep asking me to cite British case, but you've never mentioned any. What's
the matter, don't you have courts there anymore?


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.


But then you say you don't intend that to mean that all traffic should stop.
However, that is the only logical response - if the ship knew there was a kayak
and didn't stop it would be reprehensible. You seem to keep flip-flopping on
this; what are you really saying?

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?

A ship should always assume there is a possibility.

Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts,

it is not my position to judge a "safe speed"

without sounding fog horns,

The would be wrong

and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

A visual watch is required, but what that really implies varies with the
situation. Maybe you could give us some examples from your local courts.


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?


It is the responsibility of every seaman to be prepared to fulfill its
obligations and handle situations that could reasonably be expected to arise.
This is articulated quite clearly in Rule 2(a).

The law even has a provision for "inevitable accidents" arising from situations
that could not have been foreseen. However, they are very rare, less than 1% of
the cases in US law. It is generally held that simple weather events (such as
fog) or mechanical problems that could have been prevented with better
maintained are not an excuse.




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.


Are you saying that the kayak is not obligated to "not impede" the ship in the
narrow channel or TSS?



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.


We keep going around this one issue: the rules seem to imply (thought they don't
say explictly) that in zero visibilty, the only safe safe speed is "zero."
There is no other speed that would permit a tanker to proceed without having the
risk of hitting an unseen tiny vessel. My claim is that the courts have said
that it is permissible to proceed under certain situations. Your claim
sometimes seems to be that the letter of the law must be followed, and other
times you seem to say that breaking the law is inevitable.





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 only showed that the law requires a visual lookout even when there is zero
visibility, something I conceded in the original post.

You still seem to think that
because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there.

Duh! That is my position. I don't claim its illegal to be there, I claim its a
stupid thing to do.




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.

You're right, most have better sense than that.


Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.

No, fog usually occurs when I expect it. I think you may need a better teacher.

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?

You keep harping on this. Are you claiming that all ships in the Channel are
running without lookouts, without whistles, always traveling at an unsafe speed?
I would agree that when they do so, they are wrong.



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?


Perhaps you can provide a link where a British court has differed significantly
from an US ruling. You seem obcessed with claiming that texts and rulings from
the US have no bearing in International waters, but you never provide any
alternatives. You have no credibility on this issue until you do so.



If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect
that he will succeed.



Don't be upset by jaxie, he's just a child.

Jeff Morris wrote:


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.



Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says, "except when
its not convenient."



Just my two cents, COLREGS, 'Regulations for the Avoidance of Collisions at Sea' (sic);
being in a slip is not "At Sea", Colregs do not apply IMHO

Cheers
Marty

You need look no further than the first sentence to see the applicability:

1(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters
connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

If the slip is in waters connected to the sea, they are applicable. I'll admit
the my logic is strained, but the "letter of the law" is clear: a lookout is
required at all times, even when anchored, moored, or tied up to a dock. It is
only because of court interpretation that this rule is "relaxed." Donal is
claiming that courts do not have a part in this process; this is simply a case
where it should be clear to anyone that they do.

But I appreciate that you're still reading this.

-jeff





"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:


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.



Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall
at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says, "except
when
its not convenient."



Just my two cents, COLREGS, 'Regulations for the Avoidance of Collisions at
Sea' (sic);
being in a slip is not "At Sea", Colregs do not apply IMHO

Cheers
Marty

Jeff Morris wrote:

You need look no further than the first sentence to see the applicability:

1(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters
connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

If the slip is in waters connected to the sea, they are applicable. I'll admit
the my logic is strained, .

But I appreciate that you're still reading this.


Yes, it does seem to be getting a bit pendantic, consider, is a slip navigable
waters? Perhaps we should debate the number of angels per pin head (I'm not talking
about Bob, tho' he can use all the help he can get).

Cheers
Marty

We cold play all sorts of games around this - if a slip is oversized, are you in
"navigable waters" when you pass through the mouth?

I recall at least one court case where it was felt that a ship at a dock should
have a lookout to warn off passers-by because it was sticking out past the end
of the dock

But if this issue seems too pedantic, just consider the case of vessels
anchored: How many people have kept an all-night watch on an anchored vessel?
Certainly, one can find conditions where one should, and perhaps other times
when one needn't bother. However, there are not such qualification in the
rules: a lookout is always required. It is the role of the courts to advise us
on when that is truly so.

-jeff


"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:

You need look no further than the first sentence to see the applicability:

1(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all
waters
connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

If the slip is in waters connected to the sea, they are applicable. I'll
admit
the my logic is strained, .

But I appreciate that you're still reading this.


Yes, it does seem to be getting a bit pendantic, consider, is a slip navigable
waters? Perhaps we should debate the number of angels per pin head (I'm not
talking
about Bob, tho' he can use all the help he can get).

Cheers
Marty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like

Apoligies. I do usually snip.

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?

Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think
that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel.
Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they
are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently
fixed aloft.

I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I
find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely
ignorant of the other.


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.)

I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last
time that I crossed in fog.




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.

I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that
personal freedom is more important.




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.

I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that
it was a fairly busy part. of the river.

I've repeatedly said that when

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.

He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the
Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs'
requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing".




snip


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.

I agree.

snip
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".

This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.




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.

I agree. Everybody involved has responsibilities.

My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there", or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".





horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

BG You're reaching to try and make a point ...

Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to
be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when
the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up
about it? That's why I bought a radar.

I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that
British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered
under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always
had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on
the bow" in fog.


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.

I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.




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.

Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.





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.

I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.




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.

I agree.


snip
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"

It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.


Sorry about the lengthy answer. You'll have to ask fewer questions next
time!!!


Regards


Donal
--

Now, now, you're back to misrepresenting what I have said.

"Donal" wrote in message
...
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".

This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.


I didn't say precedents are recognized, but I did say the courts have
acknowleged its in everyone's best interest to have common a interpretation of
the rules. Many British cases are mentioned in the American texts.




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.

I agree. Everybody involved has responsibilities.

My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there", or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".


When did I say anything remotely resembling that? You however, stated in this
post that a ship should travel at least at steerageway. From that speed it
would be impossible to stop for a kayak. Our disagreement is not over the
actions of the ship, but over how to rationalize the seeming discrepancy with
the rules.


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.

I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.


So you advocate breaking the rules? I still have trouble understanding what
your argument is here.





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.

Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.


Again, I never said that. I said that in most cases (certainly on the US East
Coast) where small boats would meet a large ship, Rule 9 or 10 apply, and thus
the ship is the "favored" vessel.


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.

I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.


Again, you are saying exactly what I did not say! I explicitly said, many
times, from the start, that kayak is not in violation of rule 9 or 10 until it
"impedes" or rule 2 until there is a "consequence." In fact, it seems that
you're taking my words and claiming them as yours!

I have said that it is not proper (again - this is not a claim of legality) for
a vessel to put itself into a situation knowing it does not have the means to
fulfill its obligations.


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"

It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.


So you're ignoring the quote I gave from a US court explaining how they feel it
necessary to stay in line with international rulings. You seem to be fighting
this tooth and nail, but to what purpose? You've already claimed its
appropriate that ships should continue at least at steerageway, are you saying
that's in violation of your local rulings? Are you claiming that British
courts see thing differently from US courts? Or are you just using this as a
stupid excuse to deny the significance of any claim I might make?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I think Otn answered most of these points - its nice to have someone in
agreement with me.

Comment interspersed ...



"Donal" wrote in message
...
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?


Perhaps. Not sounding the whistle is certainly wrong, but its not my
place to
judge the "safe speed." However, the the ship can rectify their
situation
simply by throttling back and turning on the horn. What can the kayak do
other
that whine the the fog was not expected?




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.


Doing something where the inevitable result is breaking the law is not
right.
Claiming that the sun was shining when you left port is not an excuse for
not
having lights.




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.


Sorry, the only writeup of the results that I remember is on a
subscription
service. The original reports made it sound like the ferry ran down the
fishing
boat, but it was the opposite - the small boat hit the side of the ferry
at
speed.


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.


Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall
at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says,
"except when
its not convenient."

Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1.

Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"?

Why are you so determined to twist the rules?





I posed this before and I don't think you responded,
but its a very important principle.

Quite right!

So you blantantly ignore the rules but expect total compliance from
everyone
else! Is that your point? That its OK to violate the rules when you want
to?






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?


Sorry, Donal. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You are expected to
understand
the interpretations of the courts. While a court may not feel bound by
the
ruling of a lower court in a different jurisdiction, the courts appreciate
that
it is everyone's best interest to have a common body of law. In the text
I've
quoted most often, a number of the precendents cited are British. I even
provided a quote where they say that common interpretations are important
in
international law.

You are beginning to talk absolute rubbish(again).

National courts do *not* accede to precedences that have been set in foreign
courts, unless those courts have been set up as the result of an
international treaty. Your constitution would not allow a foreign court to
hold precedence over one of your own courts. Our constitution, likewise,
would not allow a Boston court to set a precedent.




You keep asking me to cite British case, but you've never mentioned any.
What's
the matter, don't you have courts there anymore?


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.


But then you say you don't intend that to mean that all traffic should
stop.
However, that is the only logical response - if the ship knew there was a
kayak
and didn't stop it would be reprehensible. You seem to keep flip-flopping
on
this; what are you really saying?

No, no, no! I'm saying that *all* vessels are equally governed by the
CollRegs.

I accept that big ships should be shown a bit of lattitude. However, I
also say that small vessels should be shown the same lattitude. *You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an obligation to obey
the CollRegs than small vessels. You've even gone as far as to say that
commercial shipping is favoured under the CollRegs. That is an incredibly
stupid position, when the CollRegs clearly state that "power shall give way
to sail".




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?

A ship should always assume there is a possibility.

Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts,

it is not my position to judge a "safe speed"

Answer the question. You feel in a position to castigate any kayaker who
suddenly gets enveloped by fog.


without sounding fog horns,

The would be wrong

and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

A visual watch is required, but what that really implies varies with the
situation. Maybe you could give us some examples from your local courts.

Why? Is a visual lookout required, or not?

Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs at face
value?

Jeff, you seem to be going off the deep end.

Do we have to look up court rulings before we accept any of the CollRegs?
Get a grip!!





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?


It is the responsibility of every seaman to be prepared to fulfill its
obligations and handle situations that could reasonably be expected to
arise.
This is articulated quite clearly in Rule 2(a).

The law even has a provision for "inevitable accidents" arising from
situations
that could not have been foreseen. However, they are very rare, less than
1% of
the cases in US law. It is generally held that simple weather events
(such as
fog) or mechanical problems that could have been prevented with better
maintained are not an excuse.




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.


Are you saying that the kayak is not obligated to "not impede" the ship in
the
narrow channel or TSS?



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.


We keep going around this one issue: the rules seem to imply (thought they
don't
say explictly) that in zero visibilty, the only safe safe speed is "zero."

So why don't you argue that ships should come to a complete stop in fog?

You have argued that a "kayak has no business being there", and yet the
CollRegs do not support you.

You are a hypocrite.

There is no other speed that would permit a tanker to proceed without
having the
risk of hitting an unseen tiny vessel. My claim is that the courts have
said
that it is permissible to proceed under certain situations. Your claim
sometimes seems to be that the letter of the law must be followed, and
other
times you seem to say that breaking the law is inevitable.

You keep claiming that the ship *may* break the law, and that the kayak may
*not*. I see nothing in the CollRegs to support your position.


Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.

No, fog usually occurs when I expect it. I think you may need a better
teacher.

I use the weather forecast. What system do you have for predicting fog?



Regards



Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall
at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says,
"except when
its not convenient."

Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1.

Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"?

How did you get it there? Levitation?


Why are you so determined to twist the rules?


Not twisting - just pointing out that the rule is not an absolute. If you don't
like the case of being in a slip, consider being at anchor. Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at anchor?



Sorry, Donal. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You are expected to
understand
the interpretations of the courts. While a court may not feel bound by
the
ruling of a lower court in a different jurisdiction, the courts appreciate
that
it is everyone's best interest to have a common body of law. In the text
I've
quoted most often, a number of the precendents cited are British. I even
provided a quote where they say that common interpretations are important
in
international law.

You are beginning to talk absolute rubbish(again).

National courts do *not* accede to precedences that have been set in foreign
courts, unless those courts have been set up as the result of an
international treaty. Your constitution would not allow a foreign court to
hold precedence over one of your own courts. Our constitution, likewise,
would not allow a Boston court to set a precedent.


So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed greatly
from the US interpretation? No? Why do you think that is? I've never said
that courts are bound by foreign precedents; I've only said that courts see the
need for a common interpretation. In that sense, its appropriate to cite any
case that shows the concepts.

And remember, the comments that really started this were about Joe's actions in
US waters. Are you claiming US ruling have no bearing on that?




No, no, no! I'm saying that *all* vessels are equally governed by the
CollRegs.

I accept that big ships should be shown a bit of lattitude. However, I
also say that small vessels should be shown the same lattitude. *You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an obligation to obey
the CollRegs than small vessels.

No - I never said that. This is the nonsense you spout. I've never made any
claim whatsoever that ships should not obey the rules, as interpreted by the
courts. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. Your answer to everything is
that I'm saying ships can ignore their responsibility.

You've even gone as far as to say that
commercial shipping is favoured under the CollRegs.

In a Narrow Channel or a TSS they are "favored." Or do you disagree? Whenever
I point this out, you get very quiet.


That is an incredibly
stupid position, when the CollRegs clearly state that "power shall give way
to sail".

At all times? Have you never read the rules? Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"? As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"? But we've been through
this before. You keep bringing it up even though you know you're wrong - isn't
this a definition of insanity?



Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts,

it is not my position to judge a "safe speed"

Answer the question. You feel in a position to castigate any kayaker who
suddenly gets enveloped by fog.

You ignore every argument I make. Yet you demand I answer your questions. You
are a hypocrite, aren't you?

I'm being perfectly honest - I can't make a judgement given the scanty
information. 25 knots would seem rather fast for any waters I commonly cruise
in, but I can't say about the HSC, or the middle of the Bay of Fundy, or a lot
of other places I don't frequent. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the
courts might dictate what a safe speed is for a given situation?



without sounding fog horns,

The would be wrong

and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

A visual watch is required, but what that really implies varies with the
situation. Maybe you could give us some examples from your local courts.

Why? Is a visual lookout required, or not?

So, is it legal to single hand? Is it proper for a helmsman to also be the
lookout? Can someone maintain a visual watch and a radar watch at the same
time?

How is it possible to paddle a kayak in the open ocean, and still maintain a
proper watch? Isn't continuous vigilance required?

These are all issues the courts have addressed - why do you claim their opinions
have no bearing on this discussion?


Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs at face
value?

I think you're saying that. You've claimed you don't always keep a lookout.
You've claimed ships should continue at steerageway even though that's too fast
to react to a hazard spotted visually. You seem to claim it OK to break the
rules.

My claim is that the courts have interpreted some of the concepts in the rules,
and that we are bound by these opinions. At least, that the way it works in the
US.



Jeff, you seem to be going off the deep end.

Do we have to look up court rulings before we accept any of the CollRegs?
Get a grip!!

Perhaps I should quote from Farwell's, the standard US text, one more time:
"Whatever one thinks of the legal setup, ... the mariner must obey the law as he
finds it - and that means in practice, how the admiralty judges interpret it.
.... It remains only for the mariner to familiarize himself with the gist of the
important decisions, many of which are set forth in textbooks dealing with the
subject."

Perhaps it would be wise for you find out how this works in your country. I
think there may have been a gap in your education.



We keep going around this one issue: the rules seem to imply (thought they
don't
say explictly) that in zero visibilty, the only safe safe speed is "zero."

So why don't you argue that ships should come to a complete stop in fog?

Because the courts have ruled that is not always necessary.



You have argued that a "kayak has no business being there", and yet the
CollRegs do not support you.

One more time: I have not tried to claim that being there is a violation of the
rules. I've only claimed that it is a foolhardy thing to do. That is the
meaning of "have no business being there." Do you have some learning disability
that prevents you from understanding this?



You are a hypocrite.

How so? My position is perfectly consistent. Your's however, is hypocritical.



There is no other speed that would permit a tanker to proceed without
having the
risk of hitting an unseen tiny vessel. My claim is that the courts have
said
that it is permissible to proceed under certain situations. Your claim
sometimes seems to be that the letter of the law must be followed, and
other
times you seem to say that breaking the law is inevitable.

You keep claiming that the ship *may* break the law, and that the kayak may
*not*. I see nothing in the CollRegs to support your position.

This is probably why you are not an admiralty court judge. They are the ones
who say what the rules are, not you. The ships and the kayak must follow their
guidance.




Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.

No, fog usually occurs when I expect it. I think you may need a better
teacher.

I use the weather forecast. What system do you have for predicting fog?

I use a variety of inputs, the forecast being one of them. I have never seen
fog when conditions were not ripe for it. The forecast is often inaccurate -
claiming the fog didn't clear when the forecast said it would is no excuse.

Donal wrote:

Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think
that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel.
Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they
are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently
fixed aloft.

I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I
find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely
ignorant of the other.

They're not ignorant of each other, in most cases, but may have
developed different ways of handling each other.
There tend to be two basic situations involving ships and small boat
meetings. The one on one, open ocean, where hopefully the ship sees the
small boat (we all know that conditions may not make this easy) and
reacts according to the rules .... no real excuse not to .... and the
area where there are many small boats around going in all directions
(this applies to fishing fleets also).
In the latter case, experience has taught many of us, that the best plan
of attack is to maintain course and speed, and eg (you didn't hear me
say this) screw the rules. Why? Simply stated, a particular small boat
may only be seeing the ship and it's collision course, where as, from
the bridge, the ship sees numerous small boats on collision course, and
to maneuver for one may throw a whole bunch of other's into trouble.
Problem is, some ships have carried this "hold course" to all conditions
of meeting small boats ( Some may use this to say rule 2 applies), which
though not correct, is a fact of life the small boater must deal with
.....I won't go in to who's to blame for this condition.


I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last
time that I crossed in fog.

I find this number hard to believe, but my familiarity with the area is
distant and only a few times, so I can't comment from a shipboard
perspective.


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.


I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that
personal freedom is more important.

Sorry, killing 3 people, in a vain attempt to save one fool, rubs me
wrong. I realize that people get caught in conditions the could not have
planned for, but too many people are using their "personal freedoms" to
act irresponsibly and without thought as to the consequences.




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.


I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that
it was a fairly busy part. of the river.

My guess is he was talking about the Mississippi, possibly a departure
area of "The Jump", which is a busy area, but 99% is commercial, and
talks freely to each other. The other area was the Houston Ship Channel
..... a mixed bag of traffic, again, highly regulated, with known areas
of "recreational traffic". In either area, depending on the boat,
operator, equipment, etc., I would not consider 25k to necessarily be
bad or good.

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.


He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the
Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs'
requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing".

Different commercial operations, world wide will run under different
conditions ...1,2,3, however many people.
Having done the "one man" as well as many others, I cannot say that a
particular system is unsafe, although I prefer numerous "mark one
eyeballs" when possible. I DO disagree with anyone who is acting as
radar observer to be totally and solely immersed in the radar,
especially if they are the only one at the controls, but even then, the
conditions may warrant such actions ..... main point .... without being
there at the time, it's extremely hard to say what is/was correct or
incorrect..... or complied with the rules, for the conditions.


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".


This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.

EG NO comment on British courts. I think here we would need someone
familiar with "Admiralty Law" to comment. In the US, I believe it's the
Federal Courts which hear and pass on most cases, regarding maritime
matters, not State courts. The precedence for maritime matters go way
back over centuries, and doubtfully, any maritime nation, would not need
to go out of it's own country to find the needed precedence for a
particular case, but there is nothing to say they won't or can't (This
was my weakest subject at school).
I believe, also, that the IMO, falls under an international treaty ....
again, I mention this only to emphasize that I don't think this is in
the nature of one country trying to supersede or over ride,
international law ....this would be a whole other thread.



My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there",

Your impression ..... I did not get the same. You can never assume that
some idiot may not be rowing across the Atlantic (fools seem to try it
regularly, nowadays). What you do is make your decisions and base your
actions on the probabilities, and never lose sight of the fact you may
be wrong .... it's a juggling act, which unfortunately doesn't always
work out in your favor .... just like so many things we do.


or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".

I think you will find this issue being argued more and more ..... what's
apt to give you the best warning in fog? A constant visual out the
window look, a constant radar watch, or a split between the two?

Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to
be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when
the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up
about it? That's why I bought a radar.

You may be right, you may not have been able to see him, the conditions
may be such that it's unsafe to have a lookout on the bow, etc..
As to the fog horn, I've run well offshore along the US West Coast
(50-100mi) in thick fog for days on end ....shut the damn thing off
.....if someone comes close or you think you may have a target, resume
sounding. Again, I don't know the conditions you were under, think your
numbers are high, but can't really comment.

I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that
British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered
under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always
had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on
the bow" in fog.

G As would any recognized maritime nation. However, FOC is becoming,
and possibly always has been a myth. It should be COC (Company of
Convenience). FOC is no guarantee that you are dealing with some third
rate ship or crew, nor is the fact that a ship registered in a "Maritime
Nation" any indication that it will be ( though an indication) well run.
I've been aboard too many ship's of all flags in the past dozen years to
believe otherwise.



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.


I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.

In truth, would it make a difference if the ship was doing 12k or 25k in
fog if it suddenly spotted a kayak? .... 6k? .... bare steerageway?

If they are running a TSS, they are expecting (rightly or wrongly) that
this is their 2mi (or whatever) wide lane where they should be able to
be safe from vessel's that don't belong there in a way that impedes
their progress. They are doing their part by staying in their lane, they
expect the small boat to do theirs and stay out of the lane or at least
not impede their passage.
Do you see all the possible errors in this way of thinking? Do you see
all the possible errors in thinking a kayak has any business in a TSS in
fog?
All arguments aside ..... don't expect a ship to slow in fog, be blowing
fog signals, have a lookout on the bow ....expect the worst, and avoid a
TSS like the plague, in all conditions of visibility.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.


Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

Don't know the area. It may be less stupid to stay where he is. If he
decides to go across, he must understand that he is equally responsible
to avoid collision, and he must take all precautions within his power to
do so, realizing that he will be a highly invisible target, both on
radar and visually.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

No one's saying that ... the ship and the kayak deserve the same
"mercy", the ship and kayak have the same responsibilities, and both
must understand their limitations and the total number of possible
repercussions .... problem is ..... ship meets kayak in fog, kayak
loses, and ship probably won't have a clue it was there.

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.

I think I'm the one who suggested staying where he is. The Colregs were
originally written to cover larger vessels. It's been years of trying to
change and adapt them to include the burgeoning population of small
recreational vessels, with sometimes questionable results.
I don't think Jeff has stated that a vessel may proceed at an unsafe
speed, but rather that the speed that the ship may consider safe, may
not be the speed that YOU consider safe





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.

A slow moving ship with a proper lookout, cannot guarantee that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on it's radar.

snip
I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

It may be, by being there, if there was an alternate course of action
possible.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.

Possibly true


It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.

I think you may not be understanding which national courts may be being
discussed ..... again, we need to have an "Admiralty" lawyer comment on
this area.

otn

phew