"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"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?

They aren't very navigable when I'm parked there!




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?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water". IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?






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?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.


No?

No. So what?


Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework, of
their own country.


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.

What nonsense!!!



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?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts, in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.






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.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?




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?

Of course not! *You* suggested that the rules had a general bias towards
commercial shipping.
Let me quote you(again) -
"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. "

The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".



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?

Nope!


Have you never read the rules?

Yes!


Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that? Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.



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?

Couldn't I ask you the same question?





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?

Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

Where did I ever complain about the speed alone?

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts, using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Let's face it. You defended Joe's position. You are trying to extract
yourself from an untenable situation. It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection. Admit
it.







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?

Yes it is. So what?



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

Why don't you post a link?




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.


Again, post a link!





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.

I recipriocate.





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.

Wow!!! Let me tell you something. Fog sometimes appears when it isn't
forecast.

Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1.

Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"?

How did you get it there? Levitation?

They aren't very navigable when I'm parked there!

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you should be
a judge.

Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say! So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?

Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and Jax on
the stupidity scale!



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving, there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable. This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK, because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your judgement on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."



So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework, of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not
interpret the law? Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing? Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?




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.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You seem to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think they
were that bad!


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?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts, in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job. I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than running
on visual only. How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away.



I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to back up any
of your claims?


*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.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context, you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the helmsman is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been playing the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming its a wise
choice?


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?

Of course not! *You* suggested that the rules had a general bias towards
commercial shipping.
Let me quote you(again) -
"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. "

I stand by that - its absolutly correct. Are you claiming Rules 9 and 10 don't
exist? Have you ever read them? You might try to claim rules 9 & 10 don't
apply as often as I claim, but certainly when they do apply, the large ship is
favored.


The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules say, do
you?

I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels or a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also, that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only case in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.

So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of
understanding of the rules.



Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that? Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!


If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of most people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels, mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly liar?


Where did I ever complain about the speed alone?

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts, using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue to play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre compulsion to be
an asshole?



Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as absolute as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper speed
should be, never having been there.

You are trying to extract
yourself from an untenable situation.

I have no need. I am content in my tenability.

It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection. Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual (and
sound) watch".

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?

Yes it is. So what?



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

Why don't you post a link?

I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just claimed that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have no
bearing?





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.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might be hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.

OK, Since Donal seems incapable of doing his own research I thought I might do
it for him.

Here are two reports on an incident between the Dover High Speed Ferry, and
another ferry in fog. Unfortunately, although both reports cite "failure to
keep a proper lookout" they aren't clear on what would have corrected that.
Since there were two visual lookouts posted, I assume the issue was with the
radar watch, which was clearly flawed. The Rule 19 violation I assume had to do
with not slowing when the radar image was distorted in the minute before the
collision. The comments seem to complain about a lapse of vigilance, as opposed
to inappropriate procedures.

I'm sure that Donal will say this supports his claims about the lack of
lookouts. However, I note that this was not considered a breach of Rule 6 "Safe
Speed," nor was there any other mention that the speed itself was a primary
cause. The high speed ferry was doing 38 knots earlier, and was still doing 29
at the time of the collision. The other ferry was doing 23 knots, I think. I
also found mention of a request of a follow-up study to generate guidelines for
a safe speed, but I haven't found any indication of this actually happening.

Enjoy the gift, Donal.



http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.n...D?opendocument

8 April 2003

MASTER OF HIGH SPEED FERRY SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED IN DOVER

At a hearing today at Dover Magistrates Court the Captain of the
Luxembourg registered high speed ferry "Diamant" was convicted of
failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to conduct his vessel
appropriately in fog.

The "Diamant", a high speed ferry operated by Hoverspeed on the Dover
- Ostend service, was approaching Dover at about 1000 on 6th January
2002 with 148 people on board. At that time the visibility was
reduced by dense fog. With 3.5 miles to go, and at a speed of about
30 knots, the "Diamant" collided with the outbound freight ferry
"Northern Merchant" which had 103 people on board. The investigation
by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency determined that the Captain had
failed to use his radar properly to determine the movements of the
"Northern Merchant" and on the basis of this mistake had effectively
turned into the other ship instead of away from it.

District Judge Riddle fined Jean Ramakers, a Belgian national, £1500
for the offence relating to lookout, and £1500 for the offence
relating to navigation in fog. Costs of £1500 were also awarded the
MCA.

Summing up, Judge Riddle said "This incident occurred in a busy
seaway and near a port, where the failure to keep a proper lookout
and to conduct a vessel properly can potentially have serious
consequences. This can range from a near miss to a catastrophic
incident. The highest standards of conduct must be expected of those
in charge of such ships. Even minor lapses must be accounted for and
punished, and cannot be ignored."

Captain John Garner, the MCA's Deputy Director of Operations and
Chairman of the UK High Speed Craft Advisory Group, said after the
case "The consequences of Captain Ramakers errors should send a clear
reminder to the operators, masters and crews of high speed ferries to
remain constantly vigilant and to maintain the highest professional
standards. Fog in the Dover Strait is common and the operation of a
high speed service must contain sufficient safety measures to
overcome the hazard to safe navigation that this can present"



http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-ne...tions_2003.htm

Defendant: Jean Ramakers
Date of Offence: 6th January 2002
Offence: Failure to keep a proper lookout by all available means and failure to
conduct his vessel appropriately whilst in restricted visibility.

Details: This incident took place approximately 3 ½ miles east of the Eastern
entrance to Dover Harbour in thick fog on 6th January 2002. NORTHERN MERCHANT, a
UK flag truck ferry of 22152gt, had just left Dover for Dunkirk and was clearing
outbound traffic whilst increasing to passage speed. DIAMANT, a Luxembourg flag
Incat 81 type high-speed ferry, was inbound Dover from Ostend. In poor
visibility, DIAMANT struck the NORHTERN MERCHANT. There were no serious injuries
on board either vessel, but the damage to DIAMANT resulted in her withdrawal
from service for extended repairs to the bow and starboard prong.

DIAMANT had left Ostend as normal, but in reduced visibility. The bridge team,
Master, Chief Officer, Chief Engineer and lookout was supplemented by an
additional lookout. The passage proceeded under normal conditions until the
DIAMANT entered the English Inshore Traffic Zone at the CS4 buoy. At that point
the visibility had deteriorated further, and the Master, aware that his berth in
Dover was occupied, took the opportunity to reduce speed from 38 knots to 33
knots to delay his estimated time of arrival. It was at this time that both
Master and Chief Officer acquired the departing NORTHERN MERCHANT on ARPA. The
closest point of approach closed to 3 cables on the starboard quarter and a
slight alteration to port was made to open the point of approach. At this time
the Master believed that the NORTHERN MERHCANT was on a reciprocal course, and
allowed the range to close. The DIAMANT bridge team were well aware of the
developing situation and were looking and listening for the NORTHERN MERCHANT.
At about this point the fog signal from the NORTHERN MERCHANT was heard,
apparently to starboard, and both the Master and Chief Officer noted the radar
echo slightly distort radially, so that the bearing discrimination became
impossible. The master altered course to port to open the range. Some thirty
seconds later the NORTHERN MERCHANT appeared right ahead and beam on. An
emergency turn to port was initiated, which served to reduce the force of the
impact.


The defendant admitted to failing to keep a proper lookout and failure to
conduct his vessel appropriately whilst in restricted visibility, under the
following offences;
COLREG 5 (lookout)
COLREG 19 (conduct of vessels in restricted visibility).
Penalties: £1500 per offence and £1500 costs

I get the feeling that although he had ARPA, he failed to properly use
it. With ARPA there should have been no guess work ....course, speed,
CPA, Rel.motion should have been known.

otn

Something did not work properly with the radar procedures. In the aftermath,
they ran simulations with the ships and an action item that came out of that was
a meeting with the radar manufacturer to find out why it didn't work as it
should have.

Unfortunately, all the reports I found were rather terse - if it had been the
NTSB they would have listed model numbers, etc. The US reports however, are
usually fuzzy on the law until you get up to the appeals level.

One thing I found surprising while perusing the British "prosecution" reports
was the large number of boats prosecuted simply for not traveling properly in
the Dover TSS. One boat's defense was that their electronics failed and they
didn't have a paper backup, so they were also fined for not having a proper
chart.


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I get the feeling that although he had ARPA, he failed to properly use
it. With ARPA there should have been no guess work ....course, speed,
CPA, Rel.motion should have been known.

otn

For better or worse. here's the complete report on the Dover Ferry incident.
Note that this is not the court findings, nor do they feel bound be court
precedents, or make any attempt to place blame. The actual prosecution was
much more limited in scope, and only found fault under Rules 5 and 19.

It would be possible to find something in this report to support almost any
position.

On the issue of safe speed:

"Recognising that there is always a possibility that small vessels and other
floating objects might not be detected by radar at an adequate range (Rule
6(b)(iv)), it follows that a speed which relies on radar for detecting vessels
at a
sufficient range so as to be able to avoid collision, in accordance with the
Collision Regulations, should not be regarded as a safe speed.

"However, the practicality of following the above criterion in conditions of
severely restricted visibility is questionable (eg the need to maintain steerage
in
conditions of zero visibility). Additionally, the commercial viability of
shipping
would be in danger of being undermined if the criterion was strictly applied,
particularly in areas prone to restricted visibility.

"In view of the above, a more pragmatic approach might be appropriate, such
that a degree of reliance on radar for detection might be acceptable following a
reasoned assessment of the risks in doing so."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ety_507877.pdf

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So, if a vessel bumped into your boat, they wouldn't be violating the
ColRegs?
You feel very free to interpet the words however you like. Maybe you
should be
a judge.

I most certainly do *not* feel free to apply my personal interpretation to
the CollRegs. Surely, you must see that *you* are the one who is constantly
suggesting that the CollRegs can be "interpreted". You have previously
chastised me for suggesting that the words should be taken at face value ...
and now you are suggesting that I am placing my personal interpretation on
the Regs.

Perhaps you will accept the definition of the word "navigable" as provided
by the Chambers Dictionary.

"navigable (of a river, channel, etc) deep enough and wide enough to be
passed by ships, etc; dirigible."



You see, Jeff. I made NO personal interpretations. My slip is not
navigable. It cannot be "passed" by any floating object. When I am berthed
there, it is very much *not* navigable.









Do you agree the
the rules explicity require an "proper lookout" at all times at
anchor?

It really depends on where you have dropped anchor, doesn't it?

I sometimes drop anchor in a place called "Newtown Creek". Towards low
water, we touch ground. Further up the creek, the water gets shallower.
This is an anchorage. It is definitely not "navigable water".

What???? Are you daft? A creek is not navigable because some boats
touch
bottom at low tide? And therefore the rules don't apply there? That's
possibly
the stupidest thing I've heard you say!

Good! 'Cos it isn't very stupid when you think about it.

I've described a dead end, and you are claiming that it is "navigable".
Please re-read the definition of "navigable". A dead-end cannot be
navigable.


So what about an anchor light? Not
needed because the rules don't apply to you?



Sorry, Donal, you've just placed youself somewhere between Horvath and Jax
on
the stupidity scale!

You are recycling your insults. It didn't help your case the first time.
It doesn't help your case this time.



IOW, a big
ship would have no business there.

I think the owners of the big ship would likely agree.


I don't post a lookout when I am there. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, positively, if you believe in the letter of the law. And
although
there is a presumption of guilt when you bump into a vessel not moving,
there
have been a number of cases where the anchored vessel was held liable.
This
would be particularly so if one were anchored near a channel, or where
another
vessel would be seeking refuge in bad weather.

Agreed.



My point is that the wording of Rule 5 is unequivocal, but almost
everyone,
including you, choses to disregard it in certain cases. However, it OK,
because
the courts have said so: they have the final say on how to interpret the
rules.

You seem to be claiming that it isn't the courts, its just your judgement
on
what's important. That's what we call "anarchy."

What nonsense! You are trying to say that courts around the world can
overrule the wording of the CollRegs. Your opinion is much closer to
anarchy than mine. I am trying to say that the CollRegs are worded very
carefully, and that we should not try to second guess what the authors
intended. They actually wrote their intentions. When they say that a
lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing, they really meant to say
that a lookout should be maintained by sight and hearing. When they said
that a vessel should maintain a speed that was appropriate for the
conditions, they didn't mean that Joe could race about at 25 kts in thick
fog.






So, can you show us a case where the British interpretation differed
greatly
from the US interpretation?

Really, Jeff. Courts do not work the way that you think.
They are governed by the national constitution.

What does that mean? I'm not claiming that British courts must follow
American
precedents, only that they are likely to be similar. The real point is
the
mariners must abide by the rulings of their own courts. Or are you
claiming its
doesn't work that way where you are?



Why do you think that is?

Because courts are bound by the constitution, and the legal framework,
of
their own country.

So? In other words, you don't know how your own law works, and you thus
assume
I don't either. Are you actually claiming that in Britain courts do not
interpret the law?

No. What makes you think that?

Are you claiming the precedents, even local ones, have no
bearing?

No. Why do you ask this question?

Are you claiming that if your highest court makes a ruling that does
not, in effect, become part of your law?

I'm really beginning to think that you didn't understand a word that I
wrote.






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.

What nonsense!!!

Don't you have a legal system in Britain, or is it just anarchy? You seem
to
feel free to make your own interpretations and then insist everyone else
should
abide. I heard thing were going to hell over there, but I didn't think
they
were that bad!

You seem to be suggesting that a court ruling in one country could influence
a court's decision in a different jurisdiction. Can you understand that I
have a difficulty with that proposition?

I suspect that you might be suffering from a little insularity.

Can you imagine a court in Boston allowing its judgement to be influenced by
a French case? Of course not. Believe it, or not, a French court would not
give any weight to a decision in an American court.





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?

If you can produce a link that says that a vessel can legally do 25 kts,
in
fog, with only a Radar lookout, then I will acknowledge my error.

As I said, I have never endorsed that - its not my job.

Didn't you? So why did you question *me* for criticising Joe's attitude?
In case you don't rember, this all started when I suggested that Joe was in
breach of the CollRegs for doing 25kts in fog, using the Radar as a lookout.
You did *not* feel the need to question Joe. You did ask me to show where
the CollRegs said that you couldn't navigate under radar alone.

Why on Earth did you pose that question?


I already cited a
British case where it was ruled that radar permitted a higher speed than
running
on visual only.
How much higher in a given situation is something for the
courts to decide. My point was never that Joe's speed was OK; it was that
there's no way for someone to make that judgement from 5000 miles away.


Ahhhh! You didn't like to see a foreigner criticise a fellow American???
That sounds like a pretty poor defence to me.





I really doubt that you can produce such evidence.

I don't much care - it doesn't make any difference to me. I don't even
know if
there has been such a ruling - I never claimed it was OK.

But when's the last time you provided any link or other reference to back
up any
of your claims?


*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.

Really? Why do you ask such questions as "Where in the CollRegs does
it
say that a vessel cannot maintain a lookout by Radar alone"?

I never said that. You're not only taking my comments out of context,
you're
changing the words. But we all know you're just a cowardly liar.

I did ask where it says you can't run on radar alone, as in, the helmsman
is
steering based on radar. I added that a visual lookout is required, but
the
courts have ruled that the helmsman can drive based on radar.

Sorry Donal, you lost this a long, long time ago, you've just been playing
the
fool every night for the last month.



Why would you say that a "kayak has no business being there"?


Everyone agrees with me. Why shouldn't I say it? Are you claiming its
a wise
choice?

Don't ask silly questions. I have repeatedly said that a kayak could get
caught out in an unexpected fog. It really has nothing to do with wisdom -
and everything to do with the vagaries of the weather.




The reality is that the rules say that "Power shall give way to sail".

Go back to the classroom Donal, you really don't know what the rules say,
do
you?

In fact, I do.


I'll give you some help. Here's the rule you're thinking of:

Rule 18
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise requi
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

Note the first line, saying that this does not apply in Narrow Channels or
a
TSS. Rule 18 also favors vessels "Constrained by Draft." Note also,
that
Rules 9 and 10 are in effect even in the fog. In fact, its the only case
in the
rules where a vessel is explicitly favored in the fog.
So I'll admit there are numerous cases where powerboats, especially small
powerboats, must keep out of the way of sailboats, but making the blanket
statement that "Power shall give way to sail" show a complete lack of
understanding of the rules.

I'm almost reduced to your level of ad hominem response by this silly
comment.

The rule says that power shall give way to sail *except* in the following
circumstances.






Have you never read the rules?

Yes!

It sure doesn't look like it. You even admitted that was 14 years ago.



Aren't you ignoring where it
says, "except in narrow channels and TSS's"?

No, I'm not ignoring that bit.

As in, "those places where large
ships and small vessels are likely to meet one another"?

Where on earth did you conjure up those quotation marks from? Do you
really
think that I am stupid enough to let you get away with that?
Puleeeease,
Jeff, don't try to introduce spurious nonsense into the discussion.

you're sounding just like jaxie here. Pretty funny, actually!

No, I asked a serious question. You *did* use quotation marks. Thar
would lead many people to believe that you were actually quoting from
something. Do the words "those places where large ships and small vessels
are likely to meet one another" actually appear in the CollRegs? Perhaps
you would like to admit that you were being "creative" when you wrote those
words?

Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest, once again, that I am either
stupid - or a liar.

Maybe, you will be honest and admit that you just made those words up.




If you are arguing about the CollRegs, then you should stick to the
CollRegs. I may not read them as often as you do, but I recognise
irrelevant sh*te when I see it.

Sorry - is reality too much for you? I think its the experience of most
people
that encounters with large ships happen in channels or TSS's. That's
reality.
You could cruise New England waters for a lifetime and never encounter a
large
ship in open waters, where you would actually be stand-on. Or the
Chesapeake,
or the Keys. I've never been sailing in your home waters but a quick
look at
the chart shows that "narrow channels" would apply within a number of
miles of
Portsmouth or Southampton. I'd guess that most small sailboats don't
often go
out that far, but even so, they'd be more likely to encounter ships in a
Rule 9
or 10 situation.

The truth is, you, and everyone else, avoid large ships in channels,
mainly
because its stupid to challenge them, but also because its illegal.


Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the CollRegs say that you
should keep a lookout by "sight and hearing"?

When have I ever denied that? Or are you back to being the cowardly liar?

When I first pointed it out you asked me "where ...." etc.

If you really believed that you would have questioned Joe's position - and
not mine.

Why can you not see that my complaint was about someone"doing 25 kts,
using
Radar alone" as a means of keeping a lookout?

Did I ever say you were wrong? In my very first post on this I said "Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch". And yet, you keep
accusing
me of saying I don't think a lookout is required. Why do you continue to
play
the cowardly liar? Is this some sickness of yours? A bizarre compulsion
to be
an asshole?

Personal attacks won't help us to reach agreement.
Your initial question was something like "where in the CollRegs does it say
that you can't say that you can't keep a lookout under Radar alone?" I
posted a reply, and you disagreed with me. I've no idea *why* you wanted to
disagree with me ... but you did. That was your choice. On the one hand
you had someone(Joe) who claimed that doing 25kts on a busy waterway, in
fog, without a proper lookout, was safe. On the other hand you had someone
(me) who pointed out that this behaviour was in contravention of rhe
CollRegs. You didn't question Joe, and you did question me.

Now you say that I was right, and that Joe was wrong, and yet you are still
arguing with me. It doesn't make sense. You seem to be on some sort of
mission.






Let's face it. You defended Joe's position.

No I never did that, I just pointed out the that rules are not as absolute
as
you claim. You've even agreed, you've said steerageway is OK, You've
even said
12 knots might be OK. I'm just claiming I can't say what the proper speed
should be, never having been there.


Are you saying that you have never encountered shipping in fog??

If so, why the hell have you engaged in this conversation?


It is wrong to travel at 25 kts on a
busy waterway, using the Radar as your only form of vessel detection.
Admit
it.

As I said in my first post, "Of course, one should always have a visual
(and
sound) watch".


So why did you question *me*, when I was stating that one should always have
a visual and a hearing lookout? Why didn't you question Joe?




I've cited cases, quoted texts, even provided links. You've just claimed
that
nothing is relevent. Are you actually claiming that court ruling have no
bearing?

Not really. I'm claiming that "National" court rulings can have no
influence on an "International" treaty.








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.


Again, post a link!

Go to your library. Take out "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" and
read
it.


This is really boring Donal. I guess that for a liar like you it might be
hard
to believe others are telling the truth when they quote a textbook.

Do you really think that I am a liar?

.... Or do you think that you have painted yourself into a corner?



Regards


Donal
--

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...


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.

snipped

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 don't really disagree with you here.




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.

If JohnE is still lurking, then perhaps he will comment.




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.

I see it differently. I don't know where you got your "3 people" from.


The reality is that many people, perhaps many millions, enjoy the freedom of
the sea for every rescuer who loses his life. I don't think that lack of
"certification" is a major cause of emergency rescue. I suspect that lack
of maintenance is the main trigger for rescue service involvement.


Regards



Donal
--

Donal wrote:


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.

G many of the ones I know, turn their "fishing" lights on when they
leave the dock, and never turn them off till they tie back up.

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.


I see it differently. I don't know where you got your "3 people" from.

Was an example, but don't doubt that I can find any number of rescuers
killed in those numbers while trying to rescue one person in many areas,
much less just boating ..... know of a rescue swimmer, and crew from a
CG boat lost.....


The reality is that many people, perhaps many millions, enjoy the freedom of
the sea for every rescuer who loses his life. I don't think that lack of
"certification" is a major cause of emergency rescue. I suspect that lack
of maintenance is the main trigger for rescue service involvement.

What kind of certification are you talking about? Maintenance is only
one reason ....lack of experience and basic knowledge and good judgment
have to rank right up there.

otn

This is really getting pointless. You keep making arguments that are totally
irrelevant.

First of all, your issue about court jurisdictions is meaningless. I'm not
claiming that British courts have to follow Boston precedents. I've only
claimed that British courts decide what the meaning of "proper lookout" and
"safe speed" is for their jurisdictions, just as US court do for theirs.
Whether or not they come to similar decisions may be meaningful to someone, but
it really doesn't matter here. I've offered case from a variety of
jurisdictions that show that they all make interpretation that differ from the
apparent letter of the law.

Your bizarre attempt to prove that I have some "bias" is also meaningless. In
some cases sail is favored over power; in other cases not. In some situations
large ships are favored, in other situations not. To make any claim of bias
without reference to some context is meaningless. In my 45 years of sailing,
there's only been a few times that I've been the stand-on vessel WRT a large
ship; there have been hundreds of times where I have avoided impeding a vessel.

Arguing over what is "navigable" is also meaningless - you admitted that
sometimes one might anchor in navigable waters. And sometimes a lookout is
needed, most times it is not. A frankly, arguing that the ColRegs are specific,
and then trying to apply a dictionary definition doesn't make any sense at all.
I found three definitions that were all slightly different, but could all be
interpreted as "if you could get there, its navigable." And one offered "By the
comon law, a river is considered as navigable only so far as the tide ebbs and
flows in it."

My point in this is that the words of the ColRegs are not considered an
absolute, even though they may appear to be. It is the courts that decide the
meaning of such terms as "proper lookout" and "safe speed."

As to my post that started this: I had stayed out of the discussion at first
since I didn't know what to make Joe's claim. However, your claim the 25 knots
is clearly too fast is not supported in the rules, as interpreted by the courts.
In addition, the rules do not specifically say that one person cannot be the
visual watch, the radar watch, and the helmsman. All of these issues are a
matter of interpretation of the courts - it is not for you or I to pass
judgment. I've admitted that I have problems with the visual watch being the
same as the radar watch, but I've seen Maine Lobstermen do it every day.
Running that fast is also outside my experience but its obvious that that too is
also done everyday.

You keep claiming I'm using my own interpretation of the rules. In fact, that
is exactly what I'm not willing to do. All I've said is that it's up to the
courts to determine what is a safe speed and what is a proper lookout. I've
quoted at length the standard text in this country - you've dismissed that as
having no relevance. Why is that? Because it is used in this country? I've
cited a number of court cases, from the US, Canada, and Britain. You ignore
most of them, while claiming French courts won't honor American decisions.

I've gone so far as to dig up a major case that occurred only a few miles from
where you sail, in almost the exact waters of our hypothetical kayak. I called
it a "gift" because in the report they specifically question the safe speed
under Rule 6. However, the report also suggests that higher speeds than bare
steerageway are probably appropriate, and the court decision didn't even
question the speed. It seemed to me that they sent a clear message that if the
radar watch had been more vigilant, the speed of 29 knots would have been OK.
The other ferry was doing 21 knots - it was found blameless by the court.

You claim that I've "painted myself into a corner," that my position is
"untenable." On the contrary, it would seem that your own local courts have
taken a position similar to mine.

As to the kayak - I stand by my claim that it "has no business being in a TSS in
the fog." You keep insisting that has no basis in the ColRegs, but my claim is
not that this is a legal issue, it is a practical one. a question of prudence.
You've claimed it could easily come to pass that someone cold get caught out in
an unexpected fog, and while there is some truth to that, I still don't buy it.
In places where fog is common, such as Maine or the Channel, there is not such
thing as "unexpected fog." On the contrary, there is unexpected clarity on
occasion.

And why you repeatedly misrepresent my original comments is totally beyond me.
I can only assume you are a compulsive liar. Frankly, your entire behavior in
this is not that of a sane person. You've fought tooth and nail on points where
you're both wrong and irrelevant. You've insisted that court rulings have no
meaning to you. You've denied that legal texts have any bearing on this.
You've claimed I'm making personal judgments when all I've done is said the
courts have the final say. You've insisted the ColRegs must be taken literally,
but then you keep saying how they can be ignored when its suits you.

I've had enough, Donal, I'm not playing anymore.