And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However, I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and lived? Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

BTW, did you have a reflector? Do you know what your radar visibility is?




Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too subtle
for you.

....
Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker
within the COLREGS and VTS requirements.
What do you mean?
He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.




Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing
situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS. Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.




Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly! The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel. Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across. That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it? What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the rest of
the day.




The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word. But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have to.
But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog, and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on its own
special circumstances. Further, as Rick has claimed, I don't think I can second
guess the courts, and I don't know of any such precedent. However, I would have
little sympathy for a kayaker who crossed the Bay of Fundy, knowing that he
would cross the path of the Fast Cat, likely in thick fog. On the other hand,
there is a 35 knot ferry on the Boston/Salem run that I think should drop its
speed for the last 3 miles of its trip, rather than the last half mile as it now
does. The last time I had to use its channel in the fog I was terrified it was
going to run up my butt! And I have radar and a good reflector. However, this
is because the Cat uses the small channel that is the only alternative to the
primary large ship channel - it does this to save 1/4 mile on the trip.



You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes
with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Ahhh! Good. You realise that the kayak will sometimes be the "stand
on"
vessel!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

Ah, the "Neal" argument! But you know this is not what we're talking about.


You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


OK. I'll do that. ... Nope, still no indication you've read them.

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world works. Why
don't you just share it?

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there. How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

I am not going to assume who will get the most blame or why.

Rick

And ???????
 

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:



I disagree with the proposition that a Radar watch(at 25 kts) can be
considered " an effective lookout".

I'd tend to agree with you. Mind you, radar can be *very* good. We have
2 on our icebreaker and I've steered through heavy sea ice using the
radar image to see where the leads are. Lotta fun and it doesn't really
matter if you turn a little wide or tight since it's OK to crunch over
stuff in the way.

That situation seems quite different to doing the same thing in a busy
waterway.

I can see a chunk of ice the size of a kayak or smaller on the radar.
Ice doesn't carry radar reflectors and is only half a metre or less
above the surface. It is possible.

Anyway, if damn fools are considered as worth the trouble of saving,
then running at 25 knots on radar only in heavy fog isn't prudent.
Personally, I wouldn't regard anyone stupid enough to go out onto a
busy waterway, in heavy fog, sans lights, radar reflector, radar, sound
signals, radio and in a hull that is a poor radar reflector as worth
saving. Anyone that stupid is a hazard to navigation and we're all
better off without them.

I don't really disagree with you.

I'm simply saying that I don't think that travelling in a busy waterway at
25 kts using radar alone is semsible - in any state of visibility.

With that I agree, but it depends on the circumstances. People by &
large can ride bicycles on most roads here in Australia, and do, mixing
with traffic weighing 100X as much and moving 4X as fast. I regard this
as stupid behaviour and give them as much room as possible, but I'm not
going to travel at bicycle speeds just on the off-chance that they
might wander in front of me. Not doing stupid manoeuvres is their
responsibility, mine is to drive predictably so they can figure out
where I'm going to be. I don't see the situation on water as all that
different *if* we're talking about a busy commercial waterway. You can
argue Colregs & road rules all you like and courts may or may not
decide certain actions were imprudent but *none* of that will
invalidate the laws of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum. I
rode motorcycles for years and I can assure you that following the
rules is poor consolation when you're lying in a hospital bed after an
idiot car driver didn't.

PDW

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world works.
Why
don't you just share it?

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law says
he shouldn't. Just like you have a right to play in the street or rob a bank.
Interesting.


No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there. How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.


If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

I am not going to assume who will get the most blame or why.

So now you're saying it doesn't matter what you do; someone else will make an
arbitrary decision. Interesting.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't? And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?
Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have right-of-way
over oil tankers?

And ???????
 

In article .net,
Rick wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world works.
Why
don't you just share it?

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

So, what you're saying is that a kayak has the *right* to be in a
designated shipping channel, in fog?

No matter how much it annoys you the kayaker can be there.

There's a big difference between 'can be there' and 'has every right to
be there'. Whch one are you arguing?

How many
times do I have to state that the kayak is required to adhere to the
rules just as the tanker does. That is how the world works, get used to it.

Yeah and you evade the point. In fog, a kayaker in a shipping channel
cannot tell if they're impeding or going to impede commercial traffic
and they have an obligation not to. Therefore, they should *not* be in
a shipping channel under such conditions.

If a tanker runs onto the rocks to avoid a kayak then the CG hearing
will apportion blame. That is how the world works, get used to it.

That'd be fun. The skipper of a tanker has a choice between running
down a kayaker who is in violation of the Colregs by defn - impeding
commercial traffic - or causing an environmental disaster if the tanker
runs aground, gets holed and oil leaks out, not to mention putting the
crew at risk. I know what I'd do.

That's how the world works, get used to it.

PDW

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However,
I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities
are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know
you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

I listened out for their fog horns as we approached. I altered course so
that I would cross at right angles.
Most of the ships had slowed down to between 8-12 kts. Of the four times
that I crossed a lane in fog, I only came close enough to one ship to
discern the lookout on the bow.




What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.


Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes very
much.







Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane
in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not
good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the
progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no
ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without
lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.



I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to think that stupid
kayakers will have ever even heard of the CollRegs.

In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.



...
Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker
within the COLREGS and VTS requirements.
What do you mean?
He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the
tanker.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak
to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.

A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the CollRegs.

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


What part of the above rule allows a commercial craft to travel without
keeping a lookout? Does it say that you don't have to keep a lookout
because Rule 2 says that the other sailors should be intelligent enough to
realise that you might come out of the fog at 25 kts without a lookout?









Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing
situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in
a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS.

NO, you have not.

You misquoted one of the rules on one occasion, and I corrected you.

There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

You seem happy to ignore the very specific wording in the rule about keeping
a lookout ("sight and hearing"), and yet you are relying on your own weird
interpretation of Rule 2 to guarantee that a kayak could never be expected
on a river in fog.


This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.

No, Jeff. Your one sided interpretation of the rules is childish.

You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be necessary.


At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.









Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they
do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also
have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding
large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly!

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.


The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.


That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask the
question?









The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid
crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes
but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word.

No it isn't. It is *very* different.


But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have
to.

Please tell me where the CollRegs *explicitly* state that a kayak may not
cross the TSS in restricted visibility. At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.


But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can
fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business
being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the
fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog,
and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots
is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on
its own
special circumstances.

Joe claimed that it was safe to travel at 25 kts without any lookout other
than Radar.

There are *NO* special merits at all.

A vessel is obliged to keep a lookout by sight and hearing. No ifs, No
buts. No exceptions. No personal interpretations.

The rule is absolutely crystal clear. It does not allow for any special
circumstances at all.

Perhaps you need to read it again, because you really do not seen to be
able to grasp it.
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================




Further, as Rick has claimed, I don't think I can second
guess the courts, and I don't know of any such precedent. However, I
would have
little sympathy for a kayaker who crossed the Bay of Fundy, knowing that
he
would cross the path of the Fast Cat, likely in thick fog. On the other
hand,
there is a 35 knot ferry on the Boston/Salem run that I think should drop
its
speed for the last 3 miles of its trip, rather than the last half mile as
it now
does. The last time I had to use its channel in the fog I was terrified
it was
going to run up my butt! And I have radar and a good reflector. However,
this
is because the Cat uses the small channel that is the only alternative to
the
primary large ship channel - it does this to save 1/4 mile on the trip.



You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes
with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Ahhh! Good. You realise that the kayak will sometimes be the
"stand
on"
vessel!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the
fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while
being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

Ah, the "Neal" argument! But you know this is not what we're talking
about.


You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


OK. I'll do that. ... Nope, still no indication you've read them.

Well, at the risk of becoming tiresome [there's a line for you]


=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


Have you read this one?




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law says
he shouldn't.

There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.

Until or unless the kayaker impedes the tanker no rules are broken.

You never have a "right" to kill someone on another vessel. Sorry if
that upsets you.

So now you're saying it doesn't matter what you do; someone else will make an
arbitrary decision. Interesting.

Far from arbitrary. They will make an assignment of blame based on the
circumstances and action taken or not taken.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Rick

And ???????
 

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations,
and
its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog
(and
even
that would often be considered excessive). But there are no fixed
rules
for
this.

What do you mean by "no fixed rules"??

Do the ColRegs mention a speed limit? The only say a "safe speed." It is
up to
the captains, local authorities and,with hindsight, the courts, to
determine
what a safe speed is in a given situation.


25kts in fog without a proper lookout is safe?




AFAIK, there are very strict rules that govern the behaviour of vessels
in
fog.

That's the problem. You don't know, but you're assuming there are such
rules.
I thought you took the YachtMaster course - what did they teach you there?

That 25 kts in fog wasn't safe unless you were able to avoid any vessel that
you were likely to meet.

What did they teach you?




Are you suggesting that big ships are exempt from the Coll Regs?

Now you're talking like an idiot. You're assuming there are fixed speed
limit
somewhere in the ColRegs, and I'm advocating ignoring them.

25kts in fog without a proper lookout is safe?






I'm sure the Bar Harbor Fast Cat Ferry doesn't slow much in the fog,

My copy of the Coll Regs does not mention the "Bar Harbour Fast Cat
Ferry".
I was under the impression that the Coll Regs were more authoritive than
your local ferry's skipper.


You're blithering again. Why do you claim the ferry ignores the ColRegs?
I
mention this particular vessel because its speed and route has been
studied
carefully. And it travels regularly in the fog.

No, I am telling you that I don't give a sh%t about the conduct of your "Bar
Harbour Fast Cat Ferry". I prefer to rely on the CollRegs.







and
there is a chance some idiot is crossing the Bay of Fundy in his sea
kayak.


I don't believe that "idiocy" is an issue when trying to determine
"stand
on" status. Am I wrong?


How is "standon status" involved here? Are you claiming that a kayak is
"standon" in the fog? What DO they teach you in YachtMaster class?

Read the CollRegs. There is nothing that says that a kayak should not
cross a TSS. There is at least one rule that says that all vessels must
travel at an appropriate speed *and* keep a proper lookout.






There's always "the slightest chance," someone could be rowing across
the
Atlantic. Should all traffic stop because of a slight possibility?

Read the Coll Regs. I believe that the issue is covered.

Yes it is:

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the
owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences ...
of the neglect of any precaution which
may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case.

This means, amongst other things, that stupid behaiviour is frowned upon.

It also means that you are attempting to place your own personal
interpretation of the rules above the actual wording of the rules.

Let's look at Rule 5 again.
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


What part of the above Rule do you not understand? Is the word "Every"
confusing you? Perhaps you think that "Every" actually means "Some"???

Maybe the bit where it say "at all times" is not very clear to you.

Is it possible that you think that "sight and hearing" actually means
"Radar"?

I could go on with this analysis, but neither of us would enjoy it.





A row boat has the same right as an oil tanker to use the Atlantic. The
Coll Regs were designed to make it safe for both of them.


Sure. If it takes the same precautions. Radar. Radar reflector. Full
time
watch. Frankly, I think long distance single handers are clearly breaking
the
rules.

That is a seperate discussion.







Absolutely. Positively. Meditate on Rule 2 for a while. Every
seaman
would
agree its folly to cross a shipping lane in the fog in a stealth
kayak.


Where can you buy one of these "stealth kayaks"?

Well, this is all a bit hypothetical. You started it questioning if the
ColRegs
require a radar reflector.

Actually, I started it by saying that travelling at 25 kts, in fog, without
any lookout other than a Radar watch, was in contravention of the rules.
You instantly grabbed the end of the stick that was clearly labelled "Wrong
end" and tried to beat me with it. You also made the incorrect assumption
that I have little regard for the CollRegs. You compounded that error by
assuming that I had not studied the CollRegs, and passed an examination.
Finally, you made the greatest error of all. You assumed that my modesty
about my knowledge of the CollRegs meant that I don't take them seriously.











Are you so far out on this limb that you are having to use the concept
of
fictional craft to back up your position?

I haven't bothered to look at Rule 2, .... because your position seems
ludicrous. I have read the Coll Regs in the past, and I believe that
each
vessel has a duty to keep an adequate lookout.

Jeez Donal, is this another case of "I don't know the rules but they must
say
what I think is right"?

No, Jeff. It is another case of "You are so far off base that I can't be
bothered to get the CollRegs out."







You seem to be suggesting that vessels have an obligation to be seen!!!

Well Golly! I think you're finally catching on!!! The court's have
ruled over
and over again that a vessel forfeits its rights (I know this isn't the
right
way to say this) if it doesn't show proper lights, or sound the proper
signals.

I agree. However, a kayak does NOT have to show any lights in daylight
fog. Nobody has suggested in this thread that the kayak was not making
sound signals.


They have also held that its OK travel at some speed if a proper radar
watch is
maintained.

Are you saying that the courts have overturned the CollRegs??
I would be very interested to see a reference of some sort. Can you
provide any evidence to back this up?


They have also held that vessels shouldn't leave dock, or cross
channels if they don't have radar.

Good Grief! I wouldn't like to suggest that you were being enonomical
with the truth, but could you tell us more about this?

Of course. How does a vessel without radar do this in the fog?

By travelling slowly ... and keeping a lookout. If the fog is very
thick,
then the vessel travels *very* slowly.


You mean like not crossing a shipping lane?

The rules also apply to the vessels in the shipping lane, don't they?


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the
situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================

That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't proceed
when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots
and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility.

Adding radar (required on all large ships) raises the "acceptable" speed a
bit.
As I mentioned in the case of the Fast Cat Ferry, it was going 13.4 knots
shortly before the collision - this was not considered a factor in the
collision. Given that there was "zero visibility" we have to view this as
effectively running on radar alone.


Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility.

Jeff. It isn't moot. "at ***all**** times .... by sight and
sound...".

I don't see your point here at all.

Why not?

Are you claiming that all traffic should
stop in thick fog?

No! All vessels should not exceed a safe speed.


This is clearly not what happens. The laws and the court
rulings allow continuing, within limits, on radar alone.

The CollRegs do not allow travelling on radar alone.

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


Clearly society has
determined that the value of continued commerce outweighs the risks to
some
vessels.





If you're going to fantasize about a better world, how about one without
the
common cold?

I'm simply suggesting that the CollRegs should apply.

Earlier, you claimed that I didn't know the CollRegs. Now you seem to be
claiming that commercial considerations should outweigh the CollRegs.
Which is it, Jeff?



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:



I disagree with the proposition that a Radar watch(at 25 kts) can be
considered " an effective lookout".

I'd tend to agree with you. Mind you, radar can be *very* good. We
have
2 on our icebreaker and I've steered through heavy sea ice using the
radar image to see where the leads are. Lotta fun and it doesn't
really
matter if you turn a little wide or tight since it's OK to crunch over
stuff in the way.

That situation seems quite different to doing the same thing in a busy
waterway.

I can see a chunk of ice the size of a kayak or smaller on the radar.
Ice doesn't carry radar reflectors and is only half a metre or less
above the surface. It is possible.

Anyway, if damn fools are considered as worth the trouble of saving,
then running at 25 knots on radar only in heavy fog isn't prudent.
Personally, I wouldn't regard anyone stupid enough to go out onto a
busy waterway, in heavy fog, sans lights, radar reflector, radar,
sound
signals, radio and in a hull that is a poor radar reflector as worth
saving. Anyone that stupid is a hazard to navigation and we're all
better off without them.

I don't really disagree with you.

I'm simply saying that I don't think that travelling in a busy waterway
at
25 kts using radar alone is semsible - in any state of visibility.

With that I agree, but it depends on the circumstances. People by &
large can ride bicycles on most roads here in Australia, and do, mixing
with traffic weighing 100X as much and moving 4X as fast. I regard this
as stupid behaviour and give them as much room as possible, but I'm not
going to travel at bicycle speeds just on the off-chance that they
might wander in front of me. Not doing stupid manoeuvres is their
responsibility, mine is to drive predictably so they can figure out
where I'm going to be. I don't see the situation on water as all that
different *if* we're talking about a busy commercial waterway. You can
argue Colregs & road rules all you like and courts may or may not
decide certain actions were imprudent but *none* of that will
invalidate the laws of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum. I
rode motorcycles for years and I can assure you that following the
rules is poor consolation when you're lying in a hospital bed after an
idiot car driver didn't.

Once again, I don't disagree.

A Google will show that I never expect the other boat to know the Regs, be
sober, or to even be in command of his/her vessel.

I run a "dry" boat, but I don't agree with legistlation about alcohol for
pleasure boat sailors.

I believe in the "freedom of the seas".


I also believe that doing 25kts in a busy waterway, relying on a radar as
your only lookout, is stupid.



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

G Interesting thread .... shame I can't totally agree and/or disagree,
with anyone.
There are some boats with some operators, under some conditions where I
would consider 25k, in fog, reasonable and safe. There are some boats
with some operators, under some conditions where I would consider 25k,
in fog, unsafe .... etc.
Simply because someone is running in fog, on radar, does not mean they
don't have a lookout.
Safe speed can be 25k, one minute, and 0 k, the next .... most high
speed ferries can stop in their own length .... so forth and so
on....... Rule 2 applies to all at all times, under all conditions.

G

otn

And ???????
 

Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout. Where did
I say that

Comments interspersed ...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However,
I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities
are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know
you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

I listened out for their fog horns as we approached. I altered course so
that I would cross at right angles.
Most of the ships had slowed down to between 8-12 kts. Of the four times
that I crossed a lane in fog, I only came close enough to one ship to
discern the lookout on the bow.

If you were close enough to see a lookout on the bow, and this was real fog, you
were probably impeding their progress and in violation of the rules.

I hope you realize that fog signals are very unreliable for determining
direction and distance.



What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.

You're right. They forbid the small boat from impeding the progress of the
large one. How do you propose to do that?




Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?


Because you followed a claim that you studied the rules with the claim that you
cross the channel in the fog. Forgive me for assuming there's some coherence to
your thoughts.



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

But you claim its the "ordinary practice of seamen" to cross shipping lanes in
the fog without one. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to you?


Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes very
much.

That's very good. If you thought you had zero radar visibility, would you be so
eager to cross in the fog?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane
in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not
good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the
progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no
ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without
lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.

So doesn't this mean that the kayaker that ignores the rules does so at his own
risk? You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?




I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

Now you're putting words in my mouth - I never advocating this. In fact, quite
the contrary. Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is only permitted where small boat would not be likely
to travel. Vessels regularly do things in the middle of the ocean that would
not be permitted under rule 2 in an inner harbor.


You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to think that stupid
kayakers will have ever even heard of the CollRegs.

In fact, the reason I brought this up is that I've heard kayaker claim, more
than once, that they obviously have right-of-way over large ships. Fortunately,
most sea kayakers know this is not true.


In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

So if I said drunks don't belong on the road, you would call me stupid for
thinking there are no drunks? Why is it so hard to believe that I'm extra
cautious because I know there are a few kayakers dumb enough to be were they
don't belong?


If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.

Again with the stupid comments! How many times do I have to say I'm not
endorsing Joe's actions?


...
Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker
within the COLREGS and VTS requirements.
What do you mean?
He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the
tanker.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak
to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.

A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the CollRegs.

Perhaps I should repeat what I said befo

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

I also claimed that with the lookout, a boat is effectively running on radar
alone if there is zero visibility. This is accepted practice in many areas,
including TSS zones, and offshore. In spite of what you think the ColRegs mean,
it is permitted by local authorities and the courts.

You're the one who keeps adding "25 knots" and "busy waters." I've never
suggested this is appropriate.



=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


What part of the above rule allows a commercial craft to travel without
keeping a lookout? Does it say that you don't have to keep a lookout
because Rule 2 says that the other sailors should be intelligent enough to
realise that you might come out of the fog at 25 kts without a lookout?


It doesn't. Where did I ever say it did? I only said that in zero visibility a
vessel is effectively on radar alone. What part of this do you not understand?
Your kayaker, in zero visibility has no input? Why is this better?

Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing
situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in
a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS.

NO, you have not.

You misquoted one of the rules on one occasion, and I corrected you.

I misquoted? Now you're just lying. Whenever I've quoted the ColRegs I've
extracted the text directly and indicte it as such.

I said, not quoting but paraphrasing "The rules are quite also explicit that the
rowboat should avoid crossing a VTS channel." The rule actually says "A vessel
shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes ..." Its a pretty
big stretch to call this a "misquote"!


There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a TSS.

Your correct. My claim has been that the ColRegs forbid the kayak from impeding
the progress of vessels, and that in the fog, it is impossible to fulfill this
obligation. Although I've said this a number of times, you haven't addressed
this at all.



Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, the ColRegs state an obligation that is impossible for the kayak
to fulfill. How do you refure this?


Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

You seem happy to ignore the very specific wording in the rule about keeping
a lookout ("sight and hearing"), and yet you are relying on your own weird
interpretation of Rule 2 to guarantee that a kayak could never be expected
on a river in fog.

When did I ever claim a lookout is not needed? You keep makeing this up. When
did I ever claim a kayak could never be expected on a river in a fog? You're
just making this up.

Let me ask you this: Do you think drunks should be allowed to drive? If you
answered no, do you assume there are never drunks on the road?




This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.

No, Jeff. Your one sided interpretation of the rules is childish.


Which side do you think I'm on?

You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be necessary.


You're lying here again. Where did I say that?


At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

No. I think you're unable to read what I've said. You have this fantasy That
I'm advocating something I'm not.

Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they
do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also
have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding
large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly!

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be? This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the kayak
should not be there.



The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.

Then how does the kayak ensure it will not impede a vessel? This is the
essential point you keep ignoring.



That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask the
question?

You've claimed repeatedly that the kayak has the right to be there. Are you
agreeing now that there are limitation on its behavior?

The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid
crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes
but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word.

No it isn't. It is *very* different.


But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have
to.

Please tell me where the CollRegs *explicitly* state that a kayak may not
cross the TSS in restricted visibility.

Can you explain how the kayak avoids impeding vessels it cannot see?

At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.

Can you explain why you keep bringing this up? I never said a lookout is not
needed. BTW, what kind of lookout do you think the kayak can maintain in the
middle of the English Channel? How well can it see in the chop and swells?



But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can
fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business
being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the
fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog,
and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots
is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on
its own
special circumstances.

Joe claimed that it was safe to travel at 25 kts without any lookout other
than Radar.

As I've said many times, I'm not defending Joe's comments. However, IIRC, he
didn't quite say that, he merely implied that in low visibility most of the
input is from the radar.


There are *NO* special merits at all.

A vessel is obliged to keep a lookout by sight and hearing. No ifs, No
buts. No exceptions. No personal interpretations.


You really have an obsession with this, don't you?

The rule is absolutely crystal clear. It does not allow for any special
circumstances at all.

OK, I agree. I always agreed. I never said anything different.


Perhaps you need to read it again, because you really do not seen to be
able to grasp it.
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


Wow. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't read. Here's quotes of mine,
all taken from responses to you. I feels like you haven't read one of them:

"Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot
if there is
effectively zero visibility."

"I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and even
that would often be considered excessive). "

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

"That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility."

"As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal)."

At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

Cheers,
Jeff

And ???????
 

You might not agree with all I've said, but I think I can agree (as usual) with
what you've said.

I'm curious: I've claimed at times that Rule 2 has some very deep implications
that require reasonable behavior. In particular, if 99% of "seamen" consider
some practice foolish, it probably violates rule 2. If they consider it
reasonable, it is probably "legal" under rule 2. In this case I might apply
this concept to rowboats in shipping lanes in the fog. How do you feel about
this? Am I stretching it, or is this an appropriate use of rule 2?


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...
G Interesting thread .... shame I can't totally agree and/or disagree,
with anyone.
There are some boats with some operators, under some conditions where I
would consider 25k, in fog, reasonable and safe. There are some boats
with some operators, under some conditions where I would consider 25k,
in fog, unsafe .... etc.
Simply because someone is running in fog, on radar, does not mean they
don't have a lookout.
Safe speed can be 25k, one minute, and 0 k, the next .... most high
speed ferries can stop in their own length .... so forth and so
on....... Rule 2 applies to all at all times, under all conditions.

G

otn

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You really were
trolling, weren't you?

And ???????
 

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

Which lookout is for all practical purposes useless as his vision is
less than the stopping distance in the case of large commercial
shipping. I stipulate the Colregs says there must be one, but there's
little point. My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs. If a kayaker
gets reduced to berley we can give them a Darwin award. Stupidity has
its consequences and they weren't obeying the Colregs because if they
got hit, they were obviously in a position to impede the commercial
vessel in the shipping lane. So sad, too bad.

I'm not allowed to run down pedestrians on the road but courts have
aquitted drivers who've run over & killed people asleep/drunk lying in
the road, on the rare occasion that a charge has been laid. There's a
reasonable assumption that such activities won't happen and when they
do, too damn bad for the idiot.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

PDW

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the law
says
he shouldn't.

There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.


So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I don't
have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.

Until or unless the kayaker impedes the tanker no rules are broken.

So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other vessels will
be there? I suppose I might agree, but it seems rather pointless. But this
logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the risk"
of a collision.)


You never have a "right" to kill someone on another vessel. Sorry if
that upsets you.


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I would
ignore the possibility that it might be there. Just the opposite is true -
because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?


But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed with
claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs. Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk, you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?




And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker." That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with yourself
if someone died based on your advice?



Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS." Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk." If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then you have
no business starting out.

And ???????
 

Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the way
back to Hanseatic cogs....



The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....



In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

No excuse for that IMHO.



The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he can't
get run over twice!


If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

But a certain C&C 32 might leave an ugly smear.....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

Read carefully because I am not going to bother with this anymore. You
have become Nil.


Jeff Morris wrote:


Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the kayak
complies with this in the fog.

Until and unless the kayaker impedes a vessel it is not impeding a
vessel. What part of that is so tricky for you to understand. The mere
presence of the kayak in the waterway in fog does not constitute a
hazard to navigation or an impediment to any vessel.


I would also claim its in violation of rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.

I would claim your position is absurd and groundless.


So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other vessels will
be there?

The kayak has every right to be there and is under no obligation to
guarantee anything. It only has an obligation to not impede a vessel
operating in the VTS and to adhere to the COLREGS.

You are bound and determined to find some semantic method to get someone
to say or imply that the kayak has "rights" of some sort that you don't
agree with ... you are wasting your time and mine.


logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the risk"
of a collision.)

Think whatever you like. The CG officer is much closer to the truth than
you are. If you go 100 knots and don't have a wreck then nobody will say
much. When you do wreck at that speed everyone will have something to say.


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I would
ignore the possibility that it might be there.

I wrote or thought no such thing, you are becoming delusional now. A
competent master would never ignore the possibility of anything and will
operate accordingly.

because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

This seems to reflect the problem you are having. Operating a vessel is
not an activity that can be defined and controlled by a set of unbending
and finite rules. It is not like programming a logic controller. You
seem to require a book of instructions, a guide for each decision and a
response to every possible input. Life on the bridge just doesn't follow
your need for handholding.

Yes, you must assume that if a kayak is there and is crossing the
channel, it is doing so at right angles and will avoid coming under your
bows. If it angles into your path and you run it over then the CG will
determine and apportion blame. If the kayak screwed up royally you
probably will not get much blame. If you were going 30 knots the outcome
will probably be very much different.


However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

If I were to take your position I would say you were insane and
violating the rules to row your dinghy in the anchorage because you
expect other boats to avoid you.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Your understanding is not required. They have a right to be there. They
have an obligation to follow the COLREGS.


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs. Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there.

Just why, pray tell, can it not "fulfill the obligations of the
COLREGS?" It is not terribly obvious.


Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it can't
or won't comply with the regulations?

You are making assumptions that you simply have no evidence, no all
seeing eye to make. Just what tells you the kayak cannot comply? If the
kayaker chooses to not comply that is a different story and has nothing
to do with what you think kayaks as a class of vessel should be or are
allowed to do.

Your personal opinions are not the controlling regulations. You will
operate your vessel in accordance with the COLREGS and the VTS rules,
not by what you "believe" to be the "right" way. If you don't then be
ready and willing to accept the judgment of those who do see the
difference between your opinion and personal need for order, and the
reality of maritime law and operations.



For all of your theoretical talk, you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?

I don't see why one couldn't. Ships and boats of all sizes and types
have fulfilled that obligation in reduced visibility for many
generations without benefit of radar, gps, or lawyers.


It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker." That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Not only is it "linguistically true" it is operationally true. Like it
or not, whether it scares the **** out of you, it is legal and practical
and happens often enough to keep people like you upset. The only
bull**** in this thread is from you claiming that some classes of vessel
have no "right" to operate where and when it makes you nervous and
confuses your limited comprehension of vessel operations.

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

No one needs my advice to go kayaking or not. This is still a "free
country" in many aspects and where and when someone chooses to go
kayaking is still one of those freedoms.

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS." Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk." If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then you have
no business starting out.

Got some news for you, "in accordance with the COLREGS" is the nearest
you are ever going to get in your search for the guidebook of what to do
when and where. If you insist on "winging it" prepare for a fall. If you
need more than that then you have little business on the water in other
than clear daylight operations with no other vessels within sight. But
before you get too comfortable make sure you know the signals for a
submarine surfacing ... just in case.

And few results of any action are all that obvious when examined by a CG
hearing officer in a marine accident board. Judging by your comments in
this thread, what is "obvious" to you might have difficulty staying
afloat in a CG hearing room.


Rick

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible to
run under radar alone.


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
You might not agree with all I've said, but I think I can agree (as usual) with
what you've said.

I'm curious: I've claimed at times that Rule 2 has some very deep implications
that require reasonable behavior. In particular, if 99% of "seamen" consider
some practice foolish, it probably violates rule 2. If they consider it
reasonable, it is probably "legal" under rule 2. In this case I might apply
this concept to rowboats in shipping lanes in the fog. How do you feel about
this? Am I stretching it, or is this an appropriate use of rule 2?

I don't think you're stretching it at all. Personally, I wouldn't care
if it's foggy or clear, I would consider it prudent for a rowboat/kayak
to avoid a TSS and as many shipping lanes, as possible, at all times, on
the basis of rule 2.
However, I don't think I would employ "shall not impede" in a fog situation.

otn

And ???????
 

DSK wrote in message ...
Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Doug,

The mississipi has mile markers just like the ICW. Most big tows just
keep on going in fog. What they do is get on the radio, state were
they are, and state they are going around a blind bend and ask if
there is any concerned traffic.


Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the way
back to Hanseatic cogs....


Hanseatic cogs did not have radios or radars.



The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....

Most would take it out of gear and if not hotting the taget dead on
would turn towards the target as you would in a willimison turn to
avoid sucking the idiot in.



In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

No excuse for that IMHO.

We have 6,600 ships a year entering the Houston Ship channel, And in
the fog I have never heard any of them sound proper fog signal unless
they are at anchor by boliver and rarely there.




The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he can't
get run over twice!

Amen


If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

But a certain C&C 32 might leave an ugly smear.....

That would be a greasy smear, but I doubt it would even chip the paint
on a steel hull.


Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Joe
MSV RedCloud
MSV RedCloud

And ???????
 

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

If you were close enough to see a lookout on the bow, and this was real
fog, you
were probably impeding their progress and in violation of the rules.

"probably" ??? You are clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
I am irresponsible skipper.

If I had impeded his progress, I "probably" wouldn't be alive to tell the
tale.





I hope you realize that fog signals are very unreliable for determining
direction and distance.


[sigh]
Jeff, I assume that you have heard fog signals in fog. Then you know that
anyone who has tried to pinpoint the direction will know how difficult this
is. You also know that telling the distance is nearly impossible.





What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules
do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.

You're right. They forbid the small boat from impeding the progress of
the
large one. How do you propose to do that?

By maintaining a watch.

Your notion that "impeding the progress" out weighs "keeping a lookout" or
maintaining a safe speed, is just plain silly.

It is possible to cross a shipping lane in a reasonable fog if *everybody*
is obeying the rules.






Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?


Because you followed a claim that you studied the rules with the claim
that you
cross the channel in the fog. Forgive me for assuming there's some
coherence to
your thoughts.

You make a lot of assumptions. I hope that you don't assume that I would
set off on a 14 trip if thick fog was forecast !






BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

But you claim its the "ordinary practice of seamen" to cross shipping
lanes in
the fog without one.

I don't remember saying those words. Can you point me to the relevant
post? I suspect that you are playing context games.

Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to you?





Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes
very
much.

That's very good. If you thought you had zero radar visibility, would you
be so
eager to cross in the fog?

I'm never eager to cross in fog. The last time was incredibly hard work.
I was not able to rely on the crew to keep a proper watch, and spent 14
hours peering into the fog.


snip
The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various
types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.

So doesn't this mean that the kayaker that ignores the rules does so at
his own
risk?

Yes, of course. In exactly the same way, a large tanker travelling
without a proper lookout, does so at his own risk.

You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?

If fog descends when the kayak is already in the TSS, then he cannot
guarantee that he will not impede a vessel.







I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems
too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial
vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

Now you're putting words in my mouth - I never advocating this. In fact,
quite
the contrary. Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is only permitted where small boat would not be
likely
to travel.

No, Jeff. You are completely wrong.
Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is *never* permitted. [full stop]


Perhaps you need to read this again. Pay special attention to "... shall
at all times.. ".
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================




In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

So if I said drunks don't belong on the road, you would call me stupid for
thinking there are no drunks?

Yes! Everybody knows that there are drunks on the road.

Why is it so hard to believe that I'm extra
cautious because I know there are a few kayakers dumb enough to be were
they
don't belong?

I haven't commented on your actual behaviour. I'm commenting on your
apparent inability to treat all the CollRegs equally. You seem to be very
willing to ignore bits of Rule 5, and at the same time you expand on the
words contained in Rule 2.





If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were
only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.

Again with the stupid comments! How many times do I have to say I'm not
endorsing Joe's actions?

See my other post.




A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight
and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the
CollRegs.

Perhaps I should repeat what I said befo

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

Oh, stop it!
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "


snip

There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a
TSS.

Your correct. My claim has been that the ColRegs forbid the kayak from
impeding
the progress of vessels, and that in the fog, it is impossible to fulfill
this
obligation. Although I've said this a number of times, you haven't
addressed
this at all.


If I am correct, then whay do you keep asking the same question? Either
the CollRegs forbid the kayak from crossing the TSS, or they do not forbid
it.

You are trying to expand bits of the rules to suit your arguement, and at
the same time you are trying to ignore other bits.

You seem to think that the CollRegs are open to personal interpretation.





Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, the ColRegs state an obligation that is impossible for the
kayak
to fulfill. How do you refure this?

I don't. I don't need to. We have agreed that the kayak may cross the
TSS, despite your claim that "he had no business to be there". It is up to
the kayaker to avoid impeding the passage of a vessel using the TSS. It is
also the duty of the vessels in the TSS to keep a good lookout, and to
travel at a safe speed. BTW, a "safe speed " does not mean that the
vessel has to stop. Any speed where the ship looses steerage would be
potentially unsafe.



Just because you don't understand
snip
You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be
necessary.


You're lying here again. Where did I say that?

Lying???
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be?

That is not your decision, or mine. People have the freedom to go to sea,
if they wish.


This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the
kayak
should not be there.

Why not? We've already agreed that the CollRegs do not forbid the kayak
from crossing the TSS.







The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue
across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.

Then how does the kayak ensure it will not impede a vessel? This is the
essential point you keep ignoring.

I've answered it a couple of times, but you don't seem to like my answer.
The kayak has every right to be there. How he keeps a lookout is up to him.




That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask
the
question?

You've claimed repeatedly that the kayak has the right to be there. Are
you
agreeing now that there are limitation on its behavior?

I've never said that he can ignore the rules. He is entitled to cross the
TSS at right angles, in a timely manner, without getting in the way of the
TSS users.


snip

Wow. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't read. Here's quotes of
mine,
all taken from responses to you. I feels like you haven't read one of
them:


I have read them.

"Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is
moot
if there is
effectively zero visibility."

Rubbish! There is nothing "moot" about it. You are applying your
personal interpretation on the rules.



"I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and
its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and
even
that would often be considered excessive). "





"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."
Nope! I won't paste your words again. I'm sure that you know what you
said by now.




"That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't
proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots
and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility."

I haven't said anything to dispute this, have I?



"As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25
knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal)."

So why did you jump in when I was debating this with Joe?

My only point, all along, is that travelling at 25kts, in fog, without a
proper lookout is against the rules.




At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

Very original, Jeff!!


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My complete
statement was:

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout, only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its info.

And ???????
 

DSK wrote in message ...
Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Also Doug, a blind curve in a river or the ICW is blind weather it's
dark, light fog, or no fog. Thats why knowing were you are, and what
channel you should use on the radio is key. Whistle signals are used
as well.

Do you really think commercial traffic is going to cease because of a
blind bend? And if your pushing 100+ barges in the mississippi it can
take well over a mile to stop at full astern. Infact most major tows
never stop. They have smaller tows move in and take and add to the tow
underway, breaking stride with that much tonnage is dangerious. Can
you imagine losing steerage on a tow bigger than a football field? Can
you imagine running one of these tows aground because you slow around
a bend? Ever try to pull a couple of thousand tons off the bank? And
what if your going down river in a 6 kt current? Your going to need a
few knots of speed above that to keep steerage and your not going to
be able to control that many tonns working in reverse all the way, I
dont care how big your flanking rudders are and how big a tow master
you have.

Joe
MSV RedCloud



Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to
assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle
that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship
to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected
by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where
they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing
about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some
of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that
does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no
risk.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think
that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You really
were
trolling, weren't you?

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!


Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this. You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone. I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout. If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.

You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible
to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My complete
statement was:

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout,
only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its
info.

No, no no, no, no!!!!!

In practice any vessel *must* obey the CollRegs. Don't you agree?



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night
time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the
way
back to Hanseatic cogs....

Yeah but technology has moved on since those days.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where
they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best
chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....

Wouldn't work with my ship. CP prop, you'd need to declutch fast and
the engines/gearboxes don't like that.....

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no
risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous
condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he
can't
get run over twice!

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities, and a responsibility that
can't be met reduces/eliminates the corresponding right, or they're
trolling. Either way I'm sick of this topic, it's been beaten to death.

PDW

And ???????
 

Peter Wiley wrote:

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities, and a responsibility that
can't be met reduces/eliminates the corresponding right, or they're
trolling.

What the F are you talking about? Just because I stated that the kayak
is allowed to use the waters is in no way saying the kayaker has no
responsibilities. If you were capable of reading at the 6th grade level
you would see in each of my posts that I stressed the responsibility of
the kayaker to adhere to COLREGS and VTS requirements.

And you wonder if someone else is trolling?

Rick

And ???????
 

IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:23:11 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a =
kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to
assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle
that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about =
the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You =
keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk =
of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the =
ship
to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably =
detected
by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I =
intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in =
fog
without a lookout.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point =
where
they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that =
this is
about 4-5 kts???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this =
speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing
about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that =
some
of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that
does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was =
no
risk.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have =
no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I =
think
that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You =
really
were
trolling, weren't you?

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to =
point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot =
when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a =
proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!


Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". =
However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this. You also suggested that a =
vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone. I know that you later tried to =
deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel =
in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout. If you wish to deny =
this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.

You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested =
that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if =
you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Regards


Donal

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible
to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My complete
statement was:

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout,
only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its
info.

No, no no, no, no!!!!!

In practice any vessel *must* obey the CollRegs. Don't you agree?

What is your point here? You've admitted that its legal to proceed even if
there is zero visibility. You've insisted that a lookout must be posted, and
I've agreed wholeheartedly. My only point has been that in the absence of
visual input the helmsman is relying primarily on radar. Are you arguing simply
with my choice of words? If you think "virtually all of its info" or
"essentially on radar alone" are not proper ways to say it I might concede the
point just to end this silly discussion.

Or are you claiming that the helmsman must rely primarily on visual input, even
in limited visibility? If this is your point, I think you need to go back to
your class.

Or are you simply saying that its OK to do rely primarily on radar, but 25 knots
is simply too fast? To this I would claim, it depends on the situation. I said
many times that I couldn't address Joe's situation, but I know of a number of
runs where 7 to 14 knots is considered acceptable in the fog, and I suspect that
some go 35 knots or more away from land. Since the HSC is largely closed to
recreational boats, 25 knots may be accepted there.

So if you have a point here, please state it, and stop lying about what I've
said.

And ???????
 

"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it does
an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full stop in
110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?

And ???????
 

Donal wrote,

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!

I never once supported Joe's position - I simply commented on a different aspect
of the situation. Are you saying that the only legal thing for me to do is
agree completely with everything you say? Are you going to report me to my ISP?




Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this.

I still claim it does. You've never said how the kayak fulfills its
responsibility - you've only said its not our business to even ask the question.
You're very quick to claim that 25 knots is just too fast and in obvious
violation of the rules, but then you claim that its not our business to even
question how the kayak fulfills its obligation. Don't you see the contradiction
here?


You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone.

You keep lying about this. I said a watch must be posted but in zero visibility
its running essentially on radar alone. Your comments are a blatant, unabashed
lie. I think I'll send a note to .

I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

I stand by my comment - I've even reposted it. You're the one who's quoted it
out of context. And frankly, several people have supported my point, and no one
has come to your defense.


You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout.

No. I've never said that. I firmly believe in lookouts. I've only said radar
permits a faster speed than visual lookouts alone. How much faster is
debatable.

Frankly, I wasn't interested in that side of the argument; I was trying to
comment on a rather different issue, namly the propriety of small boats in
shipping lanes in the fog. You just assumed that because I didn't condemn Joe I
was in full support of everything you imagined he said.


If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.


At my expense? Now I have to pay your ISP bill?


You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


Well, you're the one that thinks Neal is the final authority.

I did look back at the record - I started questioning your knowlege of the
ColRegs when you started suggesting that there are specific speed limits in
them.

And frankly, repeating the same rule over and over does not demonstrate that you
understand it, not does it show much maturity. You've never actually refuted
any of my comments, or even tried to consider my point of view - you've just
taken isolated a phrase out of contest and asserted that I'm claiming that the
ColRegs don't apply.



You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Now I'm in danger? Get a grip, Donal!

Cheers,

Jeff

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:


What the F are you talking about?

He's talking about your posts vs ColRegs and safe navigation practices.


Just because I stated that the kayak
is allowed to use the waters is in no way saying the kayaker has no
responsibilities.

Actually, you stated a kayaker has every right to use shipping lanes in fog
as a recreational paddling area, which is stupid. When I suggested that a
kayaker would be better off minimizing time crossing shipping lanes in any
event, and more so in poor visibility, you got all ****y (which you
apparently haven't gotten over).


If you were capable of reading at the 6th grade level
you would see in each of my posts that I stressed the responsibility of
the kayaker to adhere to COLREGS and VTS requirements.

Funny, I missed that part. All I saw were assertions that the kayaker has
"every right" to be there. And a lot of "get used to it." A few
"bwahahaha"s would have been the perfect finishing touch. If you want to
complain about other people's reading level, raise your writing level.

As far as other vessels needing to operate in a safe way considering that
there might be a kayaker in the shipping lanes in fog, I agreed (with the
proviso that commercial traffic is not simply going to stop for bad
visibility).

You never did answer how the kayaker was going to avoid creating a hazard
and impede commercial traffic, two things that are necessary to safe
navigation.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

Actually, you stated a kayaker has every right to use shipping lanes in fog
as a recreational paddling area, which is stupid.

You may consider it stupid, that does not make it illegal. That is a fact.

When I suggested that a
kayaker would be better off minimizing time crossing shipping lanes in any
event, and more so in poor visibility, you got all ****y (which you
apparently haven't gotten over).

Minimizing the time crossing shipping lanes is part of the requirements
imposed by VTS. That operation is part of adhering to the COLREGS, it is
what a kayaker should do and is one of the stipulation for its being
permitted legally to be there. Please demonstrate where, in any form, I
got "all ****y" because I don't think a kayak has to play by the rules
.... you seem to think I am suggesting the kayak does not need to play by
any rules. You are wrong, you read wrong and you have some other agenda.
Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error. I can
repost nearly any one of them and show where I stress the kayaker's need
to follow the rules.


Funny, I missed that part. All I saw were assertions that the kayaker has
"every right" to be there.

They were not "assertions" they are flat out statements of fact. Read
this carefully: A kayak is permitted by law to cross the VTS lanes in fog.

As much as that upsets you, it is a fact.


You never did answer how the kayaker was going to avoid creating a hazard
and impede commercial traffic, two things that are necessary to safe
navigation.

The same way masters have done it for centuries, by looking and
listening. Just because you may not believe that the guy should be there
and you don't believe he can do it safely doesn't change the fact that
he is allowed by law to try.

It might be a less than brilliant activity but it is not illegal, it is
not impossible to do safely, and the existence of a kayak does not
automatically create a hazard or an impediment. If you think it does you
are wrong.

What part of that is so difficult for you? There is a huge difference
between what you think is acceptable and what is legal ... that is what
you had better "get used to."

Rick

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

You may consider it stupid, that does not make it illegal. That is a fact.

Correct.


... Please demonstrate where, in any form, I
got "all ****y"

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true. Nothing you post has ever upset me.
Sometimes it makes me laugh.



... you seem to think I am suggesting the kayak does not need to play by
any rules. You are wrong, you read wrong and you have some other agenda.

More ****iness. Because I disagree, and can back up what I say simply by quoting
COlRegs, you think I "have an agenda." Sorry, my agenda is to
1- learn about sailing & seamanship
2- help others learn
3- enjoy discussions about boats & sailing.



Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.

Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he pleases in a
shipping lane. Frankly, considering that you have in the past shown pretty good
knowledge of a wide variety of maritime subjects, this is an appalling thing to
say.


I can
repost nearly any one of them and show where I stress the kayaker's need
to follow the rules.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.

DSK

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true.

Which statements? Please quote the "not true" statements.

Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.


Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he pleases in a
shipping lane.

Please quote that statement. Quote the post where I supposedly stated or
even implied that the kayaker had no obligation to operate in accordance
with COLREGS and VTS rules.

Here's the quote you avoided including as it just doesn't seem to fit
your agenda:

"I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area."

If you are going to play this game then you had better work a little
harder at your reading and debating skills. So far all you have done is
to make your position less comprehensible than it was to begin with.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.

"Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements."

"I mean the kayaker has the same right to displace that water as the
tanker operator. They must both adhere to the rules applicable to those
waters and their operation upon them."

"I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS."

"You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules."

"The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2. "

How many more do you need?


Rick

And ???????
 

Do you really mean 10 knots to full stop in 110 meters? If so, that's a
fairly gentle stop from a slow 'fast cat'.

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it does
an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full stop in
110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?

And ???????
 

Doug will not admit he's wrong becuase if he did it would pop his bubble
of delusion.

Cheers MC

Rick wrote:

DSK wrote:

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets
you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true.


Which statements? Please quote the "not true" statements.

Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.



Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he
pleases in a
shipping lane.


Please quote that statement. Quote the post where I supposedly stated or
even implied that the kayaker had no obligation to operate in accordance
with COLREGS and VTS rules.

Here's the quote you avoided including as it just doesn't seem to fit
your agenda:

"I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area."

If you are going to play this game then you had better work a little
harder at your reading and debating skills. So far all you have done is
to make your position less comprehensible than it was to begin with.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the
kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.


"Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements."

"I mean the kayaker has the same right to displace that water as the
tanker operator. They must both adhere to the rules applicable to those
waters and their operation upon them."

"I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS."

"You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules."

"The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2. "

How many more do you need?

For the reocord, you are completely correct and colregs certainly
applies to kyaks. What is astonishing is that DSK cannot get head around
where good seamanship starts and what colregs and other 'rules of the
road' don't cover.

Cheers

And ???????
 

MC wrote:

Doug will not admit he's wrong becuase if he did it would pop his bubble
of delusion.

You must be the deluded one, because I have admitted it when I have been
wrong. Doesn't happen very often, but it has occured a few times over the past
few years.

Now, when are you going to pay me the money you owe me?

Doug King