And ???????
 

Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs or
for that matter good seamanship.

DSK

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.


Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with the law is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted to say
that, am I?

So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such as not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with the law is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted to say
that, am I?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

The list of things you personally should not do is probably
long. But your shortcomings are not codified in maritime law.

So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such as not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

Give it up Jeff, it's gone way over your head.

Rick

And ???????
 

Nope. I'm not giving it up... at least not to you. :-)

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

I don't think you can claim I've been bickering, since I've only
posted on this topic a couple of times. Have you checked the
mirror lately?

And in your case, bickering.

Rick

And ???????
 

Absolutely! If the kayaker requires rescue, s/he would be putting
others in danger!

No. Obviously, a great threat. So what? Both are threats. I would
think the CG would react to both.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?


Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

Thank you for summing it up so elequently.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than
a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

DSK

And ???????
 

I cannot. It's never the case of "simply because it was foggy." There
are always other considerations.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:41:59 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.


Please provide cites for any cases (even one) where the CG or any other
authority removed a kayak from the bay for being there while it was foggy
simply
because it was foggy.

BB

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?

There are many problems in the world that I overlook - its a little hard to fix
them all at once - I'm only one man!

But if you must: I brought up the kayak because I felt that it so clearly is
unable to fulfill its obligations. The large ship is a different case. If they
choose, the can be compliant. I admit that many stretch the limits, and a few
blatantly disregard the rules. However, there is nothing about them that make
them incapable of being compliant. (Supertankers may be an exception - but
society deems them useful.)

One aspect of nautical law is the court rulings effectively become part of the
law. The are not merely precedents, they have stronger implications and masters
are expected to abide by them. They have ruled that in near zero visibility,
movement is still possible. They have also ruled that with radar, the maximum
speed is somewhat higher. A safe speed is dependent on many variables, but even
in thick fog 5 to 15 knots has been deemed acceptable.

My point is that it is possible for a ship to make progress in thick fog and
still be compliant with the current interpretations. I did not want to comment
on Joe's case because I'm not familiar with it. I have mixed feelings about
some of the New England ferries and tour boats, but for the most part, the
traditional lines do a reasonable job of running at a safe speed. I think it
remains to be seen if the new high speed cats have proper procedures.



The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions.

Absolutely, positively. In spite of what you claimed I never disagreed with
this. All vessels must maintain a proper lookout at all times. The need for a
lookout is greater in the fog, an it should be a dedicated lookout with no other
duties. In clear weather it may be acceptable to for the helm to also be the
lookout (especially on a small boat) but in the fog that is not the case. If
any vessel does not have a proper lookout, it is in clear violation.

A safe speed must also be maintained, but as I said above, it a little harder to
determine what that speed is.


The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.

It also must keep a lookout. In the fog, that's virtually inpossible. This is
one rule that the kayak actively violates and, I beleive, makes it illegal to be
out in the fog.



Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

"Expect" may be too strong a word - they can certainly hope.


In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.


You're trying to define the safe behavior of the ship as one that would allow
the kayak to traverse safely. Since the kayak is effectively invisible to
radar, and lies so low that it could be hidden by a swell, it would be blind
luck that would save it from be hit by a ship traveling a bare steerageway.

You might claim this is proof that the ship was going too fast, but the courts
have held otherwise. Rick is correct that we can't guess how the next ruling
will go, but in the past they have held that this behavior from a small rowboat
is reckless. If the ship did anything deemed contributory, they would be
assessed part of the blame. Speed is, of course, one way to contribute, but
more common is failure to have an appropriate lookout. In particular, if it was
found that a better lookout would have prevented the accident, the ship would be
given a significant portion of the blame.

This concept holds in many situations. A friend who was on Starboard Tack was
hit by a Port Tacker. Because they admitted that they did not see the port
tacker until it was too late to take evasive action, they were accessed 24% of
the blame. It was deemed that the failure to see the other boat was de facto
evidence that the lookout was not proper. We figured that the port/starboard
issue was assumed slightly more important and was worth 52%, both vessels
obviously had a faulty lookout and divided the other 48% of the blame.

But I digress. If the kayak is relying on the ship to do a crash stop to pass
safely, then it is impeding its progress and therefore violating the rules. A
larger vessel, perhaps a 40 foot sailboat with a good radar image, would be seen
on radar from a distance - in this case the minor adjustment the ship makes
would not constitute impeding. This is why I claimed at the beginning that a
vessel has an obligation to be seen.




Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the
law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?


The courts have said yes.







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?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping
lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak
has no
business out there.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.


True enough. We once saw a bumper sticker that read "Fog Happens" but have been
unable to find it for sale.

The world isn't perfect; sometimes the weather conspires to make a mess of
things and force us to do things we ordinarily wouldn't. But I claim the most
of the time, the kayaker should be able to take this into account. In a small
TSS or narrow channel, the window needed is short enough that the kayak wouldn't
be caught in the middle, unless its very busy. A large channel, like the Dover
Straights (5 miles across?) is inappropriate if there is a chance of fog.

Frankly, this just brings be back to my original claim, the kayak simple doesn't
belong there. If everything is perfect, it should survive. But there are too
many things that can go wrong, and in just about every case, the kayak must rely
on blind luck to survive.




So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be
there.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?


Absolutely not. I never said it, and I'm sticking to that story. Its not safe
to leave the dock without a lookout. With a lookout, 18 knots may be safe,
depending on the situation.

You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be
going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little
boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede
a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with
hundreds
of thousands of passages.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?


Irrelevant.

However, kayaks have a very poor "fatality" record. And canoes aren't much
better. But that's a topic for a different discussion.

BTW, I have seen kayaks well offshore (in moderate visibility) and in Harbor
channels (in the fog). In all cases I thought the behavior was reckless.



The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.


The standard of Rule 2(a) is the "ordinary practice of seamen." Everyone has
agreed that the kayak in a TSS in the fog is not the "ordinary practice of
seamen." Rick's issue (I think) was that like Rule 10, Rule 2 is not violated
until there is an incident. Without "consequesnces" we can't apply rule 2. My
position, of course, is that I'm still entitiled to say "he has not business
being there," even if it is legal.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Good for you. So have I. I recomend it to everyone.



Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?


Damn. You were being so reasonable until now. So which rule have I ignored?
And don't be pulling the Jaxian trick of claiming that because I didn't condemn
something, I approved of it. You're just ****ed because Joe refused to get
sucked into an argument you though you could win, so you're trying to claim I
endorsed his position.

And what "personal purpose" have I had? That's just claiming that defending
any opinion that differs from yours serving a personal purpose. That's rather
childish, don't you think?

Cheers.

And ???????
 

Rick asked:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

And stated:

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

To which Ganz replied:

The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

So that bit of opinion, blustering, righteous indignation,
and bickering pretty much wraps this up.

Your answer would make Jax or Nil extremely proud that they
have an apprentice in the seedy business of obfuscation and
evasive responses to simple questions.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Rick" , sounding more like Jax every day, wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with the law
is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted to
say
that, am I?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to. But I already agreed: Yes, in all
cases where one is compliant with a law, one is compliant with the law. But
trying to prove something with a tautology just makes you look like a fool.


So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such as
not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality? If I design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

And while the ColRegs don't specifically mandate crew size, it is the role of
the courts to interpret the meaning of a "proper lookout." The have stated in
many opinions, that in the fog, lookouts must be dedicated seamen, so that they
can "exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken." They have
specifically stated that in the fog, the lookout duties cannot be shared with
the helmsman. And while small boats are given some leeway in good visibility,
or close to shore, they are not exempt in the fog.

And as you know, the opinions of the courts effectively become part of the law,
and it is the duty of a master to be familiar with them. Or did that go over
your head?

And ???????
 

poor you!

Cheers

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to.

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

What a load of crap. Kayaks were designed and built for
travel in the open waters of the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska. Kayaks regularly travel the open waters of the North
Pacific from Vancouver Island to Alaska and the Aleutians.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality?

Designer? I don't think who designed it matters to anyone.
If you meant the design, then you're the one who said it
made a kayak illegal, not me.

If a boat can hold only one person that person is the total
crew required to fulfill any and all regulatory requirements.

If I design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

Not if it can maintain a speed below 100 knots when 100
knots is unsafe.

Tautology? You are the one arguing ad nauseum that paddling
a kayak in fog is illegal.


Rick

And ???????
 

Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."
That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

It seems to me that by claiming a couple of posts in the dozens
made by you is blustering, etc., and calling me names, you've
made the case quite eloquently that you can't defend your position.
I have not obfuscated one single thing in any of my posts. If you
think I'm wrong, you can simply ignore me, or, if you're game,
talk to a CG office and see what they say.

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Rick asked:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

And stated:

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

To which Ganz replied:

The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

So that bit of opinion, blustering, righteous indignation,
and bickering pretty much wraps this up.

Your answer would make Jax or Nil extremely proud that they
have an apprentice in the seedy business of obfuscation and
evasive responses to simple questions.

Rick

And ???????
 

??

"MC" wrote in message
...
poor you!

Cheers

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

And ???????
 

Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of
good seamanship?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Just curious.

otn

Rick wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.


Have to leave it.


As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.


The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your conclusions
and what you think the CG might do in those conditions but that is your
scenario, not the one under discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not referenced in
the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in the Bay are
bickering then support the next politician who wants to ban pleasure
boating, maybe he thinks it is congenitally stupid to go out on a windy
day.



Rick

And ???????
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."

Good, that is precisely the point that it was so difficult
to get across.

The original poster ... long since lost in the fog ...
stated categorically that it was illegal, prohibited by
COLREGS. The fact is it is not and that was what I was
trying so hard to get across.

Anyone posting that an act is illegal when it is not is
doing a great disservice to those who come here for information.

That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot recall any post by any
poster claiming kayaking in dense fog across a busy shipping
channel or VTS was prudent. Every single poster other than
myself claimed without qualification that there was one
reason or another that it was illegal, prohibited, or a
violation of some such clause of some law or another.

There is a big difference between stupid and illegal, most
of the posters here seem to have trouble differentiating.

Rick

And ???????
 

otnmbrd wrote:

Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of good
seamanship?

It all depends on the distance, volume of traffic,
visibility, and local knowledge combined with communications
available.

If I were halfway across Puget Sound or Jaun de Fuca,
between the lanes and got caught in fog good seamanship
would be required to get back to shore, wouldn't it.

Leaving Port Angeles for Victoria in a zero vis fog would
not be the act of a prudent mariner.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?

See above.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?

See above. A good ear, a pair of eyes, a handheld radio and
a flashlight might do the job nicely. Most seakayakers carry
much much more in this part of the world.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Due regard? All that means is being aware both situationally
and "environmentally" and being prepared for any reasonable
but unplanned circumstance that might arise. The same regard
as any prudent marine would take before leaving the dock.

Rick

And ???????
 

Not sure who you're asking, but....

No. None of these. While not technically illegal, that person would
probably be removed from the scene if the CG happened on them
or someone reported them... which I will neither confirm nor deny.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of
good seamanship?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Just curious.

otn

Rick wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.


Have to leave it.


As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.


The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your conclusions
and what you think the CG might do in those conditions but that is your
scenario, not the one under discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not referenced in
the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in the Bay are
bickering then support the next politician who wants to ban pleasure
boating, maybe he thinks it is congenitally stupid to go out on a windy
day.



Rick

And ???????
 

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

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to.

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.


You've regularly snipped the majority of of my comments because you refused to address them. You
even snipped my answer to this question so you could make your lame point.You're a real piece of
work, Rick!

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

What a load of crap. Kayaks were designed and built for
travel in the open waters of the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska. Kayaks regularly travel the open waters of the North
Pacific from Vancouver Island to Alaska and the Aleutians.


Finally a relevant point. Of course, the Bering Sea is not quite the Dover Straights, and the
tourons that bought their kayak at LL Bean last week are not in the same league as the
Native-American paddlers, but you do have a point.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality?

Designer? I don't think who designed it matters to anyone.
If you meant the design, then you're the one who said it
made a kayak illegal, not me.

When did I say it was illegal? I said "they had no business out there." THat's an opinion that
they should be there. You keep claiming I don't have a right to an opinion, and that no except the
courts and you have the right to comment on the law.


If a boat can hold only one person that person is the total
crew required to fulfill any and all regulatory requirements.


That's the law? I'd certainly like to see that one! Its not in the ColRegs.



Tautology? You are the one arguing ad nauseum that paddling
a kayak in fog is illegal.

No, I didn't say that. You're the one saying that I claim my opinion has the force of law. Its my
opinion, and its shared by almost everyone, including you. But it isn't the law.

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Hey!! I thought *I* was the one with an agenda, and I resent having to share it with
Jeff!

DSK

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
The original poster ... long since lost in the fog ...
stated categorically that it was illegal, prohibited by
COLREGS. The fact is it is not and that was what I was
trying so hard to get across.

I never said that - Here's the original quote:

The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

I absolutely never "stated categorically that it was illegal"; that is a
boldface, cowardly lie!

There is one place that I said that I didn't think they had the right to do it,
but that was after I said that the ColRegs never talks about "rights," something
we know you understand. And I'll stand by that: I don't think someone has the
right to do something where the inevitable result is breaking the law and
endangering people. They may have the "legal right" to do it, but that doesn't
mean that they have the right to do it. And while you may not agree with me, it
isn't a outrageous position to take. There are many ways to define "rights"
and many legal actions that most would agree someone doesn't have the right to
do.

The only time I mentioned the ColRegs was to claim that rules 9 and 10 (and
possibly 2) imply that the kayak shouldn't be there because they state
responsibilities that the kayak can't fulfill. I've agreed that it isn't
strictly illegal until a vessel is impeded, you've agreed that being there is
probably foolish and foolhardy. Why are you so bent out of shape? Take some
medication, Rick!


Anyone posting that an act is illegal when it is not is
doing a great disservice to those who come here for information.

Where did I say it was illegal? Another lie!


That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot recall any post by any
poster claiming kayaking in dense fog across a busy shipping
channel or VTS was prudent. Every single poster other than
myself claimed without qualification that there was one
reason or another that it was illegal, prohibited, or a
violation of some such clause of some law or another.


Saying "they have no business being there" or "they shouldn't be there" is not
the same as claiming its illegal or prohibited. This is all your fantasy!


There is a big difference between stupid and illegal, most
of the posters here seem to have trouble differentiating.

There is a big difference between saying some is wrong and something is illegal.
You seem to have missed that.

And ???????
 

I'm the one with the agenda. It's obvious.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Hey!! I thought *I* was the one with an agenda, and I resent having to
share it with
Jeff!

DSK

And ???????
 

Uh, oh. I hope the conspiracy cops don't see this!


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I'm the one with the agenda. It's obvious.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Hey!! I thought *I* was the one with an agenda, and I resent having to
share it with
Jeff!

DSK

And ???????
 

comments interspersed:

Rick wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of
good seamanship?


It all depends on the distance, volume of traffic, visibility, and local
knowledge combined with communications available.

I believe we've been discussing "fog", no visibility. The kayaker may
have a hand held radio, but it's range will be highly limited, so his
immediate knowledge of traffic density may also be, coupled with the
fact that he'll have little if any ability to determine CPA's or best
maneuvers, and as we all agree, will be a poor radar as well as visual
target..... so, although you're above factors are part of the mix to
determine "good seamanship", I could/would probably argue their status
of importance, overall.

If I were halfway across Puget Sound or Jaun de Fuca, between the lanes
and got caught in fog good seamanship would be required to get back to
shore, wouldn't it.

Good seamanship might involve sitting still in the separation zone and
waiting for clearing or the possible assistance of another vessel,
either with radar or a visual fix, to guide you safely across and clear
of the TSS.

Leaving Port Angeles for Victoria in a zero vis fog would not be the act
of a prudent mariner.

G Especially since there be a couple of good bars and hotels there, to
wait things out.

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible
maneuver?


See above.

See Above

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?


See above. A good ear, a pair of eyes, a handheld radio and a flashlight
might do the job nicely. Most seakayakers carry much much more in this
part of the world.

In fog, I can't see any of the above as being all that good .... ears,
lie in fog .... eyes, can't always see far enough .... a hand held
radio, may be of some assistance ... a flashlight, limited in usefulness
in fog (especially if you expect some ship to be able to see it)..... a
portable GPS, useful, but......

Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?


Due regard? All that means is being aware both situationally and
"environmentally" and being prepared for any reasonable but unplanned
circumstance that might arise. The same regard as any prudent marine
would take before leaving the dock.

Rick
I disagree. I think it means that due regard to the dangers of crossing
the TSS may mean it's not a good idea and should be avoided in a kayak,
in fog, AND I think rule 2 is saying that.
In clear visibility, the kayaker may cross, as long as it doesn't
impede, but in fog, it's ability to proceed safely in a known area of
high traffic density, will be limited and require a departure from that
rule.
I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

otn

And ???????
 

Even paranoid people can have people following them....

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Uh, oh. I hope the conspiracy cops don't see this!


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I'm the one with the agenda. It's obvious.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:

Yeah, because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Hey!! I thought *I* was the one with an agenda, and I resent having to
share it with
Jeff!

DSK

And ???????
 

otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family
activity. I wouldn't do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century
of (mostly) successful zero vis high speed navigation up an
down the inside passage between Seattle and Alaska. Those
waters were heavily populated with small tugs, dugout
canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and ill
equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that
record but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful
passages through some of the most restricted waters on the
planet speaks to the value of the eye and ear.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

And ???????
 

I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998 it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the national average.

--
-jeff

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family
activity. I wouldn't do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century
of (mostly) successful zero vis high speed navigation up an
down the inside passage between Seattle and Alaska. Those
waters were heavily populated with small tugs, dugout
canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and ill
equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that
record but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful
passages through some of the most restricted waters on the
planet speaks to the value of the eye and ear.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

And ???????
 

Sounds like terrorism to me. I think we should get Tom Ridgid involved
immediately.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational
boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998
it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the
national average.

--
-jeff

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just
the
prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.

I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family
activity. I wouldn't do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century
of (mostly) successful zero vis high speed navigation up an
down the inside passage between Seattle and Alaska. Those
waters were heavily populated with small tugs, dugout
canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and ill
equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that
record but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful
passages through some of the most restricted waters on the
planet speaks to the value of the eye and ear.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the
argument was about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a
violation of any regulation.

This whole thing started out because someone could not
accept that some activities which they think are insane may
be quite commonly performed and until something happens are
not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998 it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the national average.

I think we need more regulations! They must be guilty of
something!

Rick

And ???????
 

Kayaks should be required to have radar, including a dedicated watch.


"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:
I confess I know little about boating in Alaska, but their recreational
boating fatality rate is 10
times the national average. This is after a dramatic improvement, in 1998
it was 20 times the
national average. The accident rate per numbered boat is double the
national average.

I think we need more regulations! They must be guilty of
something!

Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Kayaks should be required to have radar, including a dedicated watch.

What do you think the backseater does on the 2-place models?

Rick

And ???????
 

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

Kayaks should be required to have radar, including a dedicated watch.

What do you think the backseater does on the 2-place models?

Serve drinks?

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

I am not questioning the "right" of the kayaker to cross a TSS, just
the prudence of doing so in a fog and whether the rules may in fact
say/imply/etc., that they shouldn't.


I never recommended it as a pleasant weekend family activity. I wouldn't
do it.

As far as the quality of the ear and eye, there is a century of (mostly)
successful zero vis high speed navigation up an down the inside passage
between Seattle and Alaska. Those waters were heavily populated with
small tugs, dugout canoes, fishboats, skiffs and all manner of small and
ill equipped vessels. There are a few notable exceptions to that record
but only a few out of tens of thousands of uneventful passages through
some of the most restricted waters on the planet speaks to the value of
the eye and ear.

G A different time, of many fewer boats and the majority who did it as
a profession, not a weekend recreation. We can talk of all those who
made these trips, but we can't ignore all those who tried and failed,
because they had limited resources.

But the point is it is not illegal and that is what the argument was
about. The mere presence of the kayak is not a violation of any regulation.

Here we could disagree. If the kayak, without radio, approaches a known
TSS, in fog, and continues on across that TSS, then, it may not be
illegal, it may not violate a regulation, but it definitely goes against
the issues of good judgment, common sense, good seamanship, and prudent
behavior, considering the conditions ..... which violates Rule 2.

This whole thing started out because someone could not accept that some
activities which they think are insane may be quite commonly performed
and until something happens are not treated as foolhardy or imprudent.

Rick

This whole thing started out because someone could not accept that some
activities which they think are insane may be quite commonly performed
by some people with a higher degree of experience and equipment in some
areas, but should not be attempted by the average operator of a
recreational boat. What is totally foolhardy or imprudent to some, is
not necessarily so for others, be they commercial or recreational boater.

In addition, the interpretation of rule two and how it applies to
actions one should, should not, could, could not, will, will not take,
is open for discussion .... I personally put a high degree of emphasis
on this particular rule, as I consider it the catch all, of all rules
..... if it isn't specifically written .... then Rule 2, covers it.

otn

And ???????
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:48:23 -0500, 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....



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....
Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good, even using the astern throttle to
stop the shaft won't stop it before the ship runs over the kayaker. Someone who
kayaks in shipping lanes in reduced visibility must want a 'Darwin Award'
really, really bad.

JJ




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

James Johnson
remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply

And ???????
 

otnmbrd wrote:

A bunch of stuff with which I can find little to disagree.

So, can we all have a nice group hug, it is getting dark and
foggy here and I want to go kayaking in the Lake Union Ship
Canal.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Rick" , sounding more like Jax every day, wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with
the law
is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted
to
say
that, am I?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to. But I already agreed: Yes, in
all
cases where one is compliant with a law, one is compliant with the law.
But
trying to prove something with a tautology just makes you look like a
fool.


So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such
as
not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by
the
ColRegs.

It isn't my usual style to respond like this, but I feel that in this
instance it is necessary to let you know my true feelings.
"Awww for F*cks sake!!"

The CollRegs do not discuss suitability!


This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

Rubbish.



And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality? If I
design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

Read the CollRegs. It is covered.




And while the ColRegs don't specifically mandate crew size, it is the role
of
the courts to interpret the meaning of a "proper lookout." The have
stated in
many opinions, that in the fog, lookouts must be dedicated seamen, so that
they
can "exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken." They have
specifically stated that in the fog, the lookout duties cannot be shared
with
the helmsman.

You are the person who started this by thinking that a Radar watch was
sufficient.


And while small boats are given some leeway in good visibility,
or close to shore, they are not exempt in the fog.

Please quote an instance where the courts have suggested that a kayak needed
somebody standing on the bow to keep a lookout. I suspect that you have
really gone off the deep end in your attempts to keep your ludicrous
position alive.



And as you know, the opinions of the courts effectively become part of the
law,
and it is the duty of a master to be familiar with them. Or did that go
over
your head?

As I have already asked - please provide specific references.

Perhaps it is time that you took me up on my offer to let you off the
hook???
Trolling, or ignorant???



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

ROFL

otn

Rick wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

A bunch of stuff with which I can find little to disagree.

So, can we all have a nice group hug, it is getting dark and foggy here
and I want to go kayaking in the Lake Union Ship Canal.

Rick

And ???????
 

James Johnson wrote:

Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good, even using the astern throttle to
stop the shaft won't stop it before the ship runs over the kayaker.

Why do you think the shaft has to be stopped?

Rick

And ???????
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than
a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in the
matter. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. Fog
can descend when it is not expected. The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the
unexpected can happen. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.


Regards


Donal
--





DSK

And ???????
 

And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public
than
a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that
taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with
ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. Fog
can descend when it is not expected. The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that
the
unexpected can happen. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.


Regards


Donal
--





DSK