|
And Donal the Coward liar responds again
"Donal" wrote in message
... OK! Let's try to rewind a bit. Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate under Radar alone? The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely that in the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed. However, nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe speed is some exact function of the degree of visibility. Before radar, attempts where made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't anything that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced to below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway. With a proper radar setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be prudent without radar. So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, the vessel can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman, who is likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted to also function as the lookout. How much input does the lookout provide? In a real pea soup, probably none if all goes well. Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the ColRegs is that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup, the courts have not seen it that way. And if you insist that this "letter of the law" is all important, overriding everything else, I might ask where in the ColRegs there is an exception for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip? Rule 5 simply says "at all times," it doesn't say "when underway." In fact, the courts have ruled that a "proper lookout" is satisfied by "no lookout" in many situations. (Though there have been odd cases where the courts said that a boat anchored near a channel needed a lookout to warn off other boats.) The point is, the concept of what is a proper lookout, and what is a safe speed is rather variable. The courts have clearly held that if there was a reasonable chance that a better lookout might have prevented a collision, than the vessel is held liable. But if a proper lookout is posted, the vessel is permitted to effectively navigate on radar alone. That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the requirement to keep a lookout. Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't you believe in the ColRegs? The lookout is required, but he isn't the one driving the boat. So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?" What did you mean by that? This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is. " Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if there is effectively zero visibility. " I meant that although the lookout is required, his contribution to the actual driving of the boat will be minimal. The helmsman is relying on radar alone. If it truly is "zero visibility" this is rather obvious. (Of course, the fog often varies so that if the fog lifts, the lookout may get a chance to contribute, but then it isn't "zero visibility.") BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole premise of that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs. |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... First, I would like to explain that I use different computers to read the ng. I haven't replied to this before, because I didn't see it. Anyway, there are some reasonable questions posed, so I will answer them. "Donal" wrote in message ... No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will. The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would clear at dawn (4 am). You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is. Well, it was questionable. However the forecast was quite clear. The fog (mist) was definitely scheduled to lift at dawn. We were leaving St. Vaast, which meant a 2-3 hour run up the coast, followed by 4 hours before we were going to hit the "lanes". So we felt completely safe in deciding to go. 5 boats were involved in this discussion, and one of them had a radar. As it turned out, the fog didn't lift by the time that we hit the lanes. Would you really have turned back? We all had work to go to the next day. I think you would have to agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to cross the English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going out to a harbor island for a picnic. Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs! Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds. I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and before we got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I had the radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes. Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We had gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would hold off until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we left during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of Outward Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig, used by the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not stay that night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have had a serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on the "main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside, where they only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he took the "main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge. Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate three shipping lanes. I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to do this every time that I go out. Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards wide, but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see kayaks out there? I'm not sure about the width of the harbour entrance .... maybe 150 yds. The Island must be 2 miles, (20 minutes to Wooton). However, I usually sail across, and I am going to a particular destination. It may well be a mile at the narrowest point. My charts are on the boat, but I really think that the distance is more like 2 miles. There are all sorts of vessels out there. That includes kayaks, jet-skis, kite-surfers, 12 ft fishng boats, row boats, ferries, hovercraft, etc. I guess that I see kayaks there, about three times each season. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore. So??? Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said "people do it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion Hmmm. I can't say that. .. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision. This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues. No, I am not leaving out anything. The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that it is true. Of course its true. But what's the point? You seem to be saying that big ships can proceed as if there weren't any kayaks in the vicinity. I disagree. For instance, what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick fog? You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify the hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker, its hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even going at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in thick fog because of the possibility of a kayak? Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with "appropriate" vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on radar (or visually, until its too late), IMHO, the CollRegs say that a ship should be able to avoid a vessel that is spotted visually. and you say the small boat doesn't have the resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the encounter in the first place. Ahem........... The big boat also has the resources to avoid the collision, does it not? The CollRegs do *NOT* presume that size has the advantage. Do they? Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid the collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To claim its OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a collision is meaningless. I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there. In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not. The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate lookouts. Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog? In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've frequently seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be crossing, Not in fog, you haven't! such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the skipper is in the head! Good assumption. And what of the responsibility of the kayak? Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the ship's crew! Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should spring for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in practice has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships gotta do. We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its really the needs of society and global economics that are running the show. Ahhhh. Are you suggesting that the CollRegs are biased towards the commercial operater? I think that you are mistaken. I'll read the rest tomorrow. It's getting late. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote ...
We all had work to go to the next day. Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs? SV |
And ???????
Wow, I'm amazed that someone else is still following this thread! I guess we'll
have to keep it going! -- -jeff www.sv-loki.com If you can't say something nice, say something surrealistic. -Zippy "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote ... We all had work to go to the next day. Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs? SV |
And ???????
Jeff Morris wrote:
Wow, I'm amazed that someone else is still following this thread! I guess we'll have to keep it going! -- Probably more than you realize, it's been quite entertaining, thank you! Cheers Marty |
And ???????
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote ... We all had work to go to the next day. Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs? No, absolutely not. In the same way, the big ships *should* go slower than they do. Regards Donal -- |
And Donal the Coward liar responds again
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... OK! Let's try to rewind a bit. Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate under Radar alone? The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely that in the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed. However, nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe speed is some exact function of the degree of visibility. Have I ever suggested such a thing? Before radar, attempts where made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't anything that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced to below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway. Have I ever suggested that they must stop? With a proper radar setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be prudent without radar. Uhh ohhh!!!! I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some evidence to back this up? It would help, if the evidence came from international sources, rather than domestic ones. After all, the CollRegs are in fact the "*International* regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea".. So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping a lookout by sight"? the vessel can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman, who is likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted to also function as the lookout. Agreed. How much input does the lookout provide? In a real pea soup, probably none if all goes well. The lookout is there because things do not always go well. Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the ColRegs is that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup, I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a pragmatic view. I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that they should exercise a degree of caution. the courts have not seen it that way. And if you insist that this "letter of the law" is all important, overriding everything else, I might ask where in the ColRegs there is an exception for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip? Rule 5 simply says "at all times," it doesn't say "when underway." In fact, the courts have ruled that a "proper lookout" is satisfied by "no lookout" in many situations. (Though there have been odd cases where the courts said that a boat anchored near a channel needed a lookout to warn off other boats.) The point is, the concept of what is a proper lookout, and what is a safe speed is rather variable. The courts have clearly held that if there was a reasonable chance that a better lookout might have prevented a collision, than the vessel is held liable. But if a proper lookout is posted, the vessel is permitted to effectively navigate on radar alone. What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as Joe says? I'd like to see a link to such a case. That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the requirement to keep a lookout. Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't you believe in the ColRegs? I have complete faith in them. The lookout is required, but he isn't the one driving the boat. Of course he isn't. So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?" What did you mean by that? This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is. " Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if there is effectively zero visibility. " I meant that although the lookout is required, his contribution to the actual driving of the boat will be minimal. The helmsman is relying on radar alone. If it truly is "zero visibility" this is rather obvious. (Of course, the fog often varies so that if the fog lifts, the lookout may get a chance to contribute, but then it isn't "zero visibility.") BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole premise of that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs. There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility. Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the issues.
First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word" on the law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say. There are a number of issues that are left entirely to the courts, including the meaning of phrases such as "proper lookout" and "safe speed." Attempting to intuit the exact meaning of these phrases (as well as many other aspects of the ColRegs) without considering the applicable court decisions is futile. For reference, see my extract of Farwell's a couple of weeks ago, or I can repost. Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping when a hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of history: The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall, in the fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of the meaning of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the stopping distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules, however, wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and the use of radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe speed at all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a "safe speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the concept of "moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially without radar, the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water, dedicated shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down below steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of conditions. In the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation Safety Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but which slowed to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe speed; the fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the poor quality of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel, near shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been. The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large ship traffic should stop. We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is strongly frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing below steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe. And what is the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be hundreds, perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to "reverse engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing to permit a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be considered a "moderate speed." You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger ships - I claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10 are essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not impede" larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS, and, if not using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When you consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from well offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they are favored by the rules in almost every situation. This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the fog in the shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've every addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large vessel in the TSS. This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility; it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the fog. Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is the obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there exists the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is it that the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities? -- -jeff www.sv-loki.com "I like sailing because it is the sport which demands the least energy" Albert Einstein "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... First, I would like to explain that I use different computers to read the ng. I haven't replied to this before, because I didn't see it. Anyway, there are some reasonable questions posed, so I will answer them. "Donal" wrote in message ... No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will. The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would clear at dawn (4 am). You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is. Well, it was questionable. However the forecast was quite clear. The fog (mist) was definitely scheduled to lift at dawn. We were leaving St. Vaast, which meant a 2-3 hour run up the coast, followed by 4 hours before we were going to hit the "lanes". So we felt completely safe in deciding to go. 5 boats were involved in this discussion, and one of them had a radar. As it turned out, the fog didn't lift by the time that we hit the lanes. Would you really have turned back? We all had work to go to the next day. I think you would have to agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to cross the English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going out to a harbor island for a picnic. Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs! Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds. I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and before we got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I had the radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes. Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We had gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would hold off until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we left during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of Outward Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig, used by the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not stay that night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have had a serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on the "main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside, where they only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he took the "main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge. Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate three shipping lanes. I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to do this every time that I go out. Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards wide, but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see kayaks out there? I'm not sure about the width of the harbour entrance .... maybe 150 yds. The Island must be 2 miles, (20 minutes to Wooton). However, I usually sail across, and I am going to a particular destination. It may well be a mile at the narrowest point. My charts are on the boat, but I really think that the distance is more like 2 miles. There are all sorts of vessels out there. That includes kayaks, jet-skis, kite-surfers, 12 ft fishng boats, row boats, ferries, hovercraft, etc. I guess that I see kayaks there, about three times each season. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore. So??? Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said "people do it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion Hmmm. I can't say that. . That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision. This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues. No, I am not leaving out anything. The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that it is true. Of course its true. But what's the point? You seem to be saying that big ships can proceed as if there weren't any kayaks in the vicinity. I disagree. For instance, what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick fog? You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify the hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker, its hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even going at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in thick fog because of the possibility of a kayak? Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with "appropriate" vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on radar (or visually, until its too late), IMHO, the CollRegs say that a ship should be able to avoid a vessel that is spotted visually. and you say the small boat doesn't have the resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the encounter in the first place. Ahem........... The big boat also has the resources to avoid the collision, does it not? The CollRegs do *NOT* presume that size has the advantage. Do they? Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid the collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To claim its OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a collision is meaningless. I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there. In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not. The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate lookouts. Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog? In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've frequently seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be crossing, Not in fog, you haven't! such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the skipper is in the head! Good assumption. And what of the responsibility of the kayak? Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the ship's crew! Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should spring for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in practice has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships gotta do. We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its really the needs of society and global economics that are running the show. Ahhhh. Are you suggesting that the CollRegs are biased towards the commercial operater? I think that you are mistaken. I'll read the rest tomorrow. It's getting late. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
The COLREGS summed up..... smaller gives way to bigger in all
circumstances! CM "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... | Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the issues. | snipped Yada Yada Yada |
And Donal responds again
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely that in the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed. However, nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe speed is some exact function of the degree of visibility. Have I ever suggested such a thing? First you say you don't, but then you say a ship must be able to stop in time to avoid a vessel spotted visually. That seem pretty specific - especially at zero visibility. Before radar, attempts where made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't anything that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced to below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway. Have I ever suggested that they must stop? Yes. You said recently: "IMHO, the CollRegs say that a ship should be able to avoid a vessel that is spotted visually." If vision is down to a few dozen feet, the only way a large ship could comply with that is by not moving. Or do you have a different spin on this? With a proper radar setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be prudent without radar. Uhh ohhh!!!! I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some evidence to back this up? Yup. I think I've even quoted cases. It would help, if the evidence came from international sources, rather than domestic ones. The ferry incident I've quoted is Canadian. Farwell's is co-authored by Commander Richard A. Smith, Royal Navy. When my edition was published he was the commanding officer of the HMS Achilles. Although a majority of the cases they quote are from US courts, Farwell's is definately teaching the "international" law. BTW, one British court opinion they cite was one of the first cases where the moderate speed "half distance" rule has judged to not be the "rule of law," and that each case must be judged on its own merits. Another specific case mentioned in Farwell's involves two vessels , one without radar the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 7 knots in 1 mile vis in a busy area, another with only .75 mile vis but a good radar was allowed 8 to 9 knots. This was listed as a specific case where radar permitted a higher speed. The footnote cited: "The Hagen [1973] 1 Lloyd's Rep 257" so I assume this was a British case. So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping a lookout by sight"? Certainly not by large ship standards. If there were an incident, they'd have a lot of 'splaining to do! On the other hand, Maine Lobsta Men single hand all the time. One comment in Farwell's is that local customs cannot override the Lookout requirement, but in practice, at least for small boats, they do. the vessel can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman, who is likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted to also function as the lookout. Agreed. How much input does the lookout provide? In a real pea soup, probably none if all goes well. The lookout is there because things do not always go well. Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the ColRegs is that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup, I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a pragmatic view. I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that they should exercise a degree of caution. No - you've said that the ship has to be able to stop, based on visual input. That becomes an impossible task in real pea soup; for most heavy ships its impossible in anything considered "thick fog." You seem to go back and forth on this, first insisting that ship must be able to stop, then claiming you don't intend the obvious implication of that. So perhaps you can take us through this - what speed might be appropriate, and what are the parameters that would allow the ship to avoid hitting the kayak? What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as Joe says? I don't think so. The only way that works is if the river is known to be free of small craft that might not show on radar. I'd like to see a link to such a case. Joe will have to answer that. That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the requirement to keep a lookout. Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't you believe in the ColRegs? I have complete faith in them. Now that's scary! Wouldn't that mean that a ship doesn't have to worry about the kayak, because it would never violate the rules by impeding its safe passage? But you didn't answer the question - do you keep a lookout while anchored or moored? BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole premise of that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs. There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility. Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering. Your helmsman has "full visibility" in thick fog? Does he have radar vision? -jeff |
And Donal responds again
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely that in the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed. However, nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe speed is some exact function of the degree of visibility. Have I ever suggested such a thing? First you say you don't, but then you say a ship must be able to stop in time to avoid a vessel spotted visually. That seem pretty specific - especially at zero visibility. Before radar, attempts where made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't anything that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced to below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway. Have I ever suggested that they must stop? Yes. You said recently: "IMHO, the CollRegs say that a ship should be able to avoid a vessel that is spotted visually." If vision is down to a few dozen feet, the only way a large ship could comply with that is by not moving. Or do you have a different spin on this? With a proper radar setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be prudent without radar. Uhh ohhh!!!! I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some evidence to back this up? Yup. I think I've even quoted cases. It would help, if the evidence came from international sources, rather than domestic ones. The ferry incident I've quoted is Canadian. Farwell's is co-authored by Commander Richard A. Smith, Royal Navy. When my edition was published he was the commanding officer of the HMS Achilles. Although a majority of the cases they quote are from US courts, Farwell's is definately teaching the "international" law. BTW, one British court opinion they cite was one of the first cases where the moderate speed "half distance" rule has judged to not be the "rule of law," and that each case must be judged on its own merits. Another specific case mentioned in Farwell's involves two vessels , one without radar the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 7 knots in 1 mile vis in a busy area, another with only .75 mile vis but a good radar was allowed 8 to 9 knots. This was listed as a specific case where radar permitted a higher speed. The footnote cited: "The Hagen [1973] 1 Lloyd's Rep 257" so I assume this was a British case. So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping a lookout by sight"? Certainly not by large ship standards. If there were an incident, they'd have a lot of 'splaining to do! On the other hand, Maine Lobsta Men single hand all the time. One comment in Farwell's is that local customs cannot override the Lookout requirement, but in practice, at least for small boats, they do. the vessel can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman, who is likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted to also function as the lookout. Agreed. How much input does the lookout provide? In a real pea soup, probably none if all goes well. The lookout is there because things do not always go well. Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the ColRegs is that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup, I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a pragmatic view. I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that they should exercise a degree of caution. No - you've said that the ship has to be able to stop, based on visual input. That becomes an impossible task in real pea soup; for most heavy ships its impossible in anything considered "thick fog." You seem to go back and forth on this, first insisting that ship must be able to stop, then claiming you don't intend the obvious implication of that. So perhaps you can take us through this - what speed might be appropriate, and what are the parameters that would allow the ship to avoid hitting the kayak? What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as Joe says? I don't think so. The only way that works is if the river is known to be free of small craft that might not show on radar. I'd like to see a link to such a case. Joe will have to answer that. That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the requirement to keep a lookout. Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't you believe in the ColRegs? I have complete faith in them. Now that's scary! Wouldn't that mean that a ship doesn't have to worry about the kayak, because it would never violate the rules by impeding its safe passage? But you didn't answer the question - do you keep a lookout while anchored or moored? BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole premise of that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs. There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility. Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering. Your helmsman has "full visibility" in thick fog? Does he have radar vision? Jeff, Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster including lanod can see thru thick fog without radar. Joe -jeff |
And Donal responds again
"Joe" wrote in message | Jeff, | Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can | navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster | including | lanod can see thru thick fog without radar. Cripes Joe...... what would you guys think of my favourite pastime of sailing at night with no running lights and CRT Radar only? Anyone with a clue about radar can assume a total "cloaking device" and sail in blind fog without too much worry. I often shut down all ancillicary electronics and turn my boat into a "black-out" to sail along at night on radar alone. My screen is well forward in the cabin and can be clearly seen from the cockpit. I often use the Autohelm remote control and radar in conjunction to make night sailing like a video game. If another boat is approaching I "light-up" with every light on board [ if it suits me to make an impression]. It scares the hell out of most other boats. I've sailed by a friend of mine at night in a storm at 0230hrs.... who said afterwards the I looked for all intents and purposes like a ghost ship sailing out of an evening fog bank.... by him and into the night. He says he saw the sails materialize first ... .....and then the boat. He claims it was a silent and awesome sight to see me pass him so quietly. You guys are arguing an idiot's point! I'll sail my vessel as. when and how I please. You won't tell me what when or how! I don't care how good you think you are..... I'm the Captain! **** the COLREGS! I'll stay out of the way of faster and bigger vessels or let them know where I am when it suits me. CM |
And Donal responds again
Capt. Mooron wrote:
Anyone with a clue about radar can assume a total "cloaking device" and sail in blind fog without too much worry. I often shut down all ancillicary electronics and turn my boat into a "black-out" to sail along at night on radar alone. Stops those pesky *******s from the RCMP from stopping you when you're bringing in a couple of hundred kilos of BC bud eh? My nephew just got his butt arrested during a raid at a million dollar grow-op, he was the chief horticulturist. Claimed he grew the best weed in Canada, but I wouldn't know anything about that ;-o . Cheers Marty |
And Donal responds again
"Joe" wrote in message m... Jeff, Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster including lanod can see thru thick fog without radar. Joe, Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"? Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the helmsman, or the skipper? Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the issues. First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word" on the law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say. I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has overruled the CollRegs? I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to interpret. There are a number of issues that are left entirely to the courts, including the meaning of phrases such as "proper lookout" and "safe speed." Attempting to intuit the exact meaning of these phrases (as well as many other aspects of the ColRegs) without considering the applicable court decisions is futile. For reference, see my extract of Farwell's a couple of weeks ago, or I can repost. I've no idea what Farwell's is. Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping when a hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of history: The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall, in the fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of the meaning of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the stopping distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules, however, wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and the use of radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe speed at all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a "safe speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the concept of "moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially without radar, the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water, dedicated shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down below steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of conditions. I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain steerageway. I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I don't complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother to sound their fog horns. In the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation Safety Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but which slowed to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe speed; the fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the poor quality of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel, near shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been. The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large ship traffic should stop. I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop. We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is strongly frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing below steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe. And what is the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be hundreds, perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to "reverse engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing to permit a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be considered a "moderate speed." You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger ships - I claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10 are essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not impede" larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS, and, if not using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When you consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from well offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they are favored by the rules in almost every situation. My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that would create a very dangerous situation. This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the fog in the shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've every addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large vessel in the TSS. I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that you want to see. I'll try again. Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in a TSS. Visibility 200 yards. Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn. Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the witnesses). How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame? This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility; it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the fog. Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is the obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there exists the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is it that the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities? It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it will get caught in fog. Regards Donal -- |
And Donal responds again
Donal wrote: "Joe" wrote in message m... Jeff, Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster including lanod can see thru thick fog without radar. Joe, Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"? Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the helmsman, or the skipper? Regards Donal -- That's easy ... the skipper .... the navigator only advises, eg kinda like a pilot. otn |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the issues. First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word" on the law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say. I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has overruled the CollRegs? I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to interpret. There are relatively few case of the courts "overturning" the current law, but that is because they were carefully crafted to be consistent with earlier rulings. In the past many rules were nullified becuase there were many inconsistencies in the various local "pilot rules." However, the modern rules do have things like the requirement for a lookout even while at anchor or in a slip - the courts have ruled that isn't really needed. Also, the concepts "safe speed" and "ordinary practice of seamen" are left completely in the courts to decide, case by case. There are a number of issues that are left entirely to the courts, including the meaning of phrases such as "proper lookout" and "safe speed." Attempting to intuit the exact meaning of these phrases (as well as many other aspects of the ColRegs) without considering the applicable court decisions is futile. For reference, see my extract of Farwell's a couple of weeks ago, or I can repost. I've no idea what Farwell's is. "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" was the standard text on the rules in this country for much of the last century. Its out of print now, but I'm not sure what has replaced it - its still the most common reference used. Actually, I think I got my copy of the previous edition at Foyle's, in Charing Cross. Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping when a hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of history: The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall, in the fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of the meaning of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the stopping distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules, however, wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and the use of radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe speed at all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a "safe speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the concept of "moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially without radar, the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water, dedicated shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down below steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of conditions. I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain steerageway. I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I don't complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother to sound their fog horns. At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a kayak, yet you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that. In the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation Safety Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but which slowed to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe speed; the fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the poor quality of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel, near shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been. The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large ship traffic should stop. I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop. So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law? Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now something different from what you think. We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is strongly frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing below steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe. And what is the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be hundreds, perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to "reverse engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing to permit a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be considered a "moderate speed." You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger ships - I claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10 are essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not impede" larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS, and, if not using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When you consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from well offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they are favored by the rules in almost every situation. My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that would create a very dangerous situation. Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too much sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer is clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small boat must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it does). This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the fog in the shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've every addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large vessel in the TSS. I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that you want to see. I'll try again. Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in a TSS. Visibility 200 yards. Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn. Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the witnesses). How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame? The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your point? What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then the ship might well be held blameless. I've always agreed that if there was anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the risk, it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by his proximity to the ship is in violation. This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility; it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the fog. Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is the obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there exists the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is it that the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities? It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it will get caught in fog. Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that. |
And Donal responds again
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message | Stops those pesky *******s from the RCMP from stopping you when you're | bringing in a couple of hundred kilos of BC bud eh? They can't stop what they can't see..... ;-) | | My nephew just got his butt arrested during a raid at a million dollar | grow-op, he was the chief horticulturist. Claimed he grew the best | weed in Canada, but I wouldn't know anything about that ;-o . Was that the big Brewery Bust??? Crap that was awesome! They should give those guys a Government contract and let them hire staff! CM |
And Donal responds again
"Donal" wrote in message | Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the | helmsman, or the skipper? The Helmsman..... which could be the Captain or the Navigator depending on the circumstance or watch. CM |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message | Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to | the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a | time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that. Jeff for cripes sake..... a friggin Kayaker??!!! That's the equivalent of a log with a person dog paddling it! It's a no brainer... the kayaker is dead and good riddance.... unless it's a cute babe and then I'll have to take issue with any vessel putting her in harm's way! Especially if it's a naked babe in a see-through kayak! Crap it's been a long stint up North and this rum is going down entirely to well! ;-) CM |
And Donal responds again
"Donal" wrote in message ...
"Joe" wrote in message m... Jeff, Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster including lanod can see thru thick fog without radar. Joe, Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"? Look it up in your on-shore yachtmaster guide. Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the helmsman, or the skipper? Gee Lanod.........on my boat thats all the same person. Does it take 3 yachtmasters to navigate a boat? Joe MSV RedCloud Regards Donal -- |
And Donal responds again
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message | Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the | helmsman, or the skipper? The Helmsman..... which could be the Captain or the Navigator depending on the circumstance or watch. 100% correct. Let's wait and see what Joe's answer is. Regards Donal -- |
And Donal responds again
"Joe" wrote in message om... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Joe" wrote in message m... Jeff, Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster including lanod can see thru thick fog without radar. Joe, Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"? Look it up in your on-shore yachtmaster guide. Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the helmsman, or the skipper? Gee Lanod.........on my boat thats all the same person. That is exactly what I thought! Try to imagine a boat where the examiner is sitting in the cockpit, along with the helmsman. Now imagine that the navigator is down below, with his charts. The ports (windows) are covered. Why can the navigator not do some navigation? Regards Donal -- |
And Donal responds again
Capt. Mooron wrote:
Was that the big Brewery Bust??? Crap that was awesome! They should give those guys a Government contract and let them hire staff! Wasn't quite that big, they only had three barns full of lights, blowers, pipes, driers, heaters, insulation, filters...... A few miles north of Kingston and about two weeks earlier. Cheers Marty |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the issues. First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word" on the law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say. I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has overruled the CollRegs? I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to interpret. There are relatively few case of the courts "overturning" the current law, but that is because they were carefully crafted to be consistent with earlier rulings. In the past many rules were nullified becuase there were many inconsistencies in the various local "pilot rules." I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the CollRegs. However, the modern rules do have things like the requirement for a lookout even while at anchor or in a slip - the courts have ruled that isn't really needed. Also, the concepts "safe speed" and "ordinary practice of seamen" are left completely in the courts to decide, case by case. snip I've no idea what Farwell's is. "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" was the standard text on the rules in this country for much of the last century. Its out of print now, but I'm not sure what has replaced it - its still the most common reference used. Actually, I think I got my copy of the previous edition at Foyle's, in Charing Cross. I don't go into London any more. I got a parking ticket for being 3 minutes late, about 10 years ago. I haven't been back since. Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping when a hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of history: The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall, in the fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of the meaning of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the stopping distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules, however, wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and the use of radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe speed at all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a "safe speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the concept of "moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially without radar, the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water, dedicated shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down below steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of conditions. I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain steerageway. I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I don't complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother to sound their fog horns. At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a kayak, yet you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that. Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway. I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors had the same idea. In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was reached. After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the accident. (this is *UK* law). At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS. I believe that you know this, as well as I do. In the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation Safety Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but which slowed to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe speed; the fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the poor quality of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel, near shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been. The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large ship traffic should stop. I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop. So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law? Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within sight of their victim in the TSS. Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now something different from what you think. We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is strongly frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing below steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe. And what is the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be hundreds, perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to "reverse engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing to permit a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be considered a "moderate speed." You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger ships - I claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10 are essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not impede" larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS, and, if not using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When you consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from well offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they are favored by the rules in almost every situation. My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that would create a very dangerous situation. Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too much sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer is clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small boat must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it does). I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever reason, should not be impeded. It's common sense. No more, no less! This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the fog in the shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've every addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large vessel in the TSS. I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that you want to see. I'll try again. Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in a TSS. Visibility 200 yards. Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn. Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the witnesses). How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame? The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your point? My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being there". What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then the ship might well be held blameless. Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly. Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog. I've always agreed that if there was anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the risk, it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by his proximity to the ship is in violation. And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation. This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility; it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the fog. Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is the obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there exists the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is it that the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities? It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it will get caught in fog. Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that. Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything. Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast. Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day. Stranger things happen at sea. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message ... I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the CollRegs. I haven't found a good source to "free case studies" yet. I have posted a link to the Canadian Safety Board's ruling that 14 knots was a safe speed in zero visibility, and I posted a full page excerpt from the standard text on the topic. I'll repeat the essential part: "Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as ... proper lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third, judicial interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or conflicts in the latter." You can chose to believe this is incorrect - maybe its time you did your own research. At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a kayak, yet you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that. Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway. But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its OK to break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical. I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors had the same idea. In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was reached. After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the accident. (this is *UK* law). At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS. I believe that you know this, as well as I do. What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes across the highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to blame? I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop. So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law? Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within sight of their victim in the TSS. Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the rules are paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow. There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules. This is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition, and it was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the meaning of "safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations. These rulings become guidelines for the future. The situation we're discussing is not a case where the rules must be violated; it is a case where the courts have ruled that steerageway should be maintained, and even higher speeds are permissible with good radar. In doing so, the courts have conceded that the kayak would be a severe risk if it cross a shipping lane in thick fog. I repeat again what you ignored the first time: Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now something different from what you think. Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too much sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer is clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small boat must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it does). I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever reason, should not be impeded. It's common sense. No more, no less! It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules aren't needed, because its all "common sense"? The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your point? My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being there". popbably not. What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then the ship might well be held blameless. Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly. Why not blameless? Where do you find fault? Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog. I never denied it - I've claimed it is an absolute requirement from the beginning. I've always agreed that if there was anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the risk, it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by his proximity to the ship is in violation. And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation. That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way to share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies that both vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels have been held blameless. Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that. Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything. Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it overrules the law! I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules" to be there, I simply said he had no business being there. As in, it would be foolish and foolhardy. "Common sense" say the kayak will be chum and the ship should be blameless; are you saying that's the law? It is true that a ship could be going too fast, and without a lookout, but I also claim it could be going at a "safe speed" (as defined by the courts) and have a "proper lookout" and would still be unable to stop in time to save the kayak. The kayak, however, is putting itself in a position where it is very likely it almost certainly would violate the rules if there was an encounter. Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it with a crash stop, its in violation. Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast. Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day. Stranger things happen at sea. Well, I could say "not very often," but inevitably this happens. However, that becomes the risk that the kayak takes. As I've said, I would have some sympathy if it were a 100 yard channel, where the kayak could pick a promising moment to make a dash. However, a Channel crossing with its 5 mile lanes is not a proper place for a kayak. You keep asking me for links to court cases; how about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks? Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like you just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law is the most important thing. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, and therefore assumed that everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me wrong at any point. |
And ???????
Jeff, you're wasting your time.
Donal, is the UK version of Neal .... he knows the words to the rules, but doesn't comprehend the intent. He's just shown, in another thread, that he's also not a "boat handler" around the docks. I'll refrain from commenting on the Yachtmaster requirements, as I know nothing about them, and I think John E. covered that ground. otn |
And ???????
I half agree - but would you rather be reading bobadilgayganzyhorvathbb drivel?
This latest tack of Donal's confirms what we've long suspected - most people know some of the rules, and then make up the rest based on what seems to be "common sense" to them. jeff "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Jeff, you're wasting your time. Donal, is the UK version of Neal .... he knows the words to the rules, but doesn't comprehend the intent. He's just shown, in another thread, that he's also not a "boat handler" around the docks. I'll refrain from commenting on the Yachtmaster requirements, as I know nothing about them, and I think John E. covered that ground. otn |
And ???????
Jeff Morris wrote: I half agree - but would you rather be reading bobadilgayganzyhorvathbb drivel? G That parts easy ..... I don't. This latest tack of Donal's confirms what we've long suspected - most people know some of the rules, and then make up the rest based on what seems to be "common sense" to them. I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a problem with the intent. I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and giving perspective from different opereators and vessel types. However, after a point............ otn |
And ???????
"otnmbrd" wrote in message | I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a | problem with the intent. So seemingly you are inferring that no one but you has a grasp on the intent of the COLREGS??? Crap.... I thought it was to keep boats from hitting each other. Are you implying that everyone but commercial large vessel traffic should be subject to the strictest definitions of the rules? | I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and | giving perspective from different operators and vessel types. Well you know my views.... large commercial vessels should be strictly regulated, the regulations should be enforced with an iron fist. You whine about smaller vessels not adhering to the rules while dumping bilge water and oil as well as being the biggest contributor of garbage dumped at sea.... not to mention the sorry record for container loss. Unmanned bridges, unseaworthy vessels and poorly trained foreign crews are the least of the problems caused by the current status of the shipping industry at sea. How dare you even begin to preach rules and comprehension when your industry so consistently fails to abide by rules you claim to have a better understanding of!! | However, after a point............ Yeah... after a point it becomes clear that you fail to comprehend the basics. It's NOT Your Ocean! You only use it just like we do. You don't have more of a right nor less of a responsibility. I would say that on a whole the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!...... CM |
And ???????
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340
I would say that on a whole the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!...... You crack me up, Mooron! |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340 | I would say that on a whole | the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities | and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!...... | | You crack me up, Mooron! Ha Ha Ha..... Seriously Jeff.... not all sailboats flaunt the regs like the large commercial vessels do... nor with the overwhelming regularity of their offences. We are under a much more policed and enforced platform. CM |
And ???????
Capt. Mooron wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message | I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a | problem with the intent. So seemingly you are inferring that no one but you has a grasp on the intent of the COLREGS??? Crap.... I thought it was to keep boats from hitting each other. Are you implying that everyone but commercial large vessel traffic should be subject to the strictest definitions of the rules? | I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and | giving perspective from different operators and vessel types. Well you know my views.... large commercial vessels should be strictly regulated, the regulations should be enforced with an iron fist. You whine about smaller vessels not adhering to the rules while dumping bilge water and oil as well as being the biggest contributor of garbage dumped at sea.... not to mention the sorry record for container loss. Unmanned bridges, unseaworthy vessels and poorly trained foreign crews are the least of the problems caused by the current status of the shipping industry at sea. How dare you even begin to preach rules and comprehension when your industry so consistently fails to abide by rules you claim to have a better understanding of!! | However, after a point............ Yeah... after a point it becomes clear that you fail to comprehend the basics. It's NOT Your Ocean! You only use it just like we do. You don't have more of a right nor less of a responsibility. I would say that on a whole the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!...... CM ROFLMAO Welcome back otn |
And ???????
"otnmbrd" wrote in message | ROFLMAO | | Welcome back | | otn Thanx dude! ;-) CM |
And ???????
I'll concede that when a big ship screws up it can make a real mess, but in my
travels I've observed rather few instances of commercial violations. On the other hand, I've observed that recreational boaters are very self-righteous about the regs they chose to observe, while they blatantly ignore others. A case in point: In Key West we stayed for several days at a luxury marina/time share hotel. The majority of the boats were live aboard, and most never moved from their slip. When I asked people what they did for a pumpout, they all said they never use their head; they go up to the hotel (wink, wink)! We then moved over to a different marina where we were located near the fuel dock and pumpout hose. Invariably, when the commercial boats came to tank up, they also pumped out. However, I hardly ever saw the recreation boaters pump. Another issue: I've hardly ever felt at risk from a commercial boat - more often I find them altering course to avoid me when several miles away (perhaps my fame has spread?). Sportfishermen, however, are so obnoxious that its rare that an day passes without getting buzzed by some monster doing 40 knots with seemingly no one on the bridge. "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340 | I would say that on a whole | the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities | and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!...... | | You crack me up, Mooron! Ha Ha Ha..... Seriously Jeff.... not all sailboats flaunt the regs like the large commercial vessels do... nor with the overwhelming regularity of their offences. We are under a much more policed and enforced platform. CM |
And ???????
In retrospect Jeff.... I'll have to concur with your position regarding
obnoxious American boaters. These scofflaws will be the reason that very soon everyone in the USA who desires to partake in boating of any kind will have to have a boating license, with mandatory insurance and strict enforcement by a large marine police force.... paid for by a new tax imposed on the entire boating community. I'm glad we don't have that type of irresponsible attitude here in Canada. Then again we already have a mandatory Vessel Operators Card requirement and very stiff fines for even minor infractions. A half liter of oil accidentally spilled can cost you 10K in fines and HAZMAT Response costs. Nope,,,, up here it's those damn commercial behemoths that are the primary culprits in environmental terrorism. CM "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... | I'll concede that when a big ship screws up it can make a real mess, but in my | travels I've observed rather few instances of commercial violations. On the | other hand, I've observed that recreational boaters are very self-righteous | about the regs they chose to observe, while they blatantly ignore others. | | A case in point: In Key West we stayed for several days at a luxury marina/time | share hotel. The majority of the boats were live aboard, and most never moved | from their slip. When I asked people what they did for a pumpout, they all said | they never use their head; they go up to the hotel (wink, wink)! We then moved | over to a different marina where we were located near the fuel dock and pumpout | hose. Invariably, when the commercial boats came to tank up, they also pumped | out. However, I hardly ever saw the recreation boaters pump. | | Another issue: I've hardly ever felt at risk from a commercial boat - more | often I find them altering course to avoid me when several miles away (perhaps | my fame has spread?). Sportfishermen, however, are so obnoxious that its rare | that an day passes without getting buzzed by some monster doing 40 knots with | seemingly no one on the bridge. | | | | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message | ... | | "Jeff Morris" wrote in message | ... | | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340 | | I would say that on a whole | | the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their | responsibilities | | and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!...... | | | | You crack me up, Mooron! | | Ha Ha Ha..... | | Seriously Jeff.... not all sailboats flaunt the regs like the large | commercial vessels do... nor with the overwhelming regularity of their | offences. We are under a much more policed and enforced platform. | | CM | | | | |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the CollRegs. I haven't found a good source to "free case studies" yet. I have posted a link to the Canadian Safety Board's ruling that 14 knots was a safe speed in zero visibility, and I posted a full page excerpt from the standard text on the topic. I'll repeat the essential part: "Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as ... proper lookout, special circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that these terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps in the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third, judicial interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional inconsistencies or conflicts in the latter." You can chose to believe this is incorrect - maybe its time you did your own research. At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a kayak, yet you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that. Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway. But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its OK to break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical. Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one? I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors had the same idea. In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was reached. After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the accident. (this is *UK* law). At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS. I believe that you know this, as well as I do. What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes across the highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to blame? Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your point? I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop. So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law? Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within sight of their victim in the TSS. Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the rules are paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow. The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you *cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try to balance them all *equally*. As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are correct. Joe is absolutely certain. Why, then, must power give way to sail? There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules. This is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition, and it was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the meaning of "safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations. These rulings become guidelines for the future. I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another country as evidence. Have you? The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants. The situation we're discussing is not a case where the rules must be violated; it is a case where the courts have ruled that steerageway should be maintained, and even higher speeds are permissible with good radar. In doing so, the courts have conceded that the kayak would be a severe risk if it cross a shipping lane in thick fog. I repeat again what you ignored the first time: Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now something different from what you think. I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion. I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs. Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too much sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer is clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small boat must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it does). I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever reason, should not be impeded. It's common sense. No more, no less! It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules aren't needed, because its all "common sense"? No. I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense. You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships. Big ships are usually powered by engines. The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail. It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of sailing vessels. The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your point? My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being there". popbably not. What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then the ship might well be held blameless. Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly. Why not blameless? Where do you find fault? I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately responsible for avoiding a collision. You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs. Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog. I never denied it - I've claimed it is an absolute requirement from the beginning. I've always agreed that if there was anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the risk, it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by his proximity to the ship is in violation. And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation. That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way to share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies that both vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels have been held blameless. Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame. Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that. Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything. Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it overrules the law! No, I didn't. I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules" to be there, I simply said he had no business being there. What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to sail upon the sea. I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs. What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs? As in, it would be foolish and foolhardy. "Common sense" say the kayak will be chum and the ship should be blameless; are you saying that's the law? No. It is true that a ship could be going too fast, and without a lookout, but I also claim it could be going at a "safe speed" (as defined by the courts) and have a "proper lookout" and would still be unable to stop in time to save the kayak. The kayak, however, is putting itself in a position where it is very likely it almost certainly would violate the rules if there was an encounter. Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it with a crash stop, its in violation. That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the ship. Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast. Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day. Stranger things happen at sea. Well, I could say "not very often," but inevitably this happens. However, that becomes the risk that the kayak takes. As I've said, I would have some sympathy if it were a 100 yard channel, where the kayak could pick a promising moment to make a dash. However, a Channel crossing with its 5 mile lanes is not a proper place for a kayak. You keep asking me for links to court cases; how about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks? This fellow was blind!!!! http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/ Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like you just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law is the most important thing. No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not agree with. You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak has no business in a TSS. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, I don't think that is 100% true. Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate? and therefore assumed that everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me wrong at any point. You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you? Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway. But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its OK to break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical. Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one? The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop. However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees visually. To do so would be even more dangerous. What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes across the highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to blame? Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your point? You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation. Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the rules are paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow. The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you *cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try to balance them all *equally*. I would agree there are such situations. However, in this very basic case, the courts have given plenty of guidance. As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are correct. Joe is absolutely certain. No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Why do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping lanes and TSS's? Why, then, must power give way to sail? In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is favored. There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules. This is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition, and it was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the meaning of "safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations. These rulings become guidelines for the future. I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another country as evidence. Have you? The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants. Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court: "The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar construction ... by the courts of this country." I repeat again what you ignored the first time: Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now something different from what you think. I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion. I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs. Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or "augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works. The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it is what the courts say it means. It's common sense. No more, no less! It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules aren't needed, because its all "common sense"? No. I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense. You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships. As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one? That's a bit of a "bias." Big ships are usually powered by engines. The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail. You haven't read the rules lately, have you? It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of sailing vessels. Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail." Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog. Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly. Why not blameless? Where do you find fault? I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately responsible for avoiding a collision. You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs. Each vessel does have that responsibility. However it doesn't extend so far that each vessel is repsonsible for being able to stop in time, regardless of the stupidity exercised by the other vessel. The fact that there's a collision means that the actions of both vessels will be closely scrutinized. It doesn't mean they both are at fault. And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation. That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way to share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies that both vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels have been held blameless. Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame. Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a good reference that backs that up. OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame. Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that. Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything. Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it overrules the law! No, I didn't. I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules" to be there, I simply said he had no business being there. What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to sail upon the sea. I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs. What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs? What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view. Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems rather subtle for you. Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it with a crash stop, its in violation. That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the ship. A single ship in a narrow lane, maybe. In good conditions a kayak can sustain well over 4 knots. However, after paddling out 15 miles, fighting a chop, etc, its not clear to me how well they would fare in the English Channel. What kind of visibility do they have from one foot above sea level? You keep asking me for links to court cases; how about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks? This fellow was blind!!!! http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/ He did have a sighted guide, and a deisel powered escort boat. Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like you just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law is the most important thing. No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not agree with. I haven't ignored a single rule. I've only pointed out that the courts have interpretted them a certain way. You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak has no business in a TSS. I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, I don't think that is 100% true. Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate? When did I say that? and therefore assumed that everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me wrong at any point. You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you? What is the "radar only" issue? If you trying to get be to defend Joe's claim, I won't. Sorry Donal, I think Otn is right - you are just a simple simon. |
And ???????
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway. But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its OK to break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical. Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one? The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop. However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees visually. To do so would be even more dangerous. So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs???? What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes across the highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to blame? Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your point? You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation. [sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly. I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there. The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout. Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the rules are paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow. The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you *cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try to balance them all *equally*. I would agree there are such situations. However, in this very basic case, the courts have given plenty of guidance. As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are correct. Joe is absolutely certain. No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Of course. You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in TSS's or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense! Why do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping lanes and TSS's? Why, then, must power give way to sail? In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is favored. In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not? There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules. This is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition, and it was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the meaning of "safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations. These rulings become guidelines for the future. I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another country as evidence. Have you? The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants. Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court: "The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar construction ... by the courts of this country." I read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You need to re-word it. Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove difficult to understand. I repeat again what you ignored the first time: Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now something different from what you think. I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion. I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs. Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or "augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works. The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it is what the courts say it means. The US courts? Really, you are being a bit thick! It's common sense. No more, no less! It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules aren't needed, because its all "common sense"? No. I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense. You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships. As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one? That's a bit of a "bias." Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's, or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had to give way to sail. Big ships are usually powered by engines. The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail. You haven't read the rules lately, have you? I don't need to. I understood them the first time around. It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of sailing vessels. Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail." Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog. I think that I've already answered this stupid question. If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer. Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly. Why not blameless? Where do you find fault? I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately responsible for avoiding a collision. You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs. Each vessel does have that responsibility. However it doesn't extend so far that each vessel is repsonsible for being able to stop in time, regardless of the stupidity exercised by the other vessel. The fact that there's a collision means that the actions of both vessels will be closely scrutinized. It doesn't mean they both are at fault. And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation. That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way to share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies that both vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels have been held blameless. Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame. Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a good reference that backs that up. OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame. If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would give him 100% of the blame. snip What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs? What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view. Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems rather subtle for you. Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As always you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs. Rule 2, Part *b* "(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. " In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed. In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he cannot avoid hitting a small vessel. snip I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel. Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet. You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship. troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant powerboater. /troll Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, I don't think that is 100% true. Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate? When did I say that? Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am. You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a means of keeping a lookout. and therefore assumed that everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me wrong at any point. You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you? What is the "radar only" issue? If you trying to get be to defend Joe's claim, I won't. Sorry Donal, I think Otn is right - you are just a simple simon. Otn was paying me a compliment ... which I don't deserve. However, as I'm a fair-minded individual, I'd like to say that nobody will ever insult you, or otn, by comparing you to Simple Simon. Regards Donal -- |
And ???????
"Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1
The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop. However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees visually. To do so would be even more dangerous. So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs???? Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the courts has been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts' decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law intends; your way is just making it up. You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation. [sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly. I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there. The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the ship might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout. As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk. As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are correct. Joe is absolutely certain. No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Of course. You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in TSS's or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense! Its the practical truth almost everywhere I've been. Certainly in terms of numbers, the vast majority of small boats would generally only encounter large ships in a narrow channel or shipping lane. Most of the exceptions I can think of would be medium sized ferries or barges that are on secondary routes. Even then, most of the encounters would be in the harbors that would be narrow channels for the larger ship. I can only think of a handful of times where I felt I was clearly the stand-on vessel with respect to a large ship; compared to hundreds of times I've been obligated "not to impede." Why do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping lanes and TSS's? Why, then, must power give way to sail? In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is favored. In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not? Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18, which starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require." And it isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or RAMs. And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must give way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are constrained. Didn't they teach you anything in that class? Did you really take it, or was this another "practice" thing with your friends? The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants. Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court: "The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar construction ... by the courts of this country." I read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You need to re-word it. Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove difficult to understand. Maybe this is why you have so much trouble with the ColRegs - too many big words. They're simply saying because its important to have common international laws, the courts of one country should adopt the rulings of other countries. Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or "augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works. The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it is what the courts say it means. The US courts? Really, you are being a bit thick! Donal, its clear you have no interest in actually learning this stuff. If you did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's. Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including quotes indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author of Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you can go and learn something. No. I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense. You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships. As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one? That's a bit of a "bias." Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by TSS's, or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power had to give way to sail. So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point? Big ships are usually powered by engines. The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail. You haven't read the rules lately, have you? I don't need to. I understood them the first time around. Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years, have you? And it shows!! It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of sailing vessels. Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail." Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog. I think that I've already answered this stupid question. If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer. You've said you don't think its important since there are few TSS's. Its really one of the dumber things you've said. Or were you refering to where you said you haven't read them lately? Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame. Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a good reference that backs that up. OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame. If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would give him 100% of the blame. Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't get it started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll give you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the "Inevitable Accident": "There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both vessels are at fault." As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases where one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling that I found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant disappeared from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered it to Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run. Scully was found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights. http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc snip What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs? What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view. Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems rather subtle for you. Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As always you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs. Rule 2, Part *b* "(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. " In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be crossing his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed. In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he cannot avoid hitting a small vessel. Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own limitations? How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at bare steerageway? Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be compliant with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"? Frankly, you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling! The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under 2(a), since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT the "ordinary practice of seamen." snip I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel. Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet. You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he would not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked me to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a large vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the CollRegs because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship. Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick that until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence" the law had not been broken. Once again, you're just making up nonsense to try to prove I'm wrong, but you've failed misreably at every turn. troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant powerboater. /troll Weren't you a powerboater? I think you should try to educate yourself first. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, I don't think that is 100% true. Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate? When did I say that? Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am. You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a means of keeping a lookout. Back to the Cowardly Lying, again. What a loser you are. All you've done here is shown you have no real knowlege of the rules. Neal would have one word for you: Putz! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com