Jeff Morris wrote:

So you claim that a plastic kayak with stealth coating, no radar or reflector,
has every right to travel in shipping channels in pea soup fog? That sounds
like stupidity to me. Or are you simply claiming that everyone has a right to
commit suicide?

Regardless of what you think about the mental capacity of the operator,
that kayak has every right to be there. It might sound like stupidity
but stupidity is legal. If you run down the kayak you will be held at
least partially responsible for the collision. Like it or not.

Be careful when you start asking for pecking order rights to use the
waterways. You might end up further down the list than you would prefer.

Rick

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

So you claim that a plastic kayak with stealth coating, no radar or
reflector,
has every right to travel in shipping channels in pea soup fog? That sounds
like stupidity to me. Or are you simply claiming that everyone has a right
to
commit suicide?

Regardless of what you think about the mental capacity of the operator,
that kayak has every right to be there.

I'm not so sure of that. Rule 19 is pretty clear that any movement may be
inappropriate, and vessels have been held completely at fault for leaving the
dock without radar.

It might sound like stupidity
but stupidity is legal. If you run down the kayak you will be held at
least partially responsible for the collision. Like it or not.


If the kayak crosses paths with a tanker in the fog, I doubt the tanker would be
assigned any fault.

Be careful when you start asking for pecking order rights to use the
waterways. You might end up further down the list than you would prefer.

I haven't asked for any rights. There are no rights in the ColRegs, only
responsibilities. And the kayak isn't in any pecking order. And the pecking
order doesn't apply in the fog. The pecking order only applies "when in
sight" - if a vessel choses to be invisible, it doesn't have "pecking order
rights."

Jeff Morris wrote:

I'm not so sure of that. Rule 19 is pretty clear that any movement may be
inappropriate, and vessels have been held completely at fault for leaving the
dock without radar.

Well, I am not going to get into a Nilesque ****ing match over how many
angels can dance on a copy of the COLREGS but if you run over the
kayaker, chances are extemely high you will not be a happy boater.

The kayaker was using all his resources. Were you? Why didn't you have a
lookout on the bow? Why were you going so fast? Only a half knot?, well,
since you didn't have time to turn you were going too fast then weren't
you? You will hear that at the hearing and the lawsuits later. So would
that tanker captain if he or she ran over a kayaker in those conditions.

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Well, I am not going to get into a Nilesque ****ing match over how many
angels can dance on a copy of the COLREGS but if you run over the
kayaker, chances are extemely high you will not be a happy boater.

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night in black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That doesn't change
who's right.



The kayaker was using all his resources. Were you? Why didn't you have a
lookout on the bow? Why were you going so fast? Only a half knot?, well,
since you didn't have time to turn you were going too fast then weren't
you? You will hear that at the hearing and the lawsuits later. So would
that tanker captain if he or she ran over a kayaker in those conditions.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak has the
right to cross in front of a tanker? You're trying to apply a relative standard
in an absolute way.

And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40 knots in the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong. You're claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases. "Using all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

-jeff

Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night in black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That doesn't change
who's right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak has the
right to cross in front of a tanker?

No, I am saying that the guy who runs over the kayak will be found in
the wrong to some degree.

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

And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40 knots in the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong. You're claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases. "Using all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

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

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

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
news
Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night in
black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That doesn't
change
who's right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its
illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak has the
right to cross in front of a tanker?

No, I am saying that the guy who runs over the kayak will be found in
the wrong to some degree.

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



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

What do you mean?


And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40 knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong. You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases. "Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

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


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


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

I'm glad you agree with me.


Rick

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

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

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


What do you mean?

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


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.

I am simply stating the facts that should be obvious to anyone who is in
command of a vessel on navigable waters.

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


I'm glad you agree with me.

You don't need my agreement to be correct. I also believe that while
tradition and job security may dictate some coonass going like a bat out
of hell down the Atchafalaya or the HSC in zero visibility tradition
won't hold water in the hearing room or in court afterwards. Job
security ends at the point of impact.

Rick

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
news
Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night
in
black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That
doesn't
change
who's right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its
illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak
has the
right to cross in front of a tanker?

No, I am saying that the guy who runs over the kayak will be found in
the wrong to some degree.

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


Read the Coll Regs!

Perhaps you think that they don't apply?





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

What do you mean?

He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker.

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



And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40
knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong.
You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases.
"Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

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


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


No, he isn't.
You seem to be saying that the kayak has no rights at all.





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

I'm glad you agree with me.

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



Regards


Donal
--