Should all shipping shut down in the fog?


For perfect safety, yes indeed. Is it a perfect world? Hmmm....



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

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

And it would run the price of gas up when the refineries couldn't get deliveries
on time.

I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so. But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
....
I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in
the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks,
sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might
have
'every right' to do so. But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks
on
the interstate. Try it some time.


I'm glad there are a few who agree with me. I believe Rick is thinking that
when I said kayaks don't belong there I was claiming that large vessels have a
right to run them down. I was never trying to imply that. In fact, my real pet
peeve is the sportfishermen that think because a ferry (with high quality radar
and a trained crew) can safely do 8 knots on a well known route, they are free
do 35 knots in the fog.

Aside from the foolishness of taking a small boat in a traffic in the fog, the
ColRegs are quite specific, in Rules 9 and 10, that they don't belong is some
places when they are unable to see or be seen by other vessels.

Further, I claim that Rule 2 also frowns on foolish behavior. In very simple
wording it requires everyone act in a seamanlike manner. This would include
staying out of the way of large ships, and also maintaining a extra slow speed
where small boats would frequent.

If you cruise in coastal Maine, you will frequently see sea kayaks with radar
reflectors on the stern, often on a short pole. However, the consensus is that
this is only partially effective - its worth doing for the times it helps, but
it isn't reliable enough to make it safe in channels. Fortunately, they
normally stay close to shore.

DSK wrote:

I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

What "business" the kayaker has there is his, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways. That is not theory, it
is law and fact. Learn to deal with that reality. The kayaker is
obliged to follow the COLREGS and VTS rules just as you do in your boat.

But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is." What
you "believe" to be right or wrong in the operation of a vessel seems to
be a bit askew for both water and interstate highway operations.

Rick

Rick wrote:

What "business" the kayaker has there is his

His suicidal tendencies, perhaps?

, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

Agreed.

However, if a commercial vessel runs aground & is damaged by trying to avoid a kayaker,
the kayaker is liable for damages to the ship and under some circumstances is liable to
the shipper for the cargo.



There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways.

As long as he's not obstructing commercial or military traffic, agreed. However, the
"right" to recreate in shipping lanes is restricted.


.... Learn to deal with that reality.

Well, the rules are written in plain black & white. Is that "reality" enough for you?



No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

Excuse me, while hitchhiking or operating non-motorized vehicles is illegal on some
interstate highways & local expressways, there is no statute mentioning tiddlywinks or
badminton or a host of other unlikely and unwise activities.




All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is."

Hmm, seems to me that you might benefit from that prescription yourself.

DSK

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
What "business" the kayaker has there is his, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

You're ignoring the possibility that the readers of this forum are more likely
to be in the small boat than driving the tanker. You're taking a very
self-centered view of this.


There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks,
sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might
have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways. That is not theory, it
is law and fact. Learn to deal with that reality. The kayaker is
obliged to follow the COLREGS and VTS rules just as you do in your boat.

Double talk. The ColRegs are very clear that vessels in TSS and Narrow Channels
have obligations which are impossible for a kayak to fulfill in the fog. This
is a very simple point in the rules, but you keep acting like you've never heard
of it. Bottom line is, you're dead wrong: the rules make it pretty clear that
the small vessel must not impede the large one. How do you do this if you can't
see it?



But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

In other words, it perfect legal to do it, as long as they don't break the law?
Or are you claiming that because its "posted" a driver need not be concerned
about the possibility? This is exactly the same situation as the kayak. Its
both illegal and foolish to play in the highway, and to paddle in the TSS in the
fog. The driver of the tanker ship/truck should stay alert for the possibility,
but we (society) recognizes that there is likely little that can be done to help
someone who insists on foolish behavior.



All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is." What
you "believe" to be right or wrong in the operation of a vessel seems to
be a bit askew for both water and interstate highway operations.

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

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Rick

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Rick

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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




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

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

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

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



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

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

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

In article .net,
Rick wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDW