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.

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


Jeff Morris wrote:


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

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


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

I would claim your position is absurd and groundless.


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Rick

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"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.



Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.


They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.

You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.




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.)

Twit!




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?

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







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?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?

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







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?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.








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."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?


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.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

The rules apply to everybody.

Regards


Donal
--

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