"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...


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!


I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However, I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.


Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.




Grow up, Donal!




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.


Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?

Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.



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

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?



Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?



The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.


It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



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.


I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog, and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


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!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However, I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and lived? Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

BTW, did you have a reflector? Do you know what your radar visibility is?




Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too subtle
for you.

....
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.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.




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

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS. Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.




Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly! The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel. Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across. That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it? What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the rest of
the day.




The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word. But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have to.
But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog, and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on its own
special circumstances. Further, as Rick has claimed, I don't think I can second
guess the courts, and I don't know of any such precedent. However, I would have
little sympathy for a kayaker who crossed the Bay of Fundy, knowing that he
would cross the path of the Fast Cat, likely in thick fog. On the other hand,
there is a 35 knot ferry on the Boston/Salem run that I think should drop its
speed for the last 3 miles of its trip, rather than the last half mile as it now
does. The last time I had to use its channel in the fog I was terrified it was
going to run up my butt! And I have radar and a good reflector. However, this
is because the Cat uses the small channel that is the only alternative to the
primary large ship channel - it does this to save 1/4 mile on the trip.



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!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

Ah, the "Neal" argument! But you know this is not what we're talking about.


You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


OK. I'll do that. ... Nope, still no indication you've read them.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However,
I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities
are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know
you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

I listened out for their fog horns as we approached. I altered course so
that I would cross at right angles.
Most of the ships had slowed down to between 8-12 kts. Of the four times
that I crossed a lane in fog, I only came close enough to one ship to
discern the lookout on the bow.




What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.


Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes very
much.







Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane
in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not
good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the
progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no
ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without
lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.



I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to think that stupid
kayakers will have ever even heard of the CollRegs.

In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.



...
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.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak
to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.

A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the CollRegs.

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


What part of the above rule allows a commercial craft to travel without
keeping a lookout? Does it say that you don't have to keep a lookout
because Rule 2 says that the other sailors should be intelligent enough to
realise that you might come out of the fog at 25 kts without a lookout?









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

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in
a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS.

NO, you have not.

You misquoted one of the rules on one occasion, and I corrected you.

There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

You seem happy to ignore the very specific wording in the rule about keeping
a lookout ("sight and hearing"), and yet you are relying on your own weird
interpretation of Rule 2 to guarantee that a kayak could never be expected
on a river in fog.


This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.

No, Jeff. Your one sided interpretation of the rules is childish.

You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be necessary.


At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.









Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they
do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also
have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding
large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly!

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.


The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.


That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask the
question?









The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid
crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes
but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word.

No it isn't. It is *very* different.


But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have
to.

Please tell me where the CollRegs *explicitly* state that a kayak may not
cross the TSS in restricted visibility. At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.


But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can
fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business
being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the
fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog,
and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots
is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on
its own
special circumstances.

Joe claimed that it was safe to travel at 25 kts without any lookout other
than Radar.

There are *NO* special merits at all.

A vessel is obliged to keep a lookout by sight and hearing. No ifs, No
buts. No exceptions. No personal interpretations.

The rule is absolutely crystal clear. It does not allow for any special
circumstances at all.

Perhaps you need to read it again, because you really do not seen to be
able to grasp it.
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================




Further, as Rick has claimed, I don't think I can second
guess the courts, and I don't know of any such precedent. However, I
would have
little sympathy for a kayaker who crossed the Bay of Fundy, knowing that
he
would cross the path of the Fast Cat, likely in thick fog. On the other
hand,
there is a 35 knot ferry on the Boston/Salem run that I think should drop
its
speed for the last 3 miles of its trip, rather than the last half mile as
it now
does. The last time I had to use its channel in the fog I was terrified
it was
going to run up my butt! And I have radar and a good reflector. However,
this
is because the Cat uses the small channel that is the only alternative to
the
primary large ship channel - it does this to save 1/4 mile on the trip.



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!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the
fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while
being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

Ah, the "Neal" argument! But you know this is not what we're talking
about.


You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


OK. I'll do that. ... Nope, still no indication you've read them.

Well, at the risk of becoming tiresome [there's a line for you]


=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


Have you read this one?




Regards


Donal
--

Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout. Where did
I say that

Comments interspersed ...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However,
I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities
are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.

Did you cross one of the TSS's in the Channel? If so, how did you know
you
weren't impeding a vessel in the TSS?

I listened out for their fog horns as we approached. I altered course so
that I would cross at right angles.
Most of the ships had slowed down to between 8-12 kts. Of the four times
that I crossed a lane in fog, I only came close enough to one ship to
discern the lookout on the bow.

If you were close enough to see a lookout on the bow, and this was real fog, you
were probably impeding their progress and in violation of the rules.

I hope you realize that fog signals are very unreliable for determining
direction and distance.



What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.

You're right. They forbid the small boat from impeding the progress of the
large one. How do you propose to do that?




Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?


Because you followed a claim that you studied the rules with the claim that you
cross the channel in the fog. Forgive me for assuming there's some coherence to
your thoughts.



BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

But you claim its the "ordinary practice of seamen" to cross shipping lanes in
the fog without one. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to you?


Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes very
much.

That's very good. If you thought you had zero radar visibility, would you be so
eager to cross in the fog?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane
in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not
good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.


Both rules 9 and 10 are specific that small vessel shall not impede the
progress
of large ones in certain situations. A kayak without radar has no
ability in
the fog to determine if it is impeding, therefore, it cannot fulfill its
obligations. This isn't a complicated issue; if I said vessels without
lights
have no business traveling at night, you would likely agree.

The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.

So doesn't this mean that the kayaker that ignores the rules does so at his own
risk? You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?




I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

Now you're putting words in my mouth - I never advocating this. In fact, quite
the contrary. Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is only permitted where small boat would not be likely
to travel. Vessels regularly do things in the middle of the ocean that would
not be permitted under rule 2 in an inner harbor.


You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to think that stupid
kayakers will have ever even heard of the CollRegs.

In fact, the reason I brought this up is that I've heard kayaker claim, more
than once, that they obviously have right-of-way over large ships. Fortunately,
most sea kayakers know this is not true.


In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

So if I said drunks don't belong on the road, you would call me stupid for
thinking there are no drunks? Why is it so hard to believe that I'm extra
cautious because I know there are a few kayakers dumb enough to be were they
don't belong?


If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.

Again with the stupid comments! How many times do I have to say I'm not
endorsing Joe's actions?


...
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.
Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?
Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.

I thought you just did. Rick keeps talking about the "right" of the kayak
to
there. I claim the kayak has obligations it cannot fulfill.

A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the CollRegs.

Perhaps I should repeat what I said befo

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

I also claimed that with the lookout, a boat is effectively running on radar
alone if there is zero visibility. This is accepted practice in many areas,
including TSS zones, and offshore. In spite of what you think the ColRegs mean,
it is permitted by local authorities and the courts.

You're the one who keeps adding "25 knots" and "busy waters." I've never
suggested this is appropriate.



=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


What part of the above rule allows a commercial craft to travel without
keeping a lookout? Does it say that you don't have to keep a lookout
because Rule 2 says that the other sailors should be intelligent enough to
realise that you might come out of the fog at 25 kts without a lookout?


It doesn't. Where did I ever say it did? I only said that in zero visibility a
vessel is effectively on radar alone. What part of this do you not understand?
Your kayaker, in zero visibility has no input? Why is this better?

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

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?

Because I have shown several times the ColRegs specifically cover this, in
a way
the proves the kayak doesn't belong in a TSS.

NO, you have not.

You misquoted one of the rules on one occasion, and I corrected you.

I misquoted? Now you're just lying. Whenever I've quoted the ColRegs I've
extracted the text directly and indicte it as such.

I said, not quoting but paraphrasing "The rules are quite also explicit that the
rowboat should avoid crossing a VTS channel." The rule actually says "A vessel
shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes ..." Its a pretty
big stretch to call this a "misquote"!


There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a TSS.

Your correct. My claim has been that the ColRegs forbid the kayak from impeding
the progress of vessels, and that in the fog, it is impossible to fulfill this
obligation. Although I've said this a number of times, you haven't addressed
this at all.



Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, the ColRegs state an obligation that is impossible for the kayak
to fulfill. How do you refure this?


Just because you don't understand
doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rules.

You seem happy to ignore the very specific wording in the rule about keeping
a lookout ("sight and hearing"), and yet you are relying on your own weird
interpretation of Rule 2 to guarantee that a kayak could never be expected
on a river in fog.

When did I ever claim a lookout is not needed? You keep makeing this up. When
did I ever claim a kayak could never be expected on a river in a fog? You're
just making this up.

Let me ask you this: Do you think drunks should be allowed to drive? If you
answered no, do you assume there are never drunks on the road?




This is childish in the same way that claiming that not voting for Bush is
traitorous.

No, Jeff. Your one sided interpretation of the rules is childish.


Which side do you think I'm on?

You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be necessary.


You're lying here again. Where did I say that?


At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

No. I think you're unable to read what I've said. You have this fantasy That
I'm advocating something I'm not.

Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they
do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also
have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding
large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?

Get the hell out, quickly!

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be? This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the kayak
should not be there.



The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.

Then how does the kayak ensure it will not impede a vessel? This is the
essential point you keep ignoring.



That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask the
question?

You've claimed repeatedly that the kayak has the right to be there. Are you
agreeing now that there are limitation on its behavior?

The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid
crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes
but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.

Its pretty darn close, almost word for word.

No it isn't. It is *very* different.


But you're right that in good
visibility it is permitted to row across the a channel if you really have
to.

Please tell me where the CollRegs *explicitly* state that a kayak may not
cross the TSS in restricted visibility.

Can you explain how the kayak avoids impeding vessels it cannot see?

At the same time, you can explain
why the vessels in the TSS can ignore the very explicit "lookout" rules.

Can you explain why you keep bringing this up? I never said a lookout is not
needed. BTW, what kind of lookout do you think the kayak can maintain in the
middle of the English Channel? How well can it see in the chop and swells?



But the next part is more significant - you must do this only if you can
fulfill
the obligation not to impede.



It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business
being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the
fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog,
and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots
is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal). Each case has to be considered on
its own
special circumstances.

Joe claimed that it was safe to travel at 25 kts without any lookout other
than Radar.

As I've said many times, I'm not defending Joe's comments. However, IIRC, he
didn't quite say that, he merely implied that in low visibility most of the
input is from the radar.


There are *NO* special merits at all.

A vessel is obliged to keep a lookout by sight and hearing. No ifs, No
buts. No exceptions. No personal interpretations.


You really have an obsession with this, don't you?

The rule is absolutely crystal clear. It does not allow for any special
circumstances at all.

OK, I agree. I always agreed. I never said anything different.


Perhaps you need to read it again, because you really do not seen to be
able to grasp it.
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================


Wow. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't read. Here's quotes of mine,
all taken from responses to you. I feels like you haven't read one of them:

"Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot
if there is
effectively zero visibility."

"I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and even
that would often be considered excessive). "

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

"That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility."

"As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25 knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal)."

At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

Cheers,
Jeff

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible to
run under radar alone.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My complete
statement was:

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout, only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its info.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not thread)
were

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was permissible
to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My complete
statement was:

"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout,
only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its
info.

No, no no, no, no!!!!!

In practice any vessel *must* obey the CollRegs. Don't you agree?



Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
snip

If you were close enough to see a lookout on the bow, and this was real
fog, you
were probably impeding their progress and in violation of the rules.

"probably" ??? You are clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
I am irresponsible skipper.

If I had impeded his progress, I "probably" wouldn't be alive to tell the
tale.





I hope you realize that fog signals are very unreliable for determining
direction and distance.


[sigh]
Jeff, I assume that you have heard fog signals in fog. Then you know that
anyone who has tried to pinpoint the direction will know how difficult this
is. You also know that telling the distance is nearly impossible.





What's your point? Are you bragging that you violated the Rules and
lived?

Jeff, you should pause and think for a second.
I didn't breach any rules. AS I have already pointed out, the rules
do
*NOT* forbid small yachts from crossing a shipping lane in a TSS.

You're right. They forbid the small boat from impeding the progress of
the
large one. How do you propose to do that?

By maintaining a watch.

Your notion that "impeding the progress" out weighs "keeping a lookout" or
maintaining a safe speed, is just plain silly.

It is possible to cross a shipping lane in a reasonable fog if *everybody*
is obeying the rules.






Are
you claiming that because you survived this proves you know the rules?

What makes you think that I said that?


Because you followed a claim that you studied the rules with the claim
that you
cross the channel in the fog. Forgive me for assuming there's some
coherence to
your thoughts.

You make a lot of assumptions. I hope that you don't assume that I would
set off on a 14 trip if thick fog was forecast !






BTW, did you have a reflector?

Of course I have a reflector!

But you claim its the "ordinary practice of seamen" to cross shipping
lanes in
the fog without one.

I don't remember saying those words. Can you point me to the relevant
post? I suspect that you are playing context games.

Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to you?





Do you know what your radar visibility is?

Believe it or not, I am a member of a club. When we are sailing in
company, we do things like radar "tests". My boat shows up reasonably
well. However, I don't think that the reflector actually contributes
very
much.

That's very good. If you thought you had zero radar visibility, would you
be so
eager to cross in the fog?

I'm never eager to cross in fog. The last time was incredibly hard work.
I was not able to rely on the crew to keep a proper watch, and spent 14
hours peering into the fog.


snip
The CollRegs explicitly define which lights should be shown by various
types
of vessel. Anybody who ignores these rules, does so at their own risk.

So doesn't this mean that the kayaker that ignores the rules does so at
his own
risk?

Yes, of course. In exactly the same way, a large tanker travelling
without a proper lookout, does so at his own risk.

You keep evading the central issue here - how does the kayak fulfill its
responsibility?

If fog descends when the kayak is already in the TSS, then he cannot
guarantee that he will not impede a vessel.







I also claim the Rule 2 frowns on stupidity, but that argument seems
too
subtle
for you.

Nope, it isn't too subtle for me at all.
As I read your argument, you seem to be suggesting that a commercial
vessel
can travel under radar alone, at high speed, through congested waters
because Rule 2 frowns on stupid behaviour. Is this true?

Now you're putting words in my mouth - I never advocating this. In fact,
quite
the contrary. Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is only permitted where small boat would not be
likely
to travel.

No, Jeff. You are completely wrong.
Travelling at any speed "on radar alone," that is, where
visibility is near zero, is *never* permitted. [full stop]


Perhaps you need to read this again. Pay special attention to "... shall
at all times.. ".
=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================




In other words, assuming that there are no stupid people on the water
proves that YOU are totally stupid.

So if I said drunks don't belong on the road, you would call me stupid for
thinking there are no drunks?

Yes! Everybody knows that there are drunks on the road.

Why is it so hard to believe that I'm extra
cautious because I know there are a few kayakers dumb enough to be were
they
don't belong?

I haven't commented on your actual behaviour. I'm commenting on your
apparent inability to treat all the CollRegs equally. You seem to be very
willing to ignore bits of Rule 5, and at the same time you expand on the
words contained in Rule 2.





If you were travelling at 25 kts in fog(in busy waters), and you were
only
relying on radar for your lookout, I would call you stupid, and also
criminally negligent.

Again with the stupid comments! How many times do I have to say I'm not
endorsing Joe's actions?

See my other post.




A boat travelling at 25 kts in fog without keeping a lookout by sight
and
hearing, is definitely not fulfilling its obligations under the
CollRegs.

Perhaps I should repeat what I said befo

"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."

Oh, stop it!
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "


snip

There is nothing in the CollRegs that forbids a kayak from crossing a
TSS.

Your correct. My claim has been that the ColRegs forbid the kayak from
impeding
the progress of vessels, and that in the fog, it is impossible to fulfill
this
obligation. Although I've said this a number of times, you haven't
addressed
this at all.


If I am correct, then whay do you keep asking the same question? Either
the CollRegs forbid the kayak from crossing the TSS, or they do not forbid
it.

You are trying to expand bits of the rules to suit your arguement, and at
the same time you are trying to ignore other bits.

You seem to think that the CollRegs are open to personal interpretation.





Let me repeat, The CollRegs do NOT forbid a kayak from crossing a TSS.


Let me repeat, the ColRegs state an obligation that is impossible for the
kayak
to fulfill. How do you refure this?

I don't. I don't need to. We have agreed that the kayak may cross the
TSS, despite your claim that "he had no business to be there". It is up to
the kayaker to avoid impeding the passage of a vessel using the TSS. It is
also the duty of the vessels in the TSS to keep a good lookout, and to
travel at a safe speed. BTW, a "safe speed " does not mean that the
vessel has to stop. Any speed where the ship looses steerage would be
potentially unsafe.



Just because you don't understand
snip
You are trying to suggest that one vessel can ignore the lookout rule
because another rule means that keeping a lookout should not be
necessary.


You're lying here again. Where did I say that?

Lying???
"So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? "

Jeff, Some TSS's are 5 miles wide, and 8 hours from land.

And this is a proper place for a kayak to be?

That is not your decision, or mine. People have the freedom to go to sea,
if they wish.


This does not make a convincing
argument! If there is a fair possibility of "fog decending" then the
kayak
should not be there.

Why not? We've already agreed that the CollRegs do not forbid the kayak
from crossing the TSS.







The only way that the kayak can begin to cross the
TSS is if it can determine that it is not impeding a large vessel.
Presumably,
if fog comes in during the crossing, it will be safe to continue
across.

Well fog does come during a crossing. Often.

Then how does the kayak ensure it will not impede a vessel? This is the
essential point you keep ignoring.

I've answered it a couple of times, but you don't seem to like my answer.
The kayak has every right to be there. How he keeps a lookout is up to him.




That
wasn't so ridiculous, now was it?
What would be ridiculous is claiming that
since you're already there, it must be safe to stay in the TSS for the
rest of
the day.

Do you think that I claimed that? If not, then why on Earth did you ask
the
question?

You've claimed repeatedly that the kayak has the right to be there. Are
you
agreeing now that there are limitation on its behavior?

I've never said that he can ignore the rules. He is entitled to cross the
TSS at right angles, in a timely manner, without getting in the way of the
TSS users.


snip

Wow. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't read. Here's quotes of
mine,
all taken from responses to you. I feels like you haven't read one of
them:


I have read them.

"Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is
moot
if there is
effectively zero visibility."

Rubbish! There is nothing "moot" about it. You are applying your
personal interpretation on the rules.



"I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and
its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and
even
that would often be considered excessive). "





"I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed."
Nope! I won't paste your words again. I'm sure that you know what you
said by now.




"That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't
proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots
and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility."

I haven't said anything to dispute this, have I?



"As I said several times, I don't mean to endorse Joe's claim that 25
knots is
safe in the HSC (Houston Ship Canal)."

So why did you jump in when I was debating this with Joe?

My only point, all along, is that travelling at 25kts, in fog, without a
proper lookout is against the rules.




At this point, I think that you have only two possible exits from this
argument.
1) Admit that you are trolling.
2) Admit that you are an idiot.

Very original, Jeff!!


Regards


Donal
--