"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.