Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the way
back to Hanseatic cogs....



The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....



In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

No excuse for that IMHO.



The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he can't
get run over twice!


If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

But a certain C&C 32 might leave an ugly smear.....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote in message ...
Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Doug,

The mississipi has mile markers just like the ICW. Most big tows just
keep on going in fog. What they do is get on the radio, state were
they are, and state they are going around a blind bend and ask if
there is any concerned traffic.


Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the way
back to Hanseatic cogs....


Hanseatic cogs did not have radios or radars.



The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....

Most would take it out of gear and if not hotting the taget dead on
would turn towards the target as you would in a willimison turn to
avoid sucking the idiot in.



In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

No excuse for that IMHO.

We have 6,600 ships a year entering the Houston Ship channel, And in
the fog I have never heard any of them sound proper fog signal unless
they are at anchor by boliver and rarely there.




The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he can't
get run over twice!

Amen


If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection.

Unfortunately, 14 kts is the best we can do :-( Besides when the fog's
really thick it's usually a blizzard and you can't see anything so we
park in a convenient icefloe. Radar is good, but hitting a bergy bit is
still possible. We cut out hull plate the size of a VW beetle at both
the last 2 drydocks due to such an impact. A kayak (or Benetau)
wouldn't even scratch the paint.

But a certain C&C 32 might leave an ugly smear.....

That would be a greasy smear, but I doubt it would even chip the paint
on a steel hull.


Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Joe
MSV RedCloud
MSV RedCloud

DSK wrote in message ...
Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Also Doug, a blind curve in a river or the ICW is blind weather it's
dark, light fog, or no fog. Thats why knowing were you are, and what
channel you should use on the radio is key. Whistle signals are used
as well.

Do you really think commercial traffic is going to cease because of a
blind bend? And if your pushing 100+ barges in the mississippi it can
take well over a mile to stop at full astern. Infact most major tows
never stop. They have smaller tows move in and take and add to the tow
underway, breaking stride with that much tonnage is dangerious. Can
you imagine losing steerage on a tow bigger than a football field? Can
you imagine running one of these tows aground because you slow around
a bend? Ever try to pull a couple of thousand tons off the bank? And
what if your going down river in a 6 kt current? Your going to need a
few knots of speed above that to keep steerage and your not going to
be able to control that many tonns working in reverse all the way, I
dont care how big your flanking rudders are and how big a tow master
you have.

Joe
MSV RedCloud



Fresh Breezes- Doug King

In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night
time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all the
way
back to Hanseatic cogs....

Yeah but technology has moved on since those days.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point where
they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best
chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he could
surf clear on the bow wave....

Wouldn't work with my ship. CP prop, you'd need to declutch fast and
the engines/gearboxes don't like that.....

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was no
risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk - AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous
condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too bad he
can't
get run over twice!

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities, and a responsibility that
can't be met reduces/eliminates the corresponding right, or they're
trolling. Either way I'm sick of this topic, it's been beaten to death.

PDW

Peter Wiley wrote:

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities, and a responsibility that
can't be met reduces/eliminates the corresponding right, or they're
trolling.

What the F are you talking about? Just because I stated that the kayak
is allowed to use the waters is in no way saying the kayaker has no
responsibilities. If you were capable of reading at the 6th grade level
you would see in each of my posts that I stressed the responsibility of
the kayaker to adhere to COLREGS and VTS requirements.

And you wonder if someone else is trolling?

Rick

Rick wrote:


What the F are you talking about?

He's talking about your posts vs ColRegs and safe navigation practices.


Just because I stated that the kayak
is allowed to use the waters is in no way saying the kayaker has no
responsibilities.

Actually, you stated a kayaker has every right to use shipping lanes in fog
as a recreational paddling area, which is stupid. When I suggested that a
kayaker would be better off minimizing time crossing shipping lanes in any
event, and more so in poor visibility, you got all ****y (which you
apparently haven't gotten over).


If you were capable of reading at the 6th grade level
you would see in each of my posts that I stressed the responsibility of
the kayaker to adhere to COLREGS and VTS requirements.

Funny, I missed that part. All I saw were assertions that the kayaker has
"every right" to be there. And a lot of "get used to it." A few
"bwahahaha"s would have been the perfect finishing touch. If you want to
complain about other people's reading level, raise your writing level.

As far as other vessels needing to operate in a safe way considering that
there might be a kayaker in the shipping lanes in fog, I agreed (with the
proviso that commercial traffic is not simply going to stop for bad
visibility).

You never did answer how the kayaker was going to avoid creating a hazard
and impede commercial traffic, two things that are necessary to safe
navigation.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

Actually, you stated a kayaker has every right to use shipping lanes in fog
as a recreational paddling area, which is stupid.

You may consider it stupid, that does not make it illegal. That is a fact.

When I suggested that a
kayaker would be better off minimizing time crossing shipping lanes in any
event, and more so in poor visibility, you got all ****y (which you
apparently haven't gotten over).

Minimizing the time crossing shipping lanes is part of the requirements
imposed by VTS. That operation is part of adhering to the COLREGS, it is
what a kayaker should do and is one of the stipulation for its being
permitted legally to be there. Please demonstrate where, in any form, I
got "all ****y" because I don't think a kayak has to play by the rules
.... you seem to think I am suggesting the kayak does not need to play by
any rules. You are wrong, you read wrong and you have some other agenda.
Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error. I can
repost nearly any one of them and show where I stress the kayaker's need
to follow the rules.


Funny, I missed that part. All I saw were assertions that the kayaker has
"every right" to be there.

They were not "assertions" they are flat out statements of fact. Read
this carefully: A kayak is permitted by law to cross the VTS lanes in fog.

As much as that upsets you, it is a fact.


You never did answer how the kayaker was going to avoid creating a hazard
and impede commercial traffic, two things that are necessary to safe
navigation.

The same way masters have done it for centuries, by looking and
listening. Just because you may not believe that the guy should be there
and you don't believe he can do it safely doesn't change the fact that
he is allowed by law to try.

It might be a less than brilliant activity but it is not illegal, it is
not impossible to do safely, and the existence of a kayak does not
automatically create a hazard or an impediment. If you think it does you
are wrong.

What part of that is so difficult for you? There is a huge difference
between what you think is acceptable and what is legal ... that is what
you had better "get used to."

Rick

Rick wrote:

You may consider it stupid, that does not make it illegal. That is a fact.

Correct.


... Please demonstrate where, in any form, I
got "all ****y"

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true. Nothing you post has ever upset me.
Sometimes it makes me laugh.



... you seem to think I am suggesting the kayak does not need to play by
any rules. You are wrong, you read wrong and you have some other agenda.

More ****iness. Because I disagree, and can back up what I say simply by quoting
COlRegs, you think I "have an agenda." Sorry, my agenda is to
1- learn about sailing & seamanship
2- help others learn
3- enjoy discussions about boats & sailing.



Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.

Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he pleases in a
shipping lane. Frankly, considering that you have in the past shown pretty good
knowledge of a wide variety of maritime subjects, this is an appalling thing to
say.


I can
repost nearly any one of them and show where I stress the kayaker's need
to follow the rules.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.

DSK

DSK wrote:

How about all your repetition of things like "As much as that upsets you, it is a
fact" for statements that are not true.

Which statements? Please quote the "not true" statements.

Read my posts, Doug, let me know where you find factual error.


Simple- your statement that a kayak has "every right" to do as he pleases in a
shipping lane.

Please quote that statement. Quote the post where I supposedly stated or
even implied that the kayaker had no obligation to operate in accordance
with COLREGS and VTS rules.

Here's the quote you avoided including as it just doesn't seem to fit
your agenda:

"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."

If you are going to play this game then you had better work a little
harder at your reading and debating skills. So far all you have done is
to make your position less comprehensible than it was to begin with.

OK, do exactly that. Repost your statements about which rules the kayak has to
follow, and what her obligations are.

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

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

"I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS."

"You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules."

"The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2. "

How many more do you need?


Rick

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night
time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the
Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all
the
way
back to Hanseatic cogs....

Yeah but technology has moved on since those days.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point
where
they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that
this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half
of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best
chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he
could
surf clear on the bow wave....

Wouldn't work with my ship. CP prop, you'd need to declutch fast and
the engines/gearboxes don't like that.....

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that
does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was
no
risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk -
AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The
kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous
condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too
bad he
can't
get run over twice!

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities,

All rights are balanced by responsibilities.


Have you forgotton where I came in on this?

25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway, with no lookout other than
radar???????


Please, Peter, try to be sensible!


Regards


Donal
--