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