Jeff Morris wrote:
You might not agree with all I've said, but I think I can agree (as usual) with
what you've said.

I'm curious: I've claimed at times that Rule 2 has some very deep implications
that require reasonable behavior. In particular, if 99% of "seamen" consider
some practice foolish, it probably violates rule 2. If they consider it
reasonable, it is probably "legal" under rule 2. In this case I might apply
this concept to rowboats in shipping lanes in the fog. How do you feel about
this? Am I stretching it, or is this an appropriate use of rule 2?

I don't think you're stretching it at all. Personally, I wouldn't care
if it's foggy or clear, I would consider it prudent for a rowboat/kayak
to avoid a TSS and as many shipping lanes, as possible, at all times, on
the basis of rule 2.
However, I don't think I would employ "shall not impede" in a fog situation.

otn

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

"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
--

"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.

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to
assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle
that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship
to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected
by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

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???? 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.

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.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think
that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You really
were
trolling, weren't you?

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!


Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this. You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone. I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout. If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.

You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Regards


Donal
--

"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
--

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

IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:23:11 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a =
kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to
assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle
that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about =
the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You =
keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk =
of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the =
ship
to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably =
detected
by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I =
intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in =
fog
without a lookout.

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???? 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.

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.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have =
no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I =
think
that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You =
really
were
trolling, weren't you?

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to =
point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot =
when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a =
proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!


Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". =
However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this. You also suggested that a =
vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone. I know that you later tried to =
deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel =
in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout. If you wish to deny =
this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.

You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested =
that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if =
you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Regards


Donal