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