"Donal" wrote in message
...
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.

Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without interpretation.

They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog (with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong? Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.


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?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak has no
business out there.

So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be there.

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?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with hundreds
of thousands of passages. They have the equipment and training to keep them out
of trouble, as long as they use them properly. Most screwups are blatant
blunders, not just running a bit too fast. Knowing that perhaps they are going
a bit too fast, I'm extra cautious when around them. As I'm sure you are.

The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or get
out of the way. Though they would likely become chum in a collision, its
possible someone could be injured trying to avoid them. In a similar case in
the Chesapeake a few years ago, a freighter ran aground avoiding a sail boat the
was drifting in the channel. Rather than starting their engine when it was
clear they were drifting into the channel, they waited until a ship was close,
and then couldn't get the engine started in time. Most people thought "they had
no business being there." The hypothetical kayak situation is far worse - they
can't claim mechanical failure, or that the wind dying.

Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee," its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to avoid
impeding.

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?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have someone
think its OK to be out there.


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."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25 knots?




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.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS, only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?