"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

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

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you
know
you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in
the
fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.


So tell us. What do you think the ColRegs say? Especially regarding
kayaks in
a VTS. You keep saying that I should read the book, but its looking like
you
never have.

Jeff, Instead of posing "loaded" questions, why don't you post some facts?

You've asked about the CollRegs position on kayaks. Why don't you post the
relevant rule? The answer is simple. There isn't a rule that forbids the
passage of kayaks through a TSS in fog.


If you disagree with me, then post the rule.

You cannot .... because it doesn't exist.

Get real, Jeff!

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Rule 2(a) for instance, isn't technically broken until there is a "consequence."
Rules 9 and 10 aren't broken (in the case we're discussing), until a vessel is
impeded.

However, in the case of a kayak in thick fog, it has no ability to see the
traffic. We've stipulated that it is a poor reflector so it won't be seen until
the last second, and we've agreed that sound signals are unreliable. Thus, if
there is a meeting, there is virtually no way to the kayak to avoid impeding the
other vessel. If this happens, it will certainly be in violation of rule 9 or
10, probably 2(a), and possible a few others.

Frankly, I think mostly people would agree to this so far. So all that remains
is the final step: I claim that deliberatly putting oneself into a situation
where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in itself, frowned on by the
rule. As I've said, until an event actually occurs, the rule may not be broken,
but I think its close enough that its not unreasonable to say "he shouldn't be
there."

BTW, I think its possible to make a case the rule 2(b) actually does imply
putting oneself into the situation is a violation.


Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to
follow
the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can
assume
that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

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.

You stated very little "plainly." But you started by saying they have the
same
rights as everyone; I claim they have different obligations.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? The CollRegs apply equally to all
vessels at sea.

Nonsense. Much of the rules are about differentiating the various types of
vessels and situations and giving them different obligations. Yes, as a whole
they apply equally, but that's a meaningless statement when looking at actual
situations.


If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

No. You started this by claiming the kayak has the right to cross
shipping
lanes in fog. Since the ColRegs specifically say they can't impede a
power-driven vessel in the VTS, they would be violating the rules just the
same
as the vessel that behaves erratically.

No, Jeff. They wouldn't..... not unless they actually *impeded* a genuine
TSS user.

The problem is the high likelyhood of impeding. And the fact that there is
nothing the kayak can do if it relealizes it is about to impede.


There is no guarantee that a kayak would actually impede a TSS user,
therefore your arguement is totally invalid.

That's a Neal argument: "if one kayak gets through unscathed, then the rules
clearly can't be applying to this situation."

In a crowded TSS, what are the odds that a kayak would couse a collision? 20%?
50%?


Furthermore, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the rules, then the
commercial ships would have to stop, wouldn't they? We all know that this
is not what happens in reality.


Commercial ship all have radar (large ones have at least 2) plus crews trained
on them. It does make a difference.

you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak
is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to
impede the
tanker.

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


Bull****. You're saying he has the right to do it unless he doesn't. The
ColRegs say he doesn't have the right to impede. Without radar, in the
fog the
kayak can't tell if he might be impeding. Therefore, he shouldn't be
there.
Its really very simple. You're just so wound up pontificating that you
can't
see this.

The CollRegs also state that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed. Using
your (twisted) logic, all commercial vessels should come to a complete halt
in thick fog.


Before radar, much traffic did stop. And there were a lot of accidents. Modern
procedures and equipment allow for safe operations in the fog.



What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.


You haven't given any answers. You've only claimed you know everthing
and your
not sharing.

Sorry, Jeff. You are the person who appears inconsistent.

You are claiming that a kayaker must keep out of fog because he *might*
breach a CollReg.

Not because he "might" breach the ColReg. The uncertainty is that he "might"
have an encounter where he is obligated to take an action. At that point, he is
unable to act. Its the fact the he is deliberating putting himself into a
situation where he cannot fulfill his obligation that make this different.
That, plus the high likelyhood of it coming to pass.

At the same time you suggest that commercial vessels may
definitely breach a CollReg, or two(safe speed & lookout).

Where have I ever said its OK to not have a lookout, or procede at an unsafe
speed. Once again, you're resorting to blatant lies. A clear sign you know
you've lost this.



I are obviously nuts!

Donal

I couldn't have said it better!

Jeff Morris wrote:

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Good, leave it at that and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your inability to accept the vagaries of the COLREGS is
getting really boring.

Rick

Rick wrote:

.... and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

The only one whining (or hurling feeble insults) is you.

DSK

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

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Good, leave it at that and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your inability to accept the vagaries of the COLREGS is
getting really boring.

So where does it say in the rules I'm not allowed to bore you?

I stopped replying to you because it was clear you had no interest in the aspect
of this I found most interesting, but since you insist:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.
Frankly, I wasn't thinking in terms of ColRegs, other than perhaps Rule 2(a).
"Having business" or even "having the right" are not terms from the ColRegs,
they are judgment calls on my part about the propriety of the actions. I didn't
even mention the ColRegs until you insisted that was the issue.

I didn't contest your claim that until the kayak actually impedes a vessel its
not in violation of Rule 10. My point has been that starting out on a venture
will likely result in a situation where the kayak is unable to fulfill its
obligations is wrong. You've agreed it may be foolish and foolhardy. You
agreed that the kayak would likely be held liable (though the large ship may
also have some liability). The real issue for you seems to be whether its
appropriate for us to judge an action before the law has been broken.

My feeling is that if someone says "There's a fair chance I will be in
violation, and I have no intention or ability to prevent this from happening,"
then I can say he has no business doing it. Whether he has the "right" to do it
depends on how you define "right." It doesn't necessarily stem from legalities
of the ColRegs.

As for the ColRegs, they are designed to prevent collisions, or perhaps its
better to say "reduce the risk of collision" when vessels are in proximity.
Basing your whole argument on what the rules say when the kayak is not in
proximity to other vessels is not very interesting. However, when the kayak is
in proximity to other vessels in a shipping lane, it has neither the ability to
see or be seen, and likely has no means of taking effective action to make the
situation better. This, I think you might agree to. At this point the kayak
is leaving to blind chance whether it impedes, causes a collision, or otherwise
violates the rules.

My claim is that while up until the moment this happens the kayak may not be in
violation of the letter of the law, deliberately putting oneself in this
situation violates the spirit of the law. I claim this is wrong, and I claim
the ColRegs imply it is wrong.

I'll toss one more thing out for consideration:
Rule 5 (Lookout) says that a lookout must be maintained "at all times." There
is no qualification that allows you to say that the rule isn't broken until
there's an incident. Its very simply, a vessel without a proper lookout is in
violation. The courts have held that this is especially true in the fog, and
that the lookout must have no other duty assigned, other than to be a lookout.
Again, in the fog the "dedicated" lookout is considered essential and mandatory.
Its always been standard procedure on my boats, and others I've been on, that
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation; and I've usually told someone
explicitly that they are the dedicated lookout. Since this is effectively
impossible for the kayak to fulfill this obligation, he is in violation. Any
special consideration we might give to a single-hander of a larger boat in good
weather, is forfeited by the kayaker. Proceeding promptly across a channel
requires significant effort, maintaining a true course requires focus on the
compass, simply maintaining stability in the ocean requires focus on the water
ahead. There is no stretch of the imagination that allows you to say that the
kayak is fulfilling its obligation to maintain a lookout; it is in violation
regardless of whether other vessels are impeded.

Sorry if this bores you Rick.

Cheers,
Jeff

Jeff Morris wrote:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.

And you are wrong in your belief that the kayak "has no
business" being in shipping lanes in the fog. It has as much
"business" there as any other vessel.

There is no law against it. Your choice to make no reference
to or claim about the COLREGS only shows that you chose to
avoid reference to the only law that governs such activities
and which very clearly contradicts your "belief."

Whether it is wise, an example of good judgment, or sane to
do so is not part of the law. The fact is the kayak has as
much "business" there as an aircraft carrier, a tanker, a
Bayliner, or a daysailer. The COLREGS do not give
"commercial vessels" any particular rights.

You can dig as deep as you like, interpret COLREGS any way
you like but the fact remains that the kayak has every right
to be there. When you are asked to sit on a CG accident
investigation board you may inject your beliefs. Until then
your beliefs have absolutely no impact on the facts of what
any other boater is permitted to do.

Rick

I've watched this argument go from somewhat logical to somewhat
absurd. At first, I think you all had valid points, however, you guys
seem to have brought this disagreement down to the lowest common
denominator... bickering.

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

It may not be technically illegal, but I'm willing to be that if the CG
spotted a kayaker in the middle of the bay in heavy fog and bad
conditions, they would pluck him out immediately. They would not
wait for it to become dangerous or for him to impede traffic, because
it would already be dangerous.

The kayaker, with some exceptions probably, has no business in
these conditions whether or not he causes a problem with a tanker.

I don't know about "wise," but having good judgement is exactly what
the CG would be looking at as they retrieved someone. For example,
if there was a kayaker out there in bad conditions, but he had with him
a chase boat, then the CG would probably not do anything. If though,
the person was out there by himself, I'm convinced they would come up
close, assess the situation carefully, and probably pull him.

Now if you guys are going to continue to bicker, you might want to just
get a room somewhere. You're starting to sound like you're married...
to each other!

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

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the
ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in
the fog.

And you are wrong in your belief that the kayak "has no
business" being in shipping lanes in the fog. It has as much
"business" there as any other vessel.

There is no law against it. Your choice to make no reference
to or claim about the COLREGS only shows that you chose to
avoid reference to the only law that governs such activities
and which very clearly contradicts your "belief."

Whether it is wise, an example of good judgment, or sane to
do so is not part of the law. The fact is the kayak has as
much "business" there as an aircraft carrier, a tanker, a
Bayliner, or a daysailer. The COLREGS do not give
"commercial vessels" any particular rights.

You can dig as deep as you like, interpret COLREGS any way
you like but the fact remains that the kayak has every right
to be there. When you are asked to sit on a CG accident
investigation board you may inject your beliefs. Until then
your beliefs have absolutely no impact on the facts of what
any other boater is permitted to do.

Rick

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

Do you think that taking a kayak across a TSS in fog, is an act of
good seamanship?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog is a responsible maneuver?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows that you have
observed all precautions required by the circumstances of the fog?
Do you think taking a kayak across a TSS in fog shows a due regard to
all dangers of navigation and collision?

Just curious.

otn

Rick wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.


Have to leave it.


As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.


The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your conclusions
and what you think the CG might do in those conditions but that is your
scenario, not the one under discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not referenced in
the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in the Bay are
bickering then support the next politician who wants to ban pleasure
boating, maybe he thinks it is congenitally stupid to go out on a windy
day.



Rick