"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

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

And in your case, bickering.

Rick

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

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.


Be careful, its a trick question - doing anything in accordance with the law is
legal. That doesn't mean you should do it. Ooops! I'm not permitted to say
that, am I?

So Rick, what if the kayak is not in accordance with the ColRegs, such as not
having a dedicated lookout? Then is it legal?

Nope. I'm not giving it up... at least not to you. :-)

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

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

I don't think you can claim I've been bickering, since I've only
posted on this topic a couple of times. Have you checked the
mirror lately?

And in your case, bickering.

Rick

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
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.

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?


Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs or
for that matter good seamanship.

DSK