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?

Jeff Morris wrote:

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?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

The list of things you personally should not do is probably
long. But your shortcomings are not codified in maritime law.

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

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

Give it up Jeff, it's gone way over your head.

Rick

"Rick" , sounding more like Jax every day, wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

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?

Still have a few reading issues, Jeff. Can't or won't answer
the question, there are no tricks to it. Either you can
answer it or you can't.

I can answer. That doesn't mean I have to. But I already agreed: Yes, in all
cases where one is compliant with a law, one is compliant with the law. But
trying to prove something with a tautology just makes you look like a fool.


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

If the vessel is designed for and crewed by one person then
that person has the lookout duties. COLREGS or VTS don't
mandate crew size.

The kayak was designed for small lakes and rivers, not waters covered by the
ColRegs. This is, in fact, an aspect of this that could be argued under rule 2.

And since when does the designer of a boat determine its legality? If I design
a boat to go 100 knots, does that make 100 knots a safe speed?

And while the ColRegs don't specifically mandate crew size, it is the role of
the courts to interpret the meaning of a "proper lookout." The have stated in
many opinions, that in the fog, lookouts must be dedicated seamen, so that they
can "exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken." They have
specifically stated that in the fog, the lookout duties cannot be shared with
the helmsman. And while small boats are given some leeway in good visibility,
or close to shore, they are not exempt in the fog.

And as you know, the opinions of the courts effectively become part of the law,
and it is the duty of a master to be familiar with them. Or did that go over
your head?

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

Rick asked:

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

And stated:

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.

To which Ganz replied:

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

So that bit of opinion, blustering, righteous indignation,
and bickering pretty much wraps this up.

Your answer would make Jax or Nil extremely proud that they
have an apprentice in the seedy business of obfuscation and
evasive responses to simple questions.

Rick

Rick I'm surprised at your attitude. In the narrow question
of whether something is legal or not, of course, it's "legal."
That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

It seems to me that by claiming a couple of posts in the dozens
made by you is blustering, etc., and calling me names, you've
made the case quite eloquently that you can't defend your position.
I have not obfuscated one single thing in any of my posts. If you
think I'm wrong, you can simply ignore me, or, if you're game,
talk to a CG office and see what they say.

"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
Rick asked:

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

And stated:

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.

To which Ganz replied:

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

So that bit of opinion, blustering, righteous indignation,
and bickering pretty much wraps this up.

Your answer would make Jax or Nil extremely proud that they
have an apprentice in the seedy business of obfuscation and
evasive responses to simple questions.

Rick