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

"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

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

Absolutely! If the kayaker requires rescue, s/he would be putting
others in danger!

No. Obviously, a great threat. So what? Both are threats. I would
think the CG would react to both.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"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
--

Thank you for summing it up so elequently.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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

I cannot. It's never the case of "simply because it was foggy." There
are always other considerations.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:41:59 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

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.


Please provide cites for any cases (even one) where the CG or any other
authority removed a kayak from the bay for being there while it was foggy
simply
because it was foggy.

BB

"Rick" wrote in message
k.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

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?

There are many problems in the world that I overlook - its a little hard to fix
them all at once - I'm only one man!

But if you must: I brought up the kayak because I felt that it so clearly is
unable to fulfill its obligations. The large ship is a different case. If they
choose, the can be compliant. I admit that many stretch the limits, and a few
blatantly disregard the rules. However, there is nothing about them that make
them incapable of being compliant. (Supertankers may be an exception - but
society deems them useful.)

One aspect of nautical law is the court rulings effectively become part of the
law. The are not merely precedents, they have stronger implications and masters
are expected to abide by them. They have ruled that in near zero visibility,
movement is still possible. They have also ruled that with radar, the maximum
speed is somewhat higher. A safe speed is dependent on many variables, but even
in thick fog 5 to 15 knots has been deemed acceptable.

My point is that it is possible for a ship to make progress in thick fog and
still be compliant with the current interpretations. I did not want to comment
on Joe's case because I'm not familiar with it. I have mixed feelings about
some of the New England ferries and tour boats, but for the most part, the
traditional lines do a reasonable job of running at a safe speed. I think it
remains to be seen if the new high speed cats have proper procedures.



The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions.

Absolutely, positively. In spite of what you claimed I never disagreed with
this. All vessels must maintain a proper lookout at all times. The need for a
lookout is greater in the fog, an it should be a dedicated lookout with no other
duties. In clear weather it may be acceptable to for the helm to also be the
lookout (especially on a small boat) but in the fog that is not the case. If
any vessel does not have a proper lookout, it is in clear violation.

A safe speed must also be maintained, but as I said above, it a little harder to
determine what that speed is.


The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.

It also must keep a lookout. In the fog, that's virtually inpossible. This is
one rule that the kayak actively violates and, I beleive, makes it illegal to be
out in the fog.



Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

"Expect" may be too strong a word - they can certainly hope.


In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.


You're trying to define the safe behavior of the ship as one that would allow
the kayak to traverse safely. Since the kayak is effectively invisible to
radar, and lies so low that it could be hidden by a swell, it would be blind
luck that would save it from be hit by a ship traveling a bare steerageway.

You might claim this is proof that the ship was going too fast, but the courts
have held otherwise. Rick is correct that we can't guess how the next ruling
will go, but in the past they have held that this behavior from a small rowboat
is reckless. If the ship did anything deemed contributory, they would be
assessed part of the blame. Speed is, of course, one way to contribute, but
more common is failure to have an appropriate lookout. In particular, if it was
found that a better lookout would have prevented the accident, the ship would be
given a significant portion of the blame.

This concept holds in many situations. A friend who was on Starboard Tack was
hit by a Port Tacker. Because they admitted that they did not see the port
tacker until it was too late to take evasive action, they were accessed 24% of
the blame. It was deemed that the failure to see the other boat was de facto
evidence that the lookout was not proper. We figured that the port/starboard
issue was assumed slightly more important and was worth 52%, both vessels
obviously had a faulty lookout and divided the other 48% of the blame.

But I digress. If the kayak is relying on the ship to do a crash stop to pass
safely, then it is impeding its progress and therefore violating the rules. A
larger vessel, perhaps a 40 foot sailboat with a good radar image, would be seen
on radar from a distance - in this case the minor adjustment the ship makes
would not constitute impeding. This is why I claimed at the beginning that a
vessel has an obligation to be seen.




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.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?


The courts have said yes.







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.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.


True enough. We once saw a bumper sticker that read "Fog Happens" but have been
unable to find it for sale.

The world isn't perfect; sometimes the weather conspires to make a mess of
things and force us to do things we ordinarily wouldn't. But I claim the most
of the time, the kayaker should be able to take this into account. In a small
TSS or narrow channel, the window needed is short enough that the kayak wouldn't
be caught in the middle, unless its very busy. A large channel, like the Dover
Straights (5 miles across?) is inappropriate if there is a chance of fog.

Frankly, this just brings be back to my original claim, the kayak simple doesn't
belong there. If everything is perfect, it should survive. But there are too
many things that can go wrong, and in just about every case, the kayak must rely
on blind luck to survive.




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.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?


Absolutely not. I never said it, and I'm sticking to that story. Its not safe
to leave the dock without a lookout. With a lookout, 18 knots may be safe,
depending on the situation.

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.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?


Irrelevant.

However, kayaks have a very poor "fatality" record. And canoes aren't much
better. But that's a topic for a different discussion.

BTW, I have seen kayaks well offshore (in moderate visibility) and in Harbor
channels (in the fog). In all cases I thought the behavior was reckless.



The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.


The standard of Rule 2(a) is the "ordinary practice of seamen." Everyone has
agreed that the kayak in a TSS in the fog is not the "ordinary practice of
seamen." Rick's issue (I think) was that like Rule 10, Rule 2 is not violated
until there is an incident. Without "consequesnces" we can't apply rule 2. My
position, of course, is that I'm still entitiled to say "he has not business
being there," even if it is legal.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Good for you. So have I. I recomend it to everyone.



Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?


Damn. You were being so reasonable until now. So which rule have I ignored?
And don't be pulling the Jaxian trick of claiming that because I didn't condemn
something, I approved of it. You're just ****ed because Joe refused to get
sucked into an argument you though you could win, so you're trying to claim I
endorsed his position.

And what "personal purpose" have I had? That's just claiming that defending
any opinion that differs from yours serving a personal purpose. That's rather
childish, don't you think?

Cheers.

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" , 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?