"Donal" wrote in message
...

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would
clear at dawn (4 am).


You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I think
you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is.


I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.


I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and before we
got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I had the
radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes.

Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We had
gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would hold off
until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we left
during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of Outward
Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig, used by
the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not stay that
night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have had a
serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on the
"main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside, where they
only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he took the
"main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to
do this every time that I go out.


Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards wide,
but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see kayaks out
there?



TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said "people do
it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion.


That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that
it is true.

Of course its true. But what's the point?




For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak


This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with "appropriate"
vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on radar
(or visually, until its too late), and you say the small boat doesn't have the
resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the
encounter in the first place.


Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?

In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've frequently
seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be crossing,
such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or
trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the skipper
is in the head!






And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the
ship's crew!

Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should spring
for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in practice
has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships gotta do.
We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its really
the needs of society and global economics that are running the show. We need
oil so we permit supertankers to exist. The interpretation of the ColRegs gets
adjusted to take this into account.



Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.


sure.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.


I never denied it.


You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.


I agree, the obligations of the ship are unchanged - sort of. At the risk of
opening this back up, I'll say what's been in the back of my mind all the time:

A powerboat in a harbor, say, in an anchorage, should be expecting a small
dinghy. To be prudent, it should be going dead slow in a thick fog, and be
assuming that a dink could appear at any moment. A ship that does not have this
capability, "has no business" being in the anchorage in the fog.

So while the fundamental obligations remain unchanged, the location and
circumstances mean that the details have changed. So in a sense, the
obligations do change - the changing parameters in the ""safe speed" equation
yield a different safe speed.

The test of Rule 2(a) can be applied - is this the behavior the "ordinary
practice of seamen"? If the answer is "Yes" then if everyone fulfills their
obligations under the ColRegs and the court interpretations, everything should
work out. But if one vessel does something out of the ordinary, then we have to
look carefully at the prudence of the actions. A big ship in a small boat
anchorage is not "ordinary practice," neither is a kayak in a shipping lane.
Both may be legal, but they are not prudent.

-jeff