"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of
the
issues.

First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word"
on
the
law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say.

I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has
overruled
the CollRegs?

I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to
interpret.

There are relatively few case of the courts "overturning" the current law,
but
that is because they were carefully crafted to be consistent with earlier
rulings. In the past many rules were nullified becuase there were many
inconsistencies in the various local "pilot rules."

I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the
CollRegs.



However, the modern rules do have things like the requirement for a
lookout even
while at anchor or in a slip - the courts have ruled that isn't really
needed.

Also, the concepts "safe speed" and "ordinary practice of seamen" are left
completely in the courts to decide, case by case.



snip
I've no idea what Farwell's is.


"Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" was the standard text on the rules
in
this country for much of the last century. Its out of print now, but I'm
not
sure what has replaced it - its still the most common reference used.

Actually, I think I got my copy of the previous edition at Foyle's, in
Charing
Cross.

I don't go into London any more. I got a parking ticket for being 3
minutes late, about 10 years ago. I haven't been back since.






Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping
when
a
hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of
history:
The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall,
in
the
fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of
the
meaning
of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the
stopping
distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules,
however,
wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and
the
use of
radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe
speed
at
all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a
"safe
speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the
concept
of
"moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially
without
radar,
the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water,
dedicated
shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down
below
steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the
safe
speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of
conditions.

I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain
steerageway.
I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I
don't
complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother
to
sound their fog horns.


At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a
kayak, yet
you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that.

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors
had the same idea.

In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car
behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the
actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was
reached.

After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver
is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the
accident. (this is *UK* law).

At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS.

I believe that you know this, as well as I do.







In
the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation
Safety
Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but
which
slowed
to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe
speed;
the
fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the
poor
quality
of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel,
near
shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been.

The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large
ship
traffic
should stop.

I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to
simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop.


So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law?

Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying
that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within
sight of their victim in the TSS.


Maybe you should
consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now
something different from what you think.


We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For
the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is
strongly
frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing
below
steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe.
And
what is
the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be
hundreds,
perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to
"reverse
engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed
visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing
to
permit
a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be
considered a
"moderate speed."

You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger
ships -
I
claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10
are
essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not
impede"
larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS,
and,
if not
using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When
you
consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from
well
offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they
are
favored by the rules in almost every situation.

My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that
would create a very dangerous situation.

Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too
much
sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer
is
clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small
boat
must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your
blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it
does).

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that
commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common
sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever
reason, should not be impeded.

It's common sense. No more, no less!







This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the
fog
in the
shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've
every
addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large
vessel in
the TSS.

I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that
you
want to see. I'll try again.

Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in
a
TSS.

Visibility 200 yards.

Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn.

Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the
witnesses).

How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame?

The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your
point?

My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be
able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being
there".


What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then
the
ship might well be held blameless.


Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.
Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then
you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to
make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog.


I've always agreed that if there was
anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the
risk,
it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by
his
proximity to the ship is in violation.

And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.





This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility;
it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the
fog.
Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is
the
obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there
exists
the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is
it
that
the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities?

It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it
will get caught in fog.


Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast.

Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day.

Stranger things happen at sea.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the
CollRegs.


I haven't found a good source to "free case studies" yet. I have posted a link
to the Canadian Safety Board's ruling that 14 knots was a safe speed in zero
visibility, and I posted a full page excerpt from the standard text on the
topic. I'll repeat the essential part:

"Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three
important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain
phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as ... proper lookout, special
circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of
collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that these
terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps in
the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third, judicial
interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found
contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional
inconsistencies or conflicts in the latter."

You can chose to believe this is incorrect - maybe its time you did your own
research.

At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a
kayak, yet
you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that.

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.


I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors
had the same idea.

In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car
behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the
actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was
reached.

After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver
is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the
accident. (this is *UK* law).

At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS.

I believe that you know this, as well as I do.


What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to blame?



I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to
simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop.


So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law?

Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying
that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within
sight of their victim in the TSS.


Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules. This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition, and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations. These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

The situation we're discussing is not a case where the rules must be violated;
it is a case where the courts have ruled that steerageway should be maintained,
and even higher speeds are permissible with good radar. In doing so, the courts
have conceded that the kayak would be a severe risk if it cross a shipping lane
in thick fog.

I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so
that its now something different from what you think.



Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too
much
sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer
is
clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small
boat
must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your
blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it
does).

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that
commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common
sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever
reason, should not be impeded.

It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules aren't
needed, because its all "common sense"?



The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your
point?

My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be
able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being
there".


popbably not.


What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then
the
ship might well be held blameless.


Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then
you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to
make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog.

I never denied it - I've claimed it is an absolute requirement from the
beginning.


I've always agreed that if there was
anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the
risk,
it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by
his
proximity to the ship is in violation.

And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels have been
held blameless.



Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it overrules the
law!

I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules" to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there. As in, it would be foolish
and foolhardy. "Common sense" say the kayak will be chum and the ship should
be blameless; are you saying that's the law?

It is true that a ship could be going too fast, and without a lookout, but I
also claim it could be going at a "safe speed" (as defined by the courts) and
have a "proper lookout" and would still be unable to stop in time to save the
kayak. The kayak, however, is putting itself in a position where it is very
likely it almost certainly would violate the rules if there was an encounter.
Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it with a
crash stop, its in violation.




Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast.

Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day.

Stranger things happen at sea.


Well, I could say "not very often," but inevitably this happens. However, that
becomes the risk that the kayak takes. As I've said, I would have some
sympathy if it were a 100 yard channel, where the kayak could pick a promising
moment to make a dash. However, a Channel crossing with its 5 mile lanes is not
a proper place for a kayak. You keep asking me for links to court cases; how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?

Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law is
the most important thing. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me wrong at
any point.

Jeff, you're wasting your time.
Donal, is the UK version of Neal .... he knows the words to the rules,
but doesn't comprehend the intent. He's just shown, in another thread,
that he's also not a "boat handler" around the docks.
I'll refrain from commenting on the Yachtmaster requirements, as I know
nothing about them, and I think John E. covered that ground.

otn

I half agree - but would you rather be reading bobadilgayganzyhorvathbb drivel?

This latest tack of Donal's confirms what we've long suspected - most people
know some of the rules, and then make up the rest based on what seems to be
"common sense" to them.

jeff


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jeff, you're wasting your time.
Donal, is the UK version of Neal .... he knows the words to the rules,
but doesn't comprehend the intent. He's just shown, in another thread,
that he's also not a "boat handler" around the docks.
I'll refrain from commenting on the Yachtmaster requirements, as I know
nothing about them, and I think John E. covered that ground.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:
I half agree - but would you rather be reading bobadilgayganzyhorvathbb drivel?

G That parts easy ..... I don't.


This latest tack of Donal's confirms what we've long suspected - most people
know some of the rules, and then make up the rest based on what seems to be
"common sense" to them.

I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a
problem with the intent.
I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and
giving perspective from different opereators and vessel types.
However, after a point............

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message

| I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a
| problem with the intent.

So seemingly you are inferring that no one but you has a grasp on the intent
of the COLREGS???
Crap.... I thought it was to keep boats from hitting each other. Are you
implying that everyone but commercial large vessel traffic should be subject
to the strictest definitions of the rules?


| I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and
| giving perspective from different operators and vessel types.

Well you know my views.... large commercial vessels should be strictly
regulated, the regulations should be enforced with an iron fist. You whine
about smaller vessels not adhering to the rules while dumping bilge water
and oil as well as being the biggest contributor of garbage dumped at
sea.... not to mention the sorry record for container loss. Unmanned
bridges, unseaworthy vessels and poorly trained foreign crews are the least
of the problems caused by the current status of the shipping industry at
sea.

How dare you even begin to preach rules and comprehension when your industry
so consistently fails to abide by rules you claim to have a better
understanding of!!

| However, after a point............

Yeah... after a point it becomes clear that you fail to comprehend the
basics. It's NOT Your Ocean! You only use it just like we do. You don't have
more of a right nor less of a responsibility. I would say that on a whole
the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities
and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......

CM

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:qgzQb.3340
I would say that on a whole
the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities
and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......

You crack me up, Mooron!

Capt. Mooron wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message

| I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a
| problem with the intent.

So seemingly you are inferring that no one but you has a grasp on the intent
of the COLREGS???
Crap.... I thought it was to keep boats from hitting each other. Are you
implying that everyone but commercial large vessel traffic should be subject
to the strictest definitions of the rules?


| I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and
| giving perspective from different operators and vessel types.

Well you know my views.... large commercial vessels should be strictly
regulated, the regulations should be enforced with an iron fist. You whine
about smaller vessels not adhering to the rules while dumping bilge water
and oil as well as being the biggest contributor of garbage dumped at
sea.... not to mention the sorry record for container loss. Unmanned
bridges, unseaworthy vessels and poorly trained foreign crews are the least
of the problems caused by the current status of the shipping industry at
sea.

How dare you even begin to preach rules and comprehension when your industry
so consistently fails to abide by rules you claim to have a better
understanding of!!

| However, after a point............

Yeah... after a point it becomes clear that you fail to comprehend the
basics. It's NOT Your Ocean! You only use it just like we do. You don't have
more of a right nor less of a responsibility. I would say that on a whole
the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities
and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......

CM





ROFLMAO

Welcome back

otn

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the
CollRegs.


I haven't found a good source to "free case studies" yet. I have posted
a link
to the Canadian Safety Board's ruling that 14 knots was a safe speed in
zero
visibility, and I posted a full page excerpt from the standard text on the
topic. I'll repeat the essential part:

"Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three
important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain
phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as ... proper lookout,
special
circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of
collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that
these
terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps
in
the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third,
judicial
interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules
found
contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional
inconsistencies or conflicts in the latter."

You can chose to believe this is incorrect - maybe its time you did your
own
research.

At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a
kayak, yet
you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that.

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be
able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its
OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.

Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one?






I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the
authors
had the same idea.

In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car
behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the
actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was
reached.

After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one
driver
is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the
accident. (this is *UK* law).

At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS.

I believe that you know this, as well as I do.


What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes
across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to
blame?

Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your
point?





I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to
simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually
stop.


So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law?

Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are
saying
that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action,
within
sight of their victim in the TSS.


Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the
rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This
doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you
*cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try
to balance them all *equally*.

As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.

Why, then, must power give way to sail?







There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules.
This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition,
and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the
meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations.
These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another
country as evidence. Have you?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants.




The situation we're discussing is not a case where the rules must be
violated;
it is a case where the courts have ruled that steerageway should be
maintained,
and even higher speeds are permissible with good radar. In doing so, the
courts
have conceded that the kayak would be a severe risk if it cross a shipping
lane
in thick fog.






I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the
law so
that its now something different from what you think.

I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion.

I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs.





Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make
too
much
sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the
answer
is
clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the
small
boat
must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need
your
blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it
does).

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply
that
commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common
sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for
whatever
reason, should not be impeded.

It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules
aren't
needed, because its all "common sense"?

No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships.
Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.




The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your
point?

My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't
be
able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being
there".


popbably not.


What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow?
Then
the
ship might well be held blameless.


Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately
responsible for avoiding a collision.

You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs.



Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion,
then
you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to
make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog.

I never denied it - I've claimed it is an absolute requirement from the
beginning.






I've always agreed that if there was
anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced
the
risk,
it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak,
simply by
his
proximity to the ship is in violation.

And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way
to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies
that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels
have been
held blameless.

Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.





Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be
there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing
that.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it
overrules the
law!

No, I didn't.


I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules"
to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there.

What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to
sail upon the sea.

I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs.

What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


As in, it would be foolish
and foolhardy. "Common sense" say the kayak will be chum and the ship
should
be blameless; are you saying that's the law?
No.


It is true that a ship could be going too fast, and without a lookout, but
I
also claim it could be going at a "safe speed" (as defined by the courts)
and
have a "proper lookout" and would still be unable to stop in time to save
the
kayak. The kayak, however, is putting itself in a position where it is
very
likely it almost certainly would violate the rules if there was an
encounter.
Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it
with a
crash stop, its in violation.

That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the
ship.






Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast.

Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny
day.

Stranger things happen at sea.


Well, I could say "not very often," but inevitably this happens. However,
that
becomes the risk that the kayak takes. As I've said, I would have some
sympathy if it were a 100 yard channel, where the kayak could pick a
promising
moment to make a dash. However, a Channel crossing with its 5 mile lanes
is not
a proper place for a kayak. You keep asking me for links to court cases;
how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?

This fellow was blind!!!!
http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/





Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like
you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law
is
the most important thing.

No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also
trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not
agree with.

You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That
may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak
has no business in a TSS.

Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me
wrong at
any point.


You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you?


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be
able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its
OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.

Do you think that one of them is incorect? If so, which one?


The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to stop.
However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for anything it sees
visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.



What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes
across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to
blame?

Without any further evidence, the pedestrian. is to blame. What's your
point?


You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous situation.


Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the
rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

The rules are paramount, and yet they are also self contradictory. This
doesn't give me a major problem. Oddly enough, I am trying to say that you
*cannot* pick which ones to follow. I am trying to say that you must try
to balance them all *equally*.

I would agree there are such situations. However, in this very basic case, the
courts have given plenty of guidance.



As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the CollRegs are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently said as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.


No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny this? Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking about shipping
lanes and TSS's?

Why, then, must power give way to sail?

In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the sailboat is
favored.



There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules.
This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition,
and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the
meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations.
These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

I've never heard of a court in one country using case history from another
country as evidence. Have you?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International" Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set precedants.


Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up because they
sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court:

"The paramount importance of having international rules, which are intended to
become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime powers, is
manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by the
maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar
construction ... by the courts of this country."




I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the
law so
that its now something different from what you think.

I repeat again, "post a link" to back up your assertion.

I do *not* believe that any court has modified the IMO's CollRegs.


Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references that
explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than zero, and
that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that specifically
says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to appreciate
the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps" or
"augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law works.

The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the ColRegs say, it
is what the courts say it means.




It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules
aren't needed, because its all "common sense"?

No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big ships.

As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the large one?
That's a bit of a "bias."

Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

You haven't read the rules lately, have you?

It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights of
sailing vessels.

Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way to sail."
Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the fog.



Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

I don't. I simply understand the concept that both parties are ultimately
responsible for avoiding a collision.

You really need to brush up on your interpretation of the CollRegs.


Each vessel does have that responsibility. However it doesn't extend so far
that each vessel is repsonsible for being able to stop in time, regardless of
the stupidity exercised by the other vessel. The fact that there's a collision
means that the actions of both vessels will be closely scrutinized. It doesn't
mean they both are at fault.


And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way
to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies
that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels
have been
held blameless.

Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.

Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a little child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame"; please site a
good reference that backs that up.

OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the blame.







Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be
there,
at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing
that.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it
overrules the
law!

No, I didn't.


I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules"
to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there.

What's your point? "Business" has nothing to do with a person's right to
sail upon the sea.

I cannot remember any references to the word "business" in the CollRegs.

What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion about the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity on the
water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You keep
trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view.

Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that seems
rather subtle for you.


Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it
with a
crash stop, its in violation.

That is really stupid. In clear weather, the kayak could easily avoid the
ship.


A single ship in a narrow lane, maybe. In good conditions a kayak can sustain
well over 4 knots. However, after paddling out 15 miles, fighting a chop, etc,
its not clear to me how well they would fare in the English Channel. What kind
of visibility do they have from one foot above sea level?

You keep asking me for links to court cases;
how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?

This fellow was blind!!!!
http://www.canoekayak.com/news/blind/


He did have a sighted guide, and a deisel powered escort boat.


Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like
you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law
is
the most important thing.

No, I'm trying to claim that the spirit is important. However I'm also
trying to point out that you are ignoring any of the Rules that you do not
agree with.

I haven't ignored a single rule. I've only pointed out that the courts have
interpretted them a certain way.



You are the one who is saying that a kayak has no "business" in a TSS. That
may, or may not be true. However it has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the CollRegs. Therefore, I ask you, why do you mention that a kayak
has no business in a TSS.


I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty action. You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago that the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another vessel.

Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


When did I say that?



and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me
wrong at
any point.


You're definitely wrong about the "radar only" issue, aren't you?

What is the "radar only" issue? If you trying to get be to defend Joe's claim,
I won't.

Sorry Donal, I think Otn is right - you are just a simple simon.