"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I
said
from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since
I've
only
briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that.

Ok.
How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the
conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout
was
a breach of the CollRegs?


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is
that?



I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by
travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you
questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff.

I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business"
being there.

You are using double standards.




I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained,
but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's.


Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace.




Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly).


25 knots would seem excessive if
there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking
about
is
largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is
considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a
small
boat not visible on radar is rather slim.

It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter
can
whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic.
However,
the English Channel is a completely different place.

IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel
crossing.
Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't
be
surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of
the Bay
of Fundy.


You're correct. The P&O Condor service is a high speed (35 kts+) service.

I believe that they slow down in fog, to about 20 kts. However, I would
stress the word "believe". I really do not know where that impression comes
from. I usually see the Condor on crossings to Cherbourg(three times). I
would have been fairly close to it on both my crossings in fog. I suspect
that I saw it on one of the foggy trips, but I cannot be certain.





I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using
radar
to
steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout.

If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my
claim
that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you
questioned
me.

I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.
You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a
TSS.

Can't you see that you are biased?

The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that
this has happened.




This is certainly frowned
upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I
have
trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this
thread,
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat.


... and mine!


mine too.




We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily!



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is
that?

I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.) doing
thing that I think is downright crazy. I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean they
should be doing it.

Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed, killing two
of the crew.

I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.


I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that the
courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court
decisions.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business"
being there.
You are using double standards.


There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a speed
endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a situation
where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed out
the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it would
only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're using
double standards.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace.


You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it.



I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a lookout
must be maintained "at all times." Do you have a lookout posted now? Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a slip? I
posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important
principle. There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.


You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a
TSS.

And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.


Can't you see that you are biased?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there, and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.



The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly no
ability to avoid impeding a ship. Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something. What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that
this has happened.


There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not always,
does not need a lookout.



We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily!


And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy.

-jeff

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


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement.
I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of
a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why
is
that?

I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't
presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about
smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.)
doing
thing that I think is downright crazy.

Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?



I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any
rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean
they
should be doing it.

Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.




Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident
that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed,
killing two
of the crew.

I haven't yet managed to view the evidence. I may be wrong, but I don't
think that you have provided a link.



I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The
fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with
the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain
why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all*
users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak
has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.


I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that
the
courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court
decisions.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had
business"
being there.
You are using double standards.


There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a
speed
endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a
situation
where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed
out
the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it
would
only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're
using
double standards.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever
witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a
menace.


You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it.



I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a
lookout
must be maintained "at all times."

I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.




Do you have a lookout posted now?

No.


Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a
slip?

I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip.


I
posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very
important
principle.

Quite right!

There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.

Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?





You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in
a
TSS.

And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy
thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.

So what?

What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.




Can't you see that you are biased?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The
last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there,
and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.

Did you also think that the ships should proceed as if you might not be
there? Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts, without sounding fog
horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?





The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated
until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

You repeatedly asserted that a kayak could not *guarantee* that it would not
impede a large ship if it crossed a TSS in fog. Why did you feel that it
was important to make this assertion?



And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly
no
ability to avoid impeding a ship.

There you go again!

A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.


Why are you criticising me? I really don't know. You seem to be
reasonably familiar with the CollRegs, and yet you constantly say that I am
wrong in my interpretation of the same rules. The funny thing is that I am
not *interpreting* the rules. I am just quoting them. You are the one who
is trying to *interpret* them.


I've said that it is a breach of the regs to proceed without a proper
lookout in fog. You asked me where the CollRegs forbade the use of a
"radar only" lookout. I quoted you the rule. You still seem to think that
because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there.


Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something.

I like your use of the word "embarking". I doubt that many kayakers would
"embark" on a crossing of a TSS in fog.

Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.



What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make
it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.

So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?




The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away
from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe
that
this has happened.


There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean
that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that
there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the
collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not
always,
does not need a lookout.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?





We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end
happily!


And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy.

Maybe ..... maybe.


I respond to each post as I read it.


If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect
that he will succeed.





Regards


Donal
--

After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like
me can take the time to snip the useless parts, so can you.... too long
and everyone loses interest)

Donal wrote:


Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?

Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't
find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the
point or advantage?
After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a
knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra
set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him
who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident.
..... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no
accident, don't get caught.)


Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.

Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular
individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who
are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt.


He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a

menace.

He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy
waterway", you assume. You also don't know how good a visual lookout he
is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though
his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he
is or is not a menace.


I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a

lookout

must be maintained "at all times."


I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.

I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as
the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) ....
conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout
and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone
designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions warrant.



Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?

In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".



What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.

If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in
a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak
has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does.


horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

BG You're reaching to try and make a point ... the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.


The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.


A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.

The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to
avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as
responsible to avoid collision as is the ship.


What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make

it

before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?

Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same.
..... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more
visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their
shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not

always,

does not need a lookout.



Which courts? Are they "International" courts?

Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue
...... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular
nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international"


otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like

Apoligies. I do usually snip.

Donal wrote:


Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a
fog
horn?

Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't
find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the
point or advantage?

Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think
that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel.
Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they
are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently
fixed aloft.

I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I
find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely
ignorant of the other.


After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a
knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra
set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him
who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident.
.... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no
accident, don't get caught.)

I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last
time that I crossed in fog.




Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything
that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.

Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular
individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who
are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt.

I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that
personal freedom is more important.




He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a

menace.

He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy
waterway", you assume.

I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that
it was a fairly busy part. of the river.

I've repeatedly said that when

You also don't know how good a visual lookout he
is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though
his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he
is or is not a menace.

He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the
Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs'
requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing".




snip


I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.

I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as
the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) ....
conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout
and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone
designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions
warrant.

I agree.

snip
In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".

This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.




What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must
behave
accordingly.

If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in
a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak
has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does.

I agree. Everybody involved has responsibilities.

My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there", or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".





horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

BG You're reaching to try and make a point ...

Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to
be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when
the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up
about it? That's why I bought a radar.

I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that
British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered
under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always
had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on
the bow" in fog.


the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.

I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.




The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.

Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.





A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it
won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is*
breaching
rules.

The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to
avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as
responsible to avoid collision as is the ship.

I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.




What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to
make

it

before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?

Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same.
.... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more
visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their
shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship.

I agree.


snip
Which courts? Are they "International" courts?

Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue
..... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular
nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international"

It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.


Sorry about the lengthy answer. You'll have to ask fewer questions next
time!!!


Regards


Donal
--

Now, now, you're back to misrepresenting what I have said.

"Donal" wrote in message
...
In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".

This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.


I didn't say precedents are recognized, but I did say the courts have
acknowleged its in everyone's best interest to have common a interpretation of
the rules. Many British cases are mentioned in the American texts.




If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in
a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak
has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does.

I agree. Everybody involved has responsibilities.

My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there", or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".


When did I say anything remotely resembling that? You however, stated in this
post that a ship should travel at least at steerageway. From that speed it
would be impossible to stop for a kayak. Our disagreement is not over the
actions of the ship, but over how to rationalize the seeming discrepancy with
the rules.


the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.

I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.


So you advocate breaking the rules? I still have trouble understanding what
your argument is here.





The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.

Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.


Again, I never said that. I said that in most cases (certainly on the US East
Coast) where small boats would meet a large ship, Rule 9 or 10 apply, and thus
the ship is the "favored" vessel.


The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to
avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as
responsible to avoid collision as is the ship.

I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.


Again, you are saying exactly what I did not say! I explicitly said, many
times, from the start, that kayak is not in violation of rule 9 or 10 until it
"impedes" or rule 2 until there is a "consequence." In fact, it seems that
you're taking my words and claiming them as yours!

I have said that it is not proper (again - this is not a claim of legality) for
a vessel to put itself into a situation knowing it does not have the means to
fulfill its obligations.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?

Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue
..... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular
nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international"

It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.


So you're ignoring the quote I gave from a US court explaining how they feel it
necessary to stay in line with international rulings. You seem to be fighting
this tooth and nail, but to what purpose? You've already claimed its
appropriate that ships should continue at least at steerageway, are you saying
that's in violation of your local rulings? Are you claiming that British
courts see thing differently from US courts? Or are you just using this as a
stupid excuse to deny the significance of any claim I might make?

Donal wrote:

Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think
that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel.
Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they
are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently
fixed aloft.

I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I
find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely
ignorant of the other.

They're not ignorant of each other, in most cases, but may have
developed different ways of handling each other.
There tend to be two basic situations involving ships and small boat
meetings. The one on one, open ocean, where hopefully the ship sees the
small boat (we all know that conditions may not make this easy) and
reacts according to the rules .... no real excuse not to .... and the
area where there are many small boats around going in all directions
(this applies to fishing fleets also).
In the latter case, experience has taught many of us, that the best plan
of attack is to maintain course and speed, and eg (you didn't hear me
say this) screw the rules. Why? Simply stated, a particular small boat
may only be seeing the ship and it's collision course, where as, from
the bridge, the ship sees numerous small boats on collision course, and
to maneuver for one may throw a whole bunch of other's into trouble.
Problem is, some ships have carried this "hold course" to all conditions
of meeting small boats ( Some may use this to say rule 2 applies), which
though not correct, is a fact of life the small boater must deal with
.....I won't go in to who's to blame for this condition.


I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last
time that I crossed in fog.

I find this number hard to believe, but my familiarity with the area is
distant and only a few times, so I can't comment from a shipboard
perspective.


Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular
individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who
are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt.


I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that
personal freedom is more important.

Sorry, killing 3 people, in a vain attempt to save one fool, rubs me
wrong. I realize that people get caught in conditions the could not have
planned for, but too many people are using their "personal freedoms" to
act irresponsibly and without thought as to the consequences.




He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a

menace.

He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy
waterway", you assume.


I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that
it was a fairly busy part. of the river.

My guess is he was talking about the Mississippi, possibly a departure
area of "The Jump", which is a busy area, but 99% is commercial, and
talks freely to each other. The other area was the Houston Ship Channel
..... a mixed bag of traffic, again, highly regulated, with known areas
of "recreational traffic". In either area, depending on the boat,
operator, equipment, etc., I would not consider 25k to necessarily be
bad or good.

You also don't know how good a visual lookout he
is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though
his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he
is or is not a menace.


He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the
Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs'
requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing".

Different commercial operations, world wide will run under different
conditions ...1,2,3, however many people.
Having done the "one man" as well as many others, I cannot say that a
particular system is unsafe, although I prefer numerous "mark one
eyeballs" when possible. I DO disagree with anyone who is acting as
radar observer to be totally and solely immersed in the radar,
especially if they are the only one at the controls, but even then, the
conditions may warrant such actions ..... main point .... without being
there at the time, it's extremely hard to say what is/was correct or
incorrect..... or complied with the rules, for the conditions.


In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".


This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.

EG NO comment on British courts. I think here we would need someone
familiar with "Admiralty Law" to comment. In the US, I believe it's the
Federal Courts which hear and pass on most cases, regarding maritime
matters, not State courts. The precedence for maritime matters go way
back over centuries, and doubtfully, any maritime nation, would not need
to go out of it's own country to find the needed precedence for a
particular case, but there is nothing to say they won't or can't (This
was my weakest subject at school).
I believe, also, that the IMO, falls under an international treaty ....
again, I mention this only to emphasize that I don't think this is in
the nature of one country trying to supersede or over ride,
international law ....this would be a whole other thread.



My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there",

Your impression ..... I did not get the same. You can never assume that
some idiot may not be rowing across the Atlantic (fools seem to try it
regularly, nowadays). What you do is make your decisions and base your
actions on the probabilities, and never lose sight of the fact you may
be wrong .... it's a juggling act, which unfortunately doesn't always
work out in your favor .... just like so many things we do.


or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".

I think you will find this issue being argued more and more ..... what's
apt to give you the best warning in fog? A constant visual out the
window look, a constant radar watch, or a split between the two?

Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to
be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when
the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up
about it? That's why I bought a radar.

You may be right, you may not have been able to see him, the conditions
may be such that it's unsafe to have a lookout on the bow, etc..
As to the fog horn, I've run well offshore along the US West Coast
(50-100mi) in thick fog for days on end ....shut the damn thing off
.....if someone comes close or you think you may have a target, resume
sounding. Again, I don't know the conditions you were under, think your
numbers are high, but can't really comment.

I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that
British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered
under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always
had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on
the bow" in fog.

G As would any recognized maritime nation. However, FOC is becoming,
and possibly always has been a myth. It should be COC (Company of
Convenience). FOC is no guarantee that you are dealing with some third
rate ship or crew, nor is the fact that a ship registered in a "Maritime
Nation" any indication that it will be ( though an indication) well run.
I've been aboard too many ship's of all flags in the past dozen years to
believe otherwise.



the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.


I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.

In truth, would it make a difference if the ship was doing 12k or 25k in
fog if it suddenly spotted a kayak? .... 6k? .... bare steerageway?

If they are running a TSS, they are expecting (rightly or wrongly) that
this is their 2mi (or whatever) wide lane where they should be able to
be safe from vessel's that don't belong there in a way that impedes
their progress. They are doing their part by staying in their lane, they
expect the small boat to do theirs and stay out of the lane or at least
not impede their passage.
Do you see all the possible errors in this way of thinking? Do you see
all the possible errors in thinking a kayak has any business in a TSS in
fog?
All arguments aside ..... don't expect a ship to slow in fog, be blowing
fog signals, have a lookout on the bow ....expect the worst, and avoid a
TSS like the plague, in all conditions of visibility.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.


Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

Don't know the area. It may be less stupid to stay where he is. If he
decides to go across, he must understand that he is equally responsible
to avoid collision, and he must take all precautions within his power to
do so, realizing that he will be a highly invisible target, both on
radar and visually.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

No one's saying that ... the ship and the kayak deserve the same
"mercy", the ship and kayak have the same responsibilities, and both
must understand their limitations and the total number of possible
repercussions .... problem is ..... ship meets kayak in fog, kayak
loses, and ship probably won't have a clue it was there.

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.

I think I'm the one who suggested staying where he is. The Colregs were
originally written to cover larger vessels. It's been years of trying to
change and adapt them to include the burgeoning population of small
recreational vessels, with sometimes questionable results.
I don't think Jeff has stated that a vessel may proceed at an unsafe
speed, but rather that the speed that the ship may consider safe, may
not be the speed that YOU consider safe





A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it

won't

collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

A slow moving ship with a proper lookout, cannot guarantee that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on it's radar.

snip
I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

It may be, by being there, if there was an alternate course of action
possible.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.

Possibly true


It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.

I think you may not be understanding which national courts may be being
discussed ..... again, we need to have an "Admiralty" lawyer comment on
this area.

otn

phew

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...


Donal wrote:

Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors
think
that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking
vessel.
Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when
they
are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket
permanently
fixed aloft.

snipped

to maneuver for one may throw a whole bunch of other's into trouble.
Problem is, some ships have carried this "hold course" to all conditions
of meeting small boats ( Some may use this to say rule 2 applies), which
though not correct, is a fact of life the small boater must deal with
....I won't go in to who's to blame for this condition.

I don't really disagree with you here.




I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the
last
time that I crossed in fog.

I find this number hard to believe, but my familiarity with the area is
distant and only a few times, so I can't comment from a shipboard
perspective.

If JohnE is still lurking, then perhaps he will comment.




Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular
individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who
are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt.


I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that
personal freedom is more important.

Sorry, killing 3 people, in a vain attempt to save one fool, rubs me
wrong. I realize that people get caught in conditions the could not have
planned for, but too many people are using their "personal freedoms" to
act irresponsibly and without thought as to the consequences.

I see it differently. I don't know where you got your "3 people" from.


The reality is that many people, perhaps many millions, enjoy the freedom of
the sea for every rescuer who loses his life. I don't think that lack of
"certification" is a major cause of emergency rescue. I suspect that lack
of maintenance is the main trigger for rescue service involvement.


Regards



Donal
--

I think Otn answered most of these points - its nice to have someone in
agreement with me.

Comment interspersed ...



"Donal" wrote in message
...
I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't
presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about
smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.)
doing
thing that I think is downright crazy.

Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?


Perhaps. Not sounding the whistle is certainly wrong, but its not my place to
judge the "safe speed." However, the the ship can rectify their situation
simply by throttling back and turning on the horn. What can the kayak do other
that whine the the fog was not expected?




I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any
rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean
they
should be doing it.

Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.


Doing something where the inevitable result is breaking the law is not right.
Claiming that the sun was shining when you left port is not an excuse for not
having lights.




Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident
that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed,
killing two
of the crew.

I haven't yet managed to view the evidence. I may be wrong, but I don't
think that you have provided a link.


Sorry, the only writeup of the results that I remember is on a subscription
service. The original reports made it sound like the ferry ran down the fishing
boat, but it was the opposite - the small boat hit the side of the ferry at
speed.


Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a
lookout
must be maintained "at all times."

I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.

Do you have a lookout posted now?

No.

Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a
slip?

I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip.


Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says, "except when
its not convenient."

I posed this before and I don't think you responded,
but its a very important principle.

Quite right!

So you blantantly ignore the rules but expect total compliance from everyone
else! Is that your point? That its OK to violate the rules when you want to?


There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.

Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?


Sorry, Donal. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You are expected to understand
the interpretations of the courts. While a court may not feel bound by the
ruling of a lower court in a different jurisdiction, the courts appreciate that
it is everyone's best interest to have a common body of law. In the text I've
quoted most often, a number of the precendents cited are British. I even
provided a quote where they say that common interpretations are important in
international law.

You keep asking me to cite British case, but you've never mentioned any. What's
the matter, don't you have courts there anymore?


And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy
thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.

So what?

What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.


But then you say you don't intend that to mean that all traffic should stop.
However, that is the only logical response - if the ship knew there was a kayak
and didn't stop it would be reprehensible. You seem to keep flip-flopping on
this; what are you really saying?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The
last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there,
and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.

Did you also think that the ships should proceed as if you might not be
there?

A ship should always assume there is a possibility.

Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts,

it is not my position to judge a "safe speed"

without sounding fog horns,

The would be wrong

and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

A visual watch is required, but what that really implies varies with the
situation. Maybe you could give us some examples from your local courts.


The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated
until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

You repeatedly asserted that a kayak could not *guarantee* that it would not
impede a large ship if it crossed a TSS in fog. Why did you feel that it
was important to make this assertion?


It is the responsibility of every seaman to be prepared to fulfill its
obligations and handle situations that could reasonably be expected to arise.
This is articulated quite clearly in Rule 2(a).

The law even has a provision for "inevitable accidents" arising from situations
that could not have been foreseen. However, they are very rare, less than 1% of
the cases in US law. It is generally held that simple weather events (such as
fog) or mechanical problems that could have been prevented with better
maintained are not an excuse.




And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly
no
ability to avoid impeding a ship.

There you go again!

A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.


Are you saying that the kayak is not obligated to "not impede" the ship in the
narrow channel or TSS?



Why are you criticising me? I really don't know. You seem to be
reasonably familiar with the CollRegs, and yet you constantly say that I am
wrong in my interpretation of the same rules. The funny thing is that I am
not *interpreting* the rules. I am just quoting them. You are the one who
is trying to *interpret* them.


We keep going around this one issue: the rules seem to imply (thought they don't
say explictly) that in zero visibilty, the only safe safe speed is "zero."
There is no other speed that would permit a tanker to proceed without having the
risk of hitting an unseen tiny vessel. My claim is that the courts have said
that it is permissible to proceed under certain situations. Your claim
sometimes seems to be that the letter of the law must be followed, and other
times you seem to say that breaking the law is inevitable.





I've said that it is a breach of the regs to proceed without a proper
lookout in fog. You asked me where the CollRegs forbade the use of a
"radar only" lookout. I quoted you the rule.

You only showed that the law requires a visual lookout even when there is zero
visibility, something I conceded in the original post.

You still seem to think that
because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there.

Duh! That is my position. I don't claim its illegal to be there, I claim its a
stupid thing to do.




Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something.

I like your use of the word "embarking". I doubt that many kayakers would
"embark" on a crossing of a TSS in fog.

You're right, most have better sense than that.


Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.

No, fog usually occurs when I expect it. I think you may need a better teacher.

What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make
it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.

So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?

You keep harping on this. Are you claiming that all ships in the Channel are
running without lookouts, without whistles, always traveling at an unsafe speed?
I would agree that when they do so, they are wrong.



There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean
that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that
there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the
collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not
always,
does not need a lookout.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?


Perhaps you can provide a link where a British court has differed significantly
from an US ruling. You seem obcessed with claiming that texts and rulings from
the US have no bearing in International waters, but you never provide any
alternatives. You have no credibility on this issue until you do so.



If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect
that he will succeed.



Don't be upset by jaxie, he's just a child.

Jeff Morris wrote:


must be maintained "at all times."

I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.


Do you have a lookout posted now?

No.


Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a

slip?

I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip.



Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says, "except when
its not convenient."



Just my two cents, COLREGS, 'Regulations for the Avoidance of Collisions at Sea' (sic);
being in a slip is not "At Sea", Colregs do not apply IMHO

Cheers
Marty