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