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.