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

Wrong Jeff. Go back to Rule 1.

Is my boat parked in "navigable waters"?

Why are you so determined to twist the rules?





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 are beginning to talk absolute rubbish(again).

National courts do *not* accede to precedences that have been set in foreign
courts, unless those courts have been set up as the result of an
international treaty. Your constitution would not allow a foreign court to
hold precedence over one of your own courts. Our constitution, likewise,
would not allow a Boston court to set a precedent.




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?

No, no, no! I'm saying that *all* vessels are equally governed by the
CollRegs.

I accept that big ships should be shown a bit of lattitude. However, I
also say that small vessels should be shown the same lattitude. *You* seem
to be saying that commercial vessels are under less of an obligation to obey
the CollRegs than small vessels. You've even gone as far as to say that
commercial shipping is favoured under the CollRegs. That is an incredibly
stupid position, when the CollRegs clearly state that "power shall give way
to sail".




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"

Answer the question. You feel in a position to castigate any kayaker who
suddenly gets enveloped by fog.


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.

Why? Is a visual lookout required, or not?

Are you really trying to suggest that we cannot take the CollRegs at face
value?

Jeff, you seem to be going off the deep end.

Do we have to look up court rulings before we accept any of the CollRegs?
Get a grip!!





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."

So why don't you argue that ships should come to a complete stop in fog?

You have argued that a "kayak has no business being there", and yet the
CollRegs do not support you.

You are a hypocrite.

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.

You keep claiming that the ship *may* break the law, and that the kayak may
*not*. I see nothing in the CollRegs to support your position.


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.

I use the weather forecast. What system do you have for predicting fog?



Regards



Donal
--