Kayaks and Death Wish

[minaret]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Maybe part of the animosity to Kayakers comes from Puget Sound. There are a bunch of rabid environmentalists who are paddling around all the marinas in the sound trying to get people arrested and/or fined for the slightest supposed environmental infraction. I've heard washing your boat is one of their favorite things to get bent out of shape about.

I've worked for many years in various yards and marinas around Lake Union and the ship canal. The kayakers with cellphones calling the EPA every time you fire up a sander on bare wood-wood dust fer chrissake-got out of hand years ago. It got to the point where the whole yard would shut down every time a kayak paddled by, and the guys on our crew would call in kayak with cell phone sitings to each other. It's not quite as bad these days for some reason but it still happens. I've seen them call in the wierdest things while paddling right by all the big storm effluent drains and wierd pipes gushing god knows what into the ship canal.

[hellosailor]

Alchemy, I've seen kayers with "dune buggy whips" aka bicycle whips mounted on the stern. Yes, there's nothing new under the sun. A dayglo pendant does as well as an LED would up there. Probably six or ten bucks at any bike store but I'm sure the speed bumps would object that it detracts from the purity of the experience.

Heck, maybe they're smugglers and they don't want to be seen.

[Bash]

Every time I see a kayak float by I figure that's one less jet ski I need to listen to.

[David M]

Originally Posted by NevP

Can you help me understand why a court would not recognise this interpretation? Here in NZ at least, courts are supposed to take a strictly literal interpretation of any statutes or regulations. Are you able to show a more authoritative definition of "machinery" or other case or regulation that contradicts the Oxford definition?

Any lawyers out there that can clear up my confusion?

I spent four years at Cal Maritime and had the rules pretty much memorized along with numerous classes going over rule interpretations, incidents and their subsequent rulings.

25 years later I could not tell you exactly why, but human powered vessels are NOT power driven vessels. To me this is just common sense if not anything else given the rules are partially written to give less maneuverable vessels rights over more maneuverable vessels.

The people who write the Oxford Dictionary are not the ones who define nor interpret maritime law. Maritime and admiralty law has its own sometimes unique set of definitions that are not found anywhere else.

[Capn Morgan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I’m embarrassed to admit, that I’m insensitive enough, so as to find that funny. Very funny!

You are a much better man than me, I'm not embarrassed at all of being that insensitive.

[Capn Morgan]

Originally Posted by NevP

Just to be clear, I am in no way supporting the idiots out there creating a navigation hazard of themselves but there are plenty of those in every type of vessel. Would just be nice to have a definitive interpretation from someone that knows instead of all our collective opinions.

You are just as good as any at making an interpretation as any of the experts, and collectively, while we may see differences, we probably have a better understanding than most.

I just give way and make sure there is no collision, whether I am on the kayak, the tender or the boat, sailing or under power.

[NevP]

Originally Posted by Capn Morgan

I just give way and make sure there is no collision...

Agree entirely.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Capn Morgan

You are just as good as any at making an interpretation as any of the experts, and collectively, while we may see differences, we probably have a better understanding than most.

I just give way and make sure there is no collision, whether I am on the kayak, the tender or the boat, sailing or under power.

while making sure not having a collision is the desired intent...there is this little issue...

Rule 17
(a)

1. 1. Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

[Capn Morgan]

Originally Posted by psneeld

while making sure not having a collision is the desired intent...there is this little issue...

Rule 17

(a)

1. 1. Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

For longevity's sake I would not recommend that if you are being overtaken by a fast container carrier in a busy TSS. But you are right of course.

[Capn Morgan]

psneeld

Twice this month I've had large ships overtaking me and literally blowing their horns in my tail. Once they passed me they turned across my bows and blocked my way. I had nothing to gain by ramming them. I can imagine the judge fining the ships captains, yet charging my estate for not having avoided the collision at all costs, while I am feeding the fishes like o'Barman Binliner.

When I was a pro I always respected the small ships. Now I find the pros don't seem to care anymore.

[NevP]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Rule 17
(a)

1. 1. Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

But this must be interpreted in conjunction with

Rule 2.(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate dange.

and

Rule 17. The stand-on vessel shall maintain her course and speed, but she may take action to avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action, or when so close that collision can no longer be avoided by the actions of the give-way vessel alone...

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by NevP

But this must be interpreted in conjunction with
and

fine..interpret whatever way you want.....it doesn't really matter...I just came from teaching a boating safety course and I know 10 out of 11 students really will never understand or care about what the NAVRULES really say.

After 50+ years of boating, 23 as a senior officer in the USCG and over 10 years as a pro mariner...I know the chances that actually following what the navrules really say doesn't matter in the realm of small vessels (pleasure under 65 feet(20M).

Free for all...lets go...

[markpierce]

Hmmm. Blow your horn to alert the local population and make your intentions obvious. Oblivious boaters making random speed and directional changes are the bane. (Didn't I suggest earlier to get a loud, if not louder, horn?)

[kismet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I’m embarrassed to admit, that I’m insensitive enough, so as to find that funny. Very funny!

I had to laugh also...very good.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hummingway

Yes, it seems some kayakers think the sailboat will honour their right of way much like some sailors think the power boat will do it for them

They can be awfully hard to see in a big body of water.

Exactly! I have often thought that they are to us, as we are to ships! We often naively think that they see us well and will follow the Colregs in close quarters situations, so that we can sail as we please and not worry about them. Kayakers do the same with us -- they paddle around as they please and expect us to keep out of their way.

Whereas we are 1000x less maneuverable than they are, can't stop on a dime, and often can't even see them.

Just like ships are 1000x less maneuvrable than we are, can't stop in less than a couple of miles, and often can't even see us . . .


The answer, IMHO, is that we should never forget that we are actually burdened with staying out of their way (except in a narrow channel situation governed by Rule 10), and so it is our responsibility to keep a sharp watch, see them, avoid them.

And hope that THEY will understand the practical difficulty in our doing so -- so that they will not rely too much on the Colregs -- if they want to remain alive! Just like we do with ships! Or should do . . .