Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Huh?

A question asked of an individual person about their own self, is by very definition a personal question?

It certainly isn't a general question.

I stated my position on this.

The question was not about your own self. A quick google search what of personal questions are gives us:

It's a question that inquires about someone's personal life, however you define that.

It's usually defined as whatever isn't publicly shared or exhibited. Family relationships, sex lives and romantic relationships, hopes and ambitions, anything embarrassing, are all examples of 'personal topics'. Generally speaking, the things that people tend to keep to themselves until asked. Some would also put political feelings under this.

The question was about whether you hold a Canadian PCOC certification (which is a public record I recall).

And perhaps more generally what experience, training and certifications do you base your boating opinions on.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by evm1024

The question was not about your own self. A quick google search what of personal questions are gives us:

It's a question that inquires about someone's personal life, however you define that.

It's usually defined as whatever isn't publicly shared or exhibited. Family relationships, sex lives and romantic relationships, hopes and ambitions, anything embarrassing, are all examples of 'personal topics'. Generally speaking, the things that people tend to keep to themselves until asked. Some would also put political feelings under this.

The question was about whether you hold a Canadian PCOC certification (which is a public record I recall).

And perhaps more generally what experience, training and certifications do you base your boating opinions on.

In my opinion, the reference you posted supports my position that it is a personal question, and I have stated my position on personal questions.

Sorry, but I won't waste any more of my time on this line of questioning.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile

Sounds like we both agree with the obvious, namely that not all responsibility necessarily falls on the commercial ship.

I can't speak for you, but I believe that, All vessels have a responsibility for collision avoidance".

If you agree with that, then you may state so if you wish.

Where we have differed before (but perhaps this is one of those items you've now changed your position on ) is that responsibility for an incident or collision is generally apportioned based on fault alone, and not the status, training, or "standards" required of different types of vessels.

Please stop the innuendo; I have not changed my position on this subject.

Generally, I believe that commercial vessels have more regulations to comply with than rec boats. I expect them to operate with a higher level of competence than a rec boat.

In other words, we should not assume that a commercial ship will get out of our way solely because they have crew with superior training, or because they have superior collision avoidance equipment onboard. I think this may be a common (but understandable) misperception.

You may think this. I never have.

In fact, there is support in the Rules that if a recreational vessel has a functioning radar, AIS, and/or VHF -- even though it may not be required -- failure to use it in an incident involving a collision with a commercial vessel that is required to have these items may subject the recreational vessel to liability if use of such equipment could have helped prevent or mitigate the incident. In other words, different "standards" don't generally translate to different levels of "responsibility."

First of all, I have understood for a long time that if a rec boat that has nav equipment aboard, they are required to use it, to level of competence they have to do so, to the extent it will help avoid an accident.

ie, Just because one has a radar on board, does not mean that you are obligated to be able to use it with the same skill and experience as a professional mariner.

They have the right to decide how to use it. And if they are not as highly competent in its use as those on the bridge's of commercial ships, that is perfectly OK under Colregs.

That comm vessels are required to have this equipment, and rec vessels aren't, is proof positive all its own, that comm vessels are held to higher standards.

[ramblinrod]

Hmmm, recent discussion raises a new question.

If a recreational boater, takes a bunch of courses and passes exams, are they now required by maritime law to use that knowledge, where a rec boater who hasn't isn't?

IOW, if John Doe has no special training and James Doe decides to get his Master's License, would a maritime court hold James to a higher level of competence expectation than John?

I know I would if I were the Judge or Jury.

[Lodesman]

C'mon Rod, do you think the PCOC program has kept people from getting into boating?

Not a personal question.
Motivation is it pertains directly to your assertion that training and/or licensing requirements will stop people from becoming boaters - no strawmen here.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Hmmm, recent discussion raises a new question.

If a recreational boater, takes a bunch of courses and passes exams, are they now required by maritime law to use that knowledge, where a rec boater who hasn't isn't?

IOW, if John Doe has no special training and James Doe decides to get his Master's License, would a maritime court hold James to a higher level of competence expectation than John?

I know I would if I were the Judge or Jury.

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. They are both held to the same legal standard - ie. guilty or not guilty of breaking a particular law.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Originally Posted by ramblinrod
I am quite sure, there are much bigger and more urgent issues that will assist the boating community; and will have a much, much, much, much greater impact.

RamblinRod: Improving gun control, war on drugs, gambling addiction eradication, are just a few things that would far better serve the boating public (and everyone). Lets spend taxpayer dollars on things that could reduce pain and suffering and improve standard of living.

None of the above are issues that affect me or any sailors that I know around here. Idiots who don't know or choose to ignore COLREGS ARE issues that affect me and many other boaters

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile

You've used the "strawman" term so much I'm surprised Kenomac hasn't yet posted a cartoon to lighten things up a bit.

I have only used the "strawman" term in a fraction of the instances where it is applicable and appropriate.

This thread has been rampant with them from the get go.

If anyone tires of my use of the term and wishes me to stop identifying instances, the solution is simple.

Stop making them.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by StuM

None of the above are issues that affect me or any sailors that I know around here. Idiots who don't know or choose to ignore COLREGS ARE issues that affect me and many other boaters

Well, I know a lot of people.

Prolly half of them are boaters.

I don't know anyone who has been killed in a rec vessel collision.

I know lots who have been hurt by substance abuse.

Far more that have been hurt on motorcycles or automobiles.

In my opinion, substance abuse is one of the biggest issues going, and far, far, far, more devastating than the knowledge or competence of the average boater.

So until that is cleaned up, I suggest holding of on mandating any additional training or licensing for boaters.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I have only used the "strawman" term in a fraction of the instances where it is applicable and appropriate.

This thread has been rampant with them from the get go.

If anyone tires of my use of the term and wishes me to stop identifying instances, the solution is simple.

Stop making them.

Rod, are you speaking to yourself? If so I agree very much with you. You should not employ strawmen anymore.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. They are both held to the same legal standard - ie. guilty or not guilty of breaking a particular law.

Strawman!

Didn't say it was.

Completely irrelevant with reference to my post.

[Exile]

Is the PCOC license mandatory for all recreational boaters in Canada, or are there limitations based on type of vessel, boat size, years of experience, etc.?

Here in the US there are no licensing or educational requirements, unless you want to use your boat for charter, in which case a USCG license is required. There are plenty of resources, like Power Squadron and USCG Auxiliary, but I imagine only a small percentage of recreational boaters avail themselves of that.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

So until that is cleaned up, I suggest holding of on mandating any additional training or licensing for boaters.

You really do see everything in absolute black and white don't you - no shades of grey.

So, do you assign ALL of your resources to your number one priority and ignore everything else? Do we have to assign the entire national budget to fighting substance abuse and ignore everything else until that problem is solved?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is the PCOC license mandatory for all recreational boaters in Canada, or are there limitations based on type of vessel, boat size, years of experience, etc.?

Here in the US there are no licensing or educational requirements, unless you want to use your boat for charter, in which case a USCG license is required. There are plenty of resources, like Power Squadron and USCG Auxiliary, but I imagine only a small percentage of recreational boaters avail themselves of that.

Who needs an Operator Card?

Everyone who operates a power-driven boat needs proof of competency — something that shows they understand the basic rules and how to safely operate a boat. The most common proof of competency is the Pleasure Craft Operator Card.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafet...q-2233.htm#who

The IYT ICC is also acceptable. It actually has a practical assessment.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

None of the above are issues that affect me or any sailors that I know around here. Idiots who don't know or choose to ignore COLREGS ARE issues that affect me and many other boaters

+1 Yes, indeedy.

As a Canadian, Rod should also be knowledgeable about the Canadian modifications to the IRPCS.