RE: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility

Craig 

 

I don't want to sound tetchy here, but you are sometimes confusing Peter's
Australian (NSW) local requirements with our NZ (Auckland) ones.
Understandable - but makes it trickier to respond ;-)

 

I'll try and stick to my own 'turf' and address those questions. Peter can
handle his own.

 

The Auckland rules (specific to oared vessels) talk about a 200m zone.
Within that shoreline strip you have much greater freedom, beyond that
distance 'offshore' you need to obey all requirements. I can't explain why
200m appealed to the law-makers - that's just how it is. 

 

I don't believe NSW has any similar 200m zone.

 

France does have something similar. Within their 300m shore-zone, you can
play with 'beach gear' (I translate loosely). Kayaks are 'beach gear' until
someone has formally applied to the French Government and received
certification of sea-worthiness for your model of kayak. If you don't have
that, you'd better not be caught 300m offshore - and even with
certification, never more than 2 miles offshore ! 

 

Note that France will automatically fail anything with a beam of less than
500mm (19.7") or a length to beam ratio under 10 - which would rule out most
of our racing kayaks and surf-skis. 

 

I hate the thought of that sort of oppressive regulation here (or anywhere
else I want to paddle). 

 

Application of ColRegs - I don't know what a roadstead is in international
law. Definitions I can find are pretty loose and indicate a place outside a
harbour where a ship can lie at anchor. Our Auckland harbourmaster controls
an 'harbour' that stretches out about 10 miles and does, I believe, include
all places a ocean-going ship would anchor. As a commercial ship entering
this 'harbour' zone, you must pick up a pilot and comply with speed
restrictions, etc. I believe that this would be similar to any commercial
harbour in the world.

 

Where you would (as I understand it) take exception, is that the Auckland
Regional Council has decided to extend its Maritime Safety Rules throughout
all waters in its territory. All of them - lakes, rivers, coastal - anything
navigable - and our definition of navigable is pretty broad. There are quite
a few restrictions that all vessels must adhere to. Some apply to unloading
explosives, some to tankers, some to occasional areas for racing, some to
water-skiing.

 

To make it worse (?) the Harbourmaster issues quite a few 'Notice to
Mariners', which add constraints for a period of hours, days or months for
special events: fireworks displays, dredging, America's Cup racing, etc.

 

I don't believe that these concepts are unique to Auckland or even limited
to NZ, Australia and France.

None of this is in the Int.ColRegs.

 


I accept your reading of the Int.ColRegs as 'intending' to be unchangeable -
and perhaps there are decisions from a court at the Hague to show that they
are ? However, I stand by my assertion that the individual countries retain
sovereignty and that within their own territorial waters they use exactly as
much of the Int.ColRegs as they see fit. This is usually most of the
standard text - with additional laws layered on top.

 

In practice (as well as in theory) they get to do this because they are the
ones enforcing the laws.


Canada very clearly inserts its modifications (to the Int.ColRegs test)
throughout the Canadian Shipping Act - and enforces the modified version.
The US does something similar. NSW also. It is rare for a jurisdiction to
just say "We will enforce the Int.ColRegs, unmodified." - Tasmania is the
only such jurisdiction I have found.

 

The finest example of a national set of regulations 'layered on top' of the
Int.ColRegs is the Canadian Small Vessel Regulations (2008). This is nearly
50 pages and goes into your obligations eg: in a racing kayak, carriage of
flares or waterproof flashlights - all the stuff Canada applies to small
boat use, everywhere. Good for them.

 

>There is certainly no safety in confusing those mariners with an 

>abundance of rules that they could not be expected to understand.
I agree with you that there would be advantages to having a set of universal
rules that no-one alters. I just don't think that many mariners expect it.
Just as they buy charts of a new cruising area, they have an obligation to
acquaint themselves with local requirements.

 

I suggest that you would struggle, in any local court - and even perhaps in
the Hague - to prove that you were justified in running over a kayak because
it was showing lights that you interpreted as belonging to a different type
of vessel or obstacle. 

 

Best Regards

Paul

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888
microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521
POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand

 

From: Craig Jungers [mailto:crjungers_at_gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2009 04:42
To: rebyl_kayak
Cc: pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz; PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility

 

(text removed to save bandwidth)
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************