Peter Rattenbury wrote: >Peter: You might be thinking of one of these for the Pittarak/Klepper, >http://www.survivalsafety.com/ <http://www.survivalsafety.com/> G'Day Peter, Good to hear from you again! Thats an interesting device though its not quite what I had in mind in that it alerts the paddler, rather than the ship with the radar transmitter. The thought I had was to actively echo back the radar pulse somewhat amplified so that the kayak could be seen on the larger ship's radar. For all I know this may be either impractical, or inappropriate as it could give a false impression on the radar screen of the larger ship. If it hasn't been thought of it might be worth exploring, though it would need to go through regulatory checks before being made available. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Gliders have much the same problem as kayaks. Because most gliders are fiberglass or even carbon fiber and their radar "footprint" is small due to their small size and radical aerodynamics they are difficult to see on the ATC screens. We can buy transponders which detect a radar signal and immediately respond with encoded date which identify the glider and even the altitude it's operating at. However the frequencies these units operate at are not the same as ship radar (which is typically 3cm and 10cm). Nevertheless, the technology is there. Kayakers could also conceivably mount an AIS transponder on their kayaks in order to show a larger return. Again, however, the problem is that no device will work unless the radar is on, it's in tune, and someone is looking at it. For the boats most likely to endanger a kayaker (e.g.: fast powerboats and fishing trawlers on autopilot) the devices would not be very useful. I still don't quite understand how local municipalities in OZ and NZ can pass regulations directly in conflict with the ColRegs. I can see how they might in the case of a lake or river which doesn't fall under international rules. But for navigable waters the ColRegs are supposed to be the same world-wide. Maybe if you have a big enough bureaocracy anything can happen. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:03 PM, rebyl_kayak < rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com> wrote: > Peter Rattenbury wrote: > >Peter: You might be thinking of one of these for the Pittarak/Klepper, > >http://www.survivalsafety.com/ <http://www.survivalsafety.com/> > > G'Day Peter, > > Good to hear from you again! Thats an interesting device though its not > quite > what I had in mind in that it alerts the paddler, rather than the ship with > the radar transmitter. > > The thought I had was to actively echo back the radar pulse somewhat > amplified > so that the kayak could be seen on the larger ship's radar. For all I know > this may be either impractical, or inappropriate as it could give a false > impression on the radar screen of the larger ship. If it hasn't been > thought > of it might be worth exploring, though it would need to go through > regulatory > checks before being made available. > > All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
If we want to be more visible and detectable in our kayaks, perhaps the answer is larger kayaks, let's say about 100 meters long and made of good quality aluminum. Paddles would be proportionately larger too. :)> Brad Crain Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > Gliders have much the same problem as kayaks. Because most gliders are > fiberglass or even carbon fiber and their radar "footprint" is small due to > their small size and radical aerodynamics they are difficult to see on the > ATC screens. We can buy transponders which detect a radar signal and > immediately respond with encoded date which identify the glider and even the > altitude it's operating at. > > However the frequencies these units operate at are not the same as ship > radar (which is typically 3cm and 10cm). Nevertheless, the technology is > there. > > Kayakers could also conceivably mount an AIS transponder on their kayaks in > order to show a larger return. > > Again, however, the problem is that no device will work unless the radar is > on, it's in tune, and someone is looking at it. For the boats most likely to > endanger a kayaker (e.g.: fast powerboats and fishing trawlers on autopilot) > the devices would not be very useful. > > I still don't quite understand how local municipalities in OZ and NZ can > pass regulations directly in conflict with the ColRegs. I can see how they > might in the case of a lake or river which doesn't fall under international > rules. But for navigable waters the ColRegs are supposed to be the same > world-wide. > > Maybe if you have a big enough bureaocracy anything can happen. > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:03 PM, rebyl_kayak < > rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com> wrote: > >> Peter Rattenbury wrote: >> >Peter: You might be thinking of one of these for the Pittarak/Klepper, >> >http://www.survivalsafety.com/ <http://www.survivalsafety.com/> >> >> G'Day Peter, >> >> Good to hear from you again! Thats an interesting device though its not >> quite >> what I had in mind in that it alerts the paddler, rather than the ship with >> the radar transmitter. >> >> The thought I had was to actively echo back the radar pulse somewhat >> amplified >> so that the kayak could be seen on the larger ship's radar. For all I know >> this may be either impractical, or inappropriate as it could give a false >> impression on the radar screen of the larger ship. If it hasn't been >> thought >> of it might be worth exploring, though it would need to go through >> regulatory >> checks before being made available. >> >> All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
What is the longest kayak? I've never paddled a kayak longer that a K4, but I paddle approximately 40 foot long canoes and love them (outrigger 6, twin hulled outrigger 12, and 22 person dragon boat). Are there kayaks out there longer than K4s? Richard Culpeper -----Original Message-----: Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility If we want to be more visible and detectable in our kayaks, perhaps the answer is larger kayaks, let's say about 100 meters long and made of good quality aluminum. Paddles would be proportionately larger too. :)> Brad Crain *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> What is the longest kayak? I've never paddled a kayak longer that a K4, but > I paddle approximately 40 foot long canoes and love them (outrigger 6, twin > hulled outrigger 12, and 22 person dragon boat). Are there kayaks out there > longer than K4s? George Dyson built a 48 foot monster "baidarka" that had stations for six paddlers! Of course I guess it all depends on just how you define "kayak", or "baidarka." Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
What is the longest kayak? When I began sprint racing (in 1966) my coach was a Hungarian immigrant who had been a champion paddler in his homeland. He said that the normal practice there was to put a superior paddler in the front of a double or four and have the newer paddlers learn by imitating his stroke from directly behind. In those days the Hungarians built their own boats and paddles, so they decided to go for the ultimate. They made an eight man sprint kayak. It had two rudders, one controlled by the bow paddler, the other by the second cockpit. He never told me how long it was, but it must have been huge. A modern k-4 is 11 meters long, so the eight would have been over fifty feet, I imagine. My coach said the first time the K-8 went out, they broke it in half trying to turn around a bridge on the Danube. Since we easily pulled a water skier on more than one occasion with a four, the eight could probably hit amazing speeds. Jim Tibensky *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'day Craig, A single clearly visible navigation light is mandatory at night for a kayak in New South Wales waters and I believe that is what the ColRegs require for a vessel under oars (I guess a paddle for this purpose is an oar). A red light for port and a green one for starboard is also recommended but not mandatory for kayaks and its really hard to find a good water proof set so most of us don't use the port and starboard lights just one or two white lights. I've no reason to believe that Australia doesn't comply with ColRegs and would be very suprised if NZ didn't comply. I wasn't following the discussion closely enough so may have missed the instance in which NZ appeared to be going their own way re ColRegs? Was that the case? BTW enjoyed your strategy for defusing a bar room brawl! All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:30 AM, rebyl_kayak said: > > > > A single clearly visible navigation light is mandatory at night for a kayak > in > New South Wales waters and I believe that is what the ColRegs require for a > vessel under oars (I guess a paddle for this purpose is an oar). The ColRegs, at least as published in the USA (and I always thought they were identical for all signatory countries) only address a hand-powered vessel (vessel under oars) one time and that is when it concerns lights. Rule 25 covers both sailing vessels and vessels under oars and the applicable portion reads: "A vessel under oars<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25dii.htm>may exhibit the lights prescribed in this rule for sailing vessels, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision." The only reference in the ColRegs to an all-around white light is in Rule 23 whch concerns powerboats. The rules for powerboats are divided into those under 7m, those under 12m and everything else. Apparently NSW is lumping kayaks in with powerboats under 7m because that reads: "*a power-driven vessel of less than 7 meters<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_23cii.htm>in length whose maximum speed does not exceed 7 knots may in lieu of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule exhibit an all-round white light and shall, if practicable, also exhibit sidelights.* [Intl] > A red light > for port and a green one for starboard is also recommended but not > mandatory > for kayaks and its really hard to find a good water proof set so most of us > don't use the port and starboard lights just one or two white lights. There is nothing in the ColRegs covering vessels under oars which mentions two white lights.A second masthead light is required for powered vessels of over 50m (these provide a "range" for determining the heading of the vessel when viewed from the bridge of another vessel). > I've no > reason to believe that Australia doesn't comply with ColRegs and would be > very > suprised if NZ didn't comply. It appears to me that NSW is not in compliance with the International ColRegs rule 25 covering vessels under oars and is, instead, defining them as powerboats and covering them under Rule 23. I wasn't following the discussion closely enough so may have missed the > instance in which NZ appeared to be going their own way re ColRegs? Was > that > the case? The discussion regarding NZ was that it appears (to me, at least, from the posts) that NZ local jurisdictions were devising their own rules for kayaks without regard to the ColRegs; even in navigable waters. One of the confusing issues regarding navigation lights is that the ColRegs only cover navigable waterways which are usually defined as waterways on which "commerce" is carried. Lakes and rivers which do not have "commerce" are left to the jurisdiction of localities. Here in the USA there are local "navigation rules" set forth by individual municipalities which are often (very often) not the same as the ColRegs. For a kayaker these can be very confusing. As far as a "single white light visible for two miles" it's my own belief that this is the least useful of all the lights in a harbor or near shore situation because there are so many white lights. Even on a dark night with no lights on shore a single all-around white light can be dangerous if an impaired powerboat operator (e.g.: drunk) fixates on the light and ends up aiming for it (this almost certainly occured in the NE USA a few years ago in an accident where the kayak was cut in half while trying desperately to avoid the collision... see www.seakayakermagazine.com). So if you want to fight over-regulation of these "rules" I think one course of action is to point out that they are not in compliance with the ColRegs. > BTW enjoyed your strategy for defusing a bar room brawl! > Thanks. :)' ' ' Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig & Peter Yesterday, I posted a fairly complete description of the ins & outs of NZ (and other countries) compliance with the International ColRegs. But as I'm still on PaddleWise 'probation' - you may have to wait a little while to read it ;-) First, let's do a quick run-down of what the lighting requirements in the International ColRegs require of boats similar in size to kayaks: (1) A smallish vessel (under 50m) at anchor must exhibit a all-round white light, visible for 2 nm (nautical-miles). (2) A powerboat under 7m "whose maximum speed does not exceed 7 knots" must exhibit a all-round white light (2 nm), If practicable, she shall also exhibit sidelights (ie: red & green 1 nm). (3) A sailboat under 7m shall, "if practicable, exhibit the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this Rule, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision." The lights in (a) are the typical red, green & stern (white) lights - with (b) being some optional masthead lights. (4) "A vessel under oars may exhibit the lights prescribed in this Rule for sailing vessels, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision." The above contains some verbatim quotes and the rest is a careful paraphrase. Now, to sum up and look at what individual jurisdictions do with these guidelines: International: We can see from this that a kayak has no limits to length or speed and shouldn't really exhibit an all-round light, unless she wants to be taken for a moving <7m power-boat (who must give way to sailboats). A kayak seems to be obliged to either run red-green-stern lights or just carry a display-at-need white light for collision prevention. USA: From a quick look at the American (Federal Level) Navigation Rules, the kayak-lighting situation appears to be a word-for-word copy of the Int.ColRegs. NZ: National Maritime Rules also specify an identical kayak-lighting requirement. Last year, a local Auckland bylaw was introduced to make all kayaks carry a permanent 2nm all-round white light _AND_ a torch/lantern. As this is a pretty terrible idea in a kayak group relying on night-vision, we are working to have this fixed. Australia: From what I can make out, rather than a national set of Maritime Rules, the individual states have separate Maritime Acts. Looking at the state of Western Australia, its wording (relating to kayak lighting) appears again to be the same as the Int.ColRegs. Tasmania makes it easy - they just point at the Int.ColRegs. Someone from Australia may be able to comment on all the other Australian jurisdictions - and to what extent local bodies layer additional requirements on top of these state ones. Canada: Sailboats & oars get away with the Int.ColRegs wording. However, Canada is tough on small powerboats - the single white light possibility is forbidden - the full R-G-S are required. Also, every light (or whistle, radar-reflector, etc) that you are required to have on board must have a label (or you must carry a certificate) to prove that is certified. Note that the Int.ColRegs don't anywhere mention vessels with paddles - we all just assume that "under oars" includes kayaks. There's a FAQ for the US Rules (but not the rules themselves), which lumps canoes & kayaks into the 'vessel under oars' category - which is all I can find anywhere - but not all that helpful ;-) Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: Nicely done, Paul. > > NZ: National Maritime Rules also specify an identical kayak-lighting > requirement. Last year, a local Auckland bylaw was introduced to make all > kayaks carry a permanent 2nm all-round white light _AND_ a torch/lantern. > As > this is a pretty terrible idea in a kayak group relying on night-vision, we > are working to have this fixed. Not to mention that a sailboat skipper would expect the kayak to be the "give way" vessel under all conditions; even when the kayaker has the obligation to stand on. Canada: Sailboats & oars get away with the Int.ColRegs wording. However, > Canada is tough on small powerboats - the single white light possibility is > forbidden - the full R-G-S are required. Also, every light (or whistle, > radar-reflector, etc) that you are required to have on board must have a > label (or you must carry a certificate) to prove that is certified. I really don't have a problem with r-g-s nav lights on most powerboats but the outboard-powered fishing skiff (all open) might be difficult to fit with nag lights. I'd prefer to see a single R-G-S combined light on a staff. Certificates must be what keeps 'em employed. :) Note that the Int.ColRegs don't anywhere mention vessels with paddles - we > all just assume that "under oars" includes kayaks. There's a FAQ for the US > Rules (but not the rules themselves), which lumps canoes & kayaks into the > 'vessel under oars' category - which is all I can find anywhere - but not > all that helpful ;-) > Seems to me that a paddle most closely conforms to the definition of an "oar"; especially when contrasted with "sail" and "engine". Thanks for the clarification. So how do individual local jurisdictions manage to enforce navigational rules which are at odds with the International Rules? No one bothers to tell them that they aren't supposed to do that? Or are there loopholes? Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Thanks for the kind words. > how do individual local jurisdictions manage to enforce navigational rules which are at odds with the International Rules? I believe you are looking at it back-to-front ;-) The International ColRegs are just a guideline - even for those who have signed up to them. The only people with enforcement capability _are_ the local / national jurisdictions. They enforce whatever rules they like. If they like the International ColRegs wording, they copy it. Or they modify it any darn way they see fit - and then they enforce whatever they have created. With whatever penalties they specify for infringements. There is no Int.ColRegs police force anywhere. The only place you might argue that the International ColRegs are not subject to local re-writing is in International waters. I'm not even sure that is true, because (for example) Canadian registered vessels are subject to Canadian law everywhere - unless it is overpowered by another country's jurisdiction - and the Canadian Shipping Act (which includes the Canadian version of the ColRegs) specifies that Canadian vessels in International Waters must abide by a few special clauses. I don't think (again, my reading) that these special clauses can be criticised as 'bad', because they impose stricter requirements on Canadian Vessels - not slacker ones. However, it illustrates the fact that the Int.ColRegs don't automatically 'Rule' anywhere. I also doubt that many Navies of the world obey the Int.ColRegs 100%. Yes they will obey them when they can, but there are certain elements of a night-time torpedo run that work better if you put the rule book away ;-) Best Regards Paul *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul wrote >These do already exist - for example: >www.speedseal.com/seame/howseameworks.htm G'day Paul, That was the kind of device I was thinking of. Very interested to see it exists and is legal (at least in the US). Also to see the performance specs. The warnings by yourself and others regarding power boaters who don't have radar, and those who do but don't use it, are very apt so I'll probably not buy the enhanced radar reflector but the ancient engineer in me was intrigued to know that it existed and also to hear of the coded response techniques raised by Peter and Craig. I already use lights at night and during the day sometimes tie a red flag to my kayak sailing mast so when crossing a channel I will quite often raise the mast with the flag. What really appeals though is one of those compressed air horns - I'd probably become a real kayak hoon if I had one of those! All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:38 AM, rebyl_kayak < rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com> wrote: > > What really appeals though is one of those compressed air horns - I'd > probably > become a real kayak hoon if I had one of those! > > The picture in my mind of you in your kayak with a compressed air horn tickled my fancy. :) I got an Apple Iphone a month or so back and one of the applications you can download features an image of one of those little horns. When you press the image it gives a pretty good imitation of the sound they make. Not as loud, however. The kids love it!!! Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul wrote >The International ColRegs are just a guideline - even for those who have signed up to them. Craig wrote >So how do individual local jurisdictions manage to enforce navigational rules which are at odds with the >International Rules? No one bothers to tell them that they aren't supposed to do that? Or are there loopholes? G'Day Paul and Craig, Paul's point makes sense. The International Regs opens up with the paragraph (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. And certainly it is an "ordinary practice of seamen-kayakers" to make a kayak visible for 360 degrees on the water at night in busy Sydney Harbour. Sadly some power boaters do not and we occasionally hear of terrible accidents leading to death and protracted court cases. In any case whern I read the rules I see nothing that suggest that placing a light of reasonabler luminance -- not sufficient to blind - on the fron and rear of the kayak or on a masthead. Thus the rules: - Rule 22 visibility of lights (d) In inconspicuous, partly submerged vessels or objects being towed; a white all-round light; 3 miles. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Apologies I accidentally sent an incomplete version of this earlier - here's the full version. Paul wrote >The International ColRegs are just a guideline - even for those who have signed up to them. Craig wrote >So how do individual local jurisdictions manage to enforce navigational rules which are at odds with the >International Rules? No one bothers to tell them that they aren't supposed to do that? Or are there loopholes? G'Day Paul and Craig, The International ColRegs opens up with the paragraph: Rule 1 (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. Certainly it is an "ordinary practice of seamen-<kayakers>" to make a kayak visible for 360 degrees on the water at night in busy Sydney Harbour. Sadly some power boaters do not and we occasionally hear of terrible accidents leading to death and protracted court cases In any case when I read the rules I saw nothing that suggest that placing a light of reasonable luminance -- not sufficient to blind - on the front and rear of the kayak or on a masthead contravenes ColRegs. Thus ColRegs: - Rule 25 (d) (i) A sailing vessel of less than 7 meters in length shall, if practicable, exhibit the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this Rule, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision. (ii) A vessel under oars may exhibit the lights prescribed in this rule for sailing vessels, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision. While rule 25 is quite consistent with maritime pratise in NSW there is a fundamental difference between a vessel under oars and a kayak in that a vessel under oars is usally not continuously able to look where it is going. Perhaps rule 22 is more pertinent and again it is quite consistent with maritime practice in NSW. Likewise the issue of using a combination of flashing and steady light is a bit unusual but not prohibited in the ColRegs as far as I can see and not a mandatory requirement on the water in NSW. In fact I don't know anyone who uses this combination over here. Rule 22 visibility of lights (d) In inconspicuous, partly submerged vessels or objects being towed; a white all-round light; 3 miles. NSW Maritime Rules Rowing/Paddle Vessels Such craft must have a torch or lantern ready to display in time to prevent a collision. Craft that are more than 4 metres long should exhibit two all-round lights either continuous, or combination of continuous and flashing white lights, positioned at either end. Note: There are many other combinations of lights used on vessels, the lights shown relate to the activity the vessel is engaged in ie., fishing, dredging, not under command. A simple rule of thumb for a small power boat is to stay clear of any vessels exhibiting additional lights. Hope this provides some reassurance that the rules are reasonably sensible for kayakers in this neck of the woods. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, rebyl_kayak < rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com> wrote: > > Hope this provides some reassurance that the rules are reasonably sensible > for kayakers in this neck of the woods. > > Hey, as long as you are happy with having two, not one but TWO, bright white lights mounted on your kayak at night, I wish you all the best. But I have to tell you that those "rules" do not conform to any International convention for navigation that I know of. And if you dont want to have every local jurisdiction in the country impose their own ideas of whats "safe" then you might want to use that argument to keep them from making you wear sunglasses at night. And while Paul Hayward might assume that no agency "enforces" those ColRegs then he's never bought voyage insurance because there are places you cannot send a ship if you want it insured. And those places pay very high shipping rates to those willing to undertake the risk on their own. If you want service, then you have to play by the Rules. :) Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter & Craig I also paddle along a coast with lots of bright, white house lights on-shore. I soon realised that the white all-round light I then used was largely invisible against this background of 'light pollution'. Not all fishermen drink too much beer before zooming back to the ramp in the evening, but there are a few... I wanted something that stood out, but I wanted to avoid becoming 'part of the problem' - which I felt I might do by using a red, green, yellow or strobe light, all of which are meaningful in a maritime context and could cause someone else to come to grief. So I hunted for a light that was not yet spoken for. The one I have built, used and found to be very effective over the 5 years I've deployed it - is a blue light. Not a flashing blue - that is reserved for our police vessels. The non-flashing blue is not reserved for any other task in NZ law or in our local bylaws. In the Int.ColRegs, non-flashing blues are reserved for UN food vessels, but luckily we don't have any. If small & slow vessels (targets, speed-bumps - call them what you will) are seriously endangered by faster vessels that don't see them, then there is a very easy solution to that. Given the challenge to make such vessels (power, sail & human-powered - maybe restricted to less than 7 knots) standout in light-cluttered environments, cheaply, easily and certainly - the solution isn't particularly hard. Something multi-coloured and rapidly flashing. As LED technology and clever light-control circuitry gets cheaper & more easily programmed, the world of maritime lighting could standardise on a small-vessel signal consisting of a number of colours alternating rapidly - something that cannot be confused with a strobe red or green - or anything else. The technology is nearly here (well it is here, but still a bit expensive for one-offs) but I see no sign of any Maritime Safety authorities wanting to get their technology advanced beyond the oil-lantern stage. Best Regards Paul *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, rebyl_kayak The ColRegs are not just a guideline. They are supposed to be specific navigational rules easily understood by mariners the world over. Rule 1 does allow for some leeway inside harbors and on navigable rivers but other than that they are supposed to be followed to the letter by the signatory governments. > > Certainly it is an "ordinary practice of seamen-<kayakers>" to make a kayak > visible for 360 degrees on the water at night in busy Sydney Harbour. Sadly > some power boaters do not and we occasionally hear of terrible accidents > leading to death and protracted court cases > Actually, I believe it is not "ordinary practice" of kayakers to make a kayak visible for 360 degrees on the water at night. There is a fair body of evidence to show that many kayakers prefer to conform to the ColRegs requirement of a decent flashlight. The prompt use of a good flashlight (and there are lots of them available that are waterproof, bright, and sometimes work by only shaking them) can be even better than a continuous light because you can move it in patterns that will show an approaching vessel that you are not a buoy or pier or something they might consider docking to. The ordinary priactice is to use the ColRegs rules, I think. > In any case when I read the rules I saw nothing that suggest that placing a > light of reasonable luminance -- not sufficient to blind - on the front and > rear of the kayak or on a masthead contravenes ColRegs. Thus ColRegs: - > The Rules try to specify what to use. They don't go into detail about what NOT to use. If it's not listed then it should not be used. Otherwise we'd have a plethora of individualized lights out there dependent only upon someone's opinion. And no one from somewhere else would have a clue what is going on. It's like saying that your driving laws specify driving on the left but don't specifically say that driving in the middle is prohibited. And then acting on it. > While rule 25 is quite consistent with maritime pratise in NSW > How can Rule 25 be consistent with maritime practice in NSW when your local rules specify two white lights (bow and stern)? There is no mention of this light anywhere in the ColRegs and certainly not in Rule 25. > there is a fundamental difference between a vessel under oars and a kayak > in that a vessel under oars is usally not continuously able to look where it > is going. > I think that trying to redefine a kayak as something else for the purposes of lights because you look forward and not rearward is a stretch. After all, you can row a boat facing forward; I've done it many times. It is much more likely that a maritime court would assume that a paddle is simply a double-ended oar. > Perhaps rule 22 is more pertinent and again it is quite consistent with > maritime practice in NSW. > Perhaps you mean Rule 23 (power driven vessels) and not Rule 22 (visibility of lights). But again, no mention of two white lights (bow and stern) for these either. How is that consistent? > Likewise the issue of using a combination of flashing and steady light is a > bit unusual but not prohibited in the ColRegs as far as I can see and not a > mandatory requirement on the water in NSW. In fact I don't know anyone who > uses this combination over here. > Again, the ColRegs do not tell you what you cannot use. They assume that if they specify what the Rules are you can interpret them and use them properly. Flashing lights are generally reserved for navigational markers or emergencies. One of the other reasons for the ColRegs is to differentiate types of vessels. A steady white light on a mast would normally indicate a powerboat less than 12 meters in length. A flashing white light would normally be on a buoy. Rule 1 of the ColRegs does allow local governments to create localized rules that would be applicable to only those areas. But if I read it right the NSW rules are applicable to vessels operating over 200meters (or is it 300?) from shore. This implies that the dual lights would be required in what would be waters outside harbors, rivers, etc. that are covered under Rule 1. Or does it only mean 200 meters away from the beach in Sydney Harbor? In a harbor, where a Pilot must be carried on ships, a deck officer dosn't need local knowledge so Rule 1 was written to allow authorities some freedom to establish speed limits, etc. But it admonishes municipalities not to vary too far from the literal Rules. This is because even though Pilotage is required for large ships there are many other vessels that enter harbors as part of an international voyage that would not be required to take a Pilot aboard. There is certainly no safety in confusing those mariners with an abundance of rules that they could not be expected to understand. Paul's contention that the ColRegs are simply the basis for the rules and local rules are layered onto them does not fit with a professional mariner's view of the ColRegs. That practice (layering upon them) would create a hodgepodge of localized rules that make sense only to locals. This is exactly the situation the ColRegs were designed to eliminate. It's much easier for everyone to simply use the ColRegs and create educational systems that help everyone understand them. This way a deck officer steaming coastwise along Australia or Chile or Brazil or wherever can have confidence that (s)he understands what (s)he is seeing. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem is the refusal of so many boaters to reduce their speed when necessary (Rule 6 of the ColRegs) or to keep a proper lookout (Rule 5). Enforce that and most problems simply go away. By the way, Rule 5 specifies that one must also be listening ("by sight and hearing") which would preclude paddling while having one's ipod's earphones plugged into one's ears. A navigational rule many paddlers ignore. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > 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. > It's late here so a quick note. A maritime court would apportion damages depending upon how much in the wrong one or both parties were. In this case the court would be asked to look at mitigating circumstances and the actions of the mariners (both mariners) leading up to the accident. So, for instance, if a ship made an emergency turn and ran into a wharf to avoid a kayak that was showing a blue light (for instance) and the watch officer did not recognize it as a vessel until the last moment it's possible that the kayaker would be apportioned some of the damages. Most collisions at sea have a share of blame on both sides and maritime courts generally apportion damages. A "roadstead" is usually outside a harbor and is often where a ship anchors awaiting clearance to enter the country. Sometimes pilotage is required but usually not. In Panama, for instance, the roadstead outside the canal is not pilotage waters but to enter the harbor (into Cristobal) a pilot would be required. The pilot then would probably re-anchor the ship in a specific place inside the harbor. If you can transit through an area without a pilot then most mariners would not expect to take aboard a pilot for anchoring. Mind you, ships can anchor in areas most people would not consider an "anchorage". I think you may also be confusing the ColRegs with navigation rules. While there are restricted areas in navigable waters these are either short-lived (and announced on the VHF) or permanent and marked on charts. Strictly speaking this is not an application of the ColRegs. The ColRegs deal with how to recognize the course another vessel is on, how to announce to that other vessel your intentions, what is expected of a watch stander, and how to maneuver to avoid a collision between vessels. It does not, for instance, cover buoyage or navigational markers. The existence of the ColRegs was designed to lessen local regulatory control over the way boats display navigational information so that every mariner would be confident of making a good decision. Canada does require certain items to be carried on board a kayak but this, again, is not a matter for ColRegs. Restricted areas are also not a matter for the ColRegs. Navigation lights on vessels, on the other hand, are. The addition of two lights, for instance, on a kayak would be a change to the ColRegs light rules that could - if extended into areas traversed by international maritime vessels - be misinterpreted. If the local regulations simply mandated that all kayaks display red/green/white nav lights then I would not have a problem (as a professional mariner, at least). Everyone recognizes those and the ColRegs do make that a condition. If France wants to restrict kayaks to 2km from shore that is certainly their perogative and the ColRegs has nothing to say about it. But if they mandate the display of flashing white lights on those kayaks it would inevitably lead to confusion because the ColRegs state - and mariners the world over learn - that flashing white lights are not on moving vessels. Intrusion of "local control" into navigable waters seems to me to be troubling. But I only mentioned this in the beginning because some of you have stated that you are troubled by the over-regulation of kayakers and I felt that you might be able to use these arguments successfully before the local councils (or whomever promulgates the rules in your jurisdiction). Local jurisdictions could do few things more confusing to international commerce than fiddle with the ColRegs. Now I see you all defending these local rules. Since I will almost certainly never again pilot a ship in the s. hemisphere or paddle a kayak there then I'm only concerned on a "concerned international citizen" basis. If you want them to light a kayak up like a christmas tree then I have no argument other than it seems like I'd pitch a serious bitch if they tried to do it to me. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Thanks for laying that out so carefully for us - you've done an admirable job. I accept that many of my arguments need work. As a result, I shall ask our Maritime Safety people a number of questions. I am aware of the 'blame on both sides' and 'damage apportionment' tradition of maritime courts and I do not seek to be an outlaw - nor yet a scofflaw. Our Maritime Safety Authority has for years recommended that the minimum required lighting for a kayak be _exceeded_. The obvious way to do this is with a standard R-G-W setup - but until the last few years this has not been feasible on a kayak. (Some would question if it is yet feasible.) So, the MSA has suggested the use of an all-round white light on a mast. Recommended it - not required it - leaving it up to the individual when it is good to display it. The kayaking community has responded as might be expected. The don't-give-a-damn boys don't carry any lights, some carry just a torch and the majority use a pole light with a torch back-up. Our clubs won't let you go on a night paddle without a permanent 360 light - but it is often (especially in a group) just a chemical light-stick or one of those orange CG-approved lifejacket lights. Pretty minimal as a light, but don't forget the torches for legality. However, I have had one too many cases when a somewhat-pissed or just very inattentive PDV (power-driven vessel) has zoomed towards me on his (yes it usually is a 'his') way back to the boat ramp after a day's fishing. I built up to a pretty bright - well over 2nm - all-round white light for solo training and still they could easily ignore me, with me moving so slowly against the well-lit background. Yes, I would flash my torch and it worked - but it was kind of a 'last resort' and just didn't feel particularly safe. The great bulk of our regular coastal paddlers, training after dark in their kayaks along our heavily populated and light-polluted coastline, have dreamed up all sorts of 'STAND-OUT' lights. The most popular, borrowed from our push-biking friends, is the red strobe. I guess it works - there is a reef visible outside my window with a red flashing beacon on the end of it - so it works very well to keep the PDV's away. Some argue that you don't easily confuse an electronic strobe with a flashing beacon - very different flash rate - but I don't favour this solution myself. I think it is clearly illegal. I chose to make a blue light, which has no other designated maritime use (UN aside). If another vessel approaches it at such a speed that he is forced to take evasive action into a nearby wharf - I shall have to live with the guilt and possibly the damage apportioned to me by a maritime court. I shall also, presumably, always wonder what he would have done if I'd shone my torch at him suddenly. In the final analysis, I shall probably be alive to feel the guilt and to wonder. My experience with the blue light is that it works. Vessels spot it from afar and either detour round it (at high speed) as an unknown obstacle - or (out of sheer curiosity) slow right down and approach it at about 5 knots until they can see what it is. Either way works to keep us both safe. So, that is the past 10 years. Now comes a bylaw to make a 2nm white light mandatory at all times. Very, very few of our kayaking community think this is a good idea. 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 19:20 To: pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz Cc: PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net; rebyl_kayak Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: 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. It's late here so a quick note. A maritime court would apportion damages depending upon how much in the wrong one or both parties were. In this case the court would be asked to look at mitigating circumstances and the actions of the mariners (both mariners) leading up to the accident. So, for instance, if a ship made an emergency turn and ran into a wharf to avoid a kayak that was showing a blue light (for instance) and the watch officer did not recognize it as a vessel until the last moment it's possible that the kayaker would be apportioned some of the damages. Most collisions at sea have a share of blame on both sides and maritime courts generally apportion damages. A "roadstead" is usually outside a harbor and is often where a ship anchors awaiting clearance to enter the country. Sometimes pilotage is required but usually not. In Panama, for instance, the roadstead outside the canal is not pilotage waters but to enter the harbor (into Cristobal) a pilot would be required. The pilot then would probably re-anchor the ship in a specific place inside the harbor. If you can transit through an area without a pilot then most mariners would not expect to take aboard a pilot for anchoring. Mind you, ships can anchor in areas most people would not consider an "anchorage". I think you may also be confusing the ColRegs with navigation rules. While there are restricted areas in navigable waters these are either short-lived (and announced on the VHF) or permanent and marked on charts. Strictly speaking this is not an application of the ColRegs. The ColRegs deal with how to recognize the course another vessel is on, how to announce to that other vessel your intentions, what is expected of a watch stander, and how to maneuver to avoid a collision between vessels. It does not, for instance, cover buoyage or navigational markers. The existence of the ColRegs was designed to lessen local regulatory control over the way boats display navigational information so that every mariner would be confident of making a good decision. Canada does require certain items to be carried on board a kayak but this, again, is not a matter for ColRegs. Restricted areas are also not a matter for the ColRegs. Navigation lights on vessels, on the other hand, are. The addition of two lights, for instance, on a kayak would be a change to the ColRegs light rules that could - if extended into areas traversed by international maritime vessels - be misinterpreted. If the local regulations simply mandated that all kayaks display red/green/white nav lights then I would not have a problem (as a professional mariner, at least). Everyone recognizes those and the ColRegs do make that a condition. If France wants to restrict kayaks to 2km from shore that is certainly their perogative and the ColRegs has nothing to say about it. But if they mandate the display of flashing white lights on those kayaks it would inevitably lead to confusion because the ColRegs state - and mariners the world over learn - that flashing white lights are not on moving vessels. Intrusion of "local control" into navigable waters seems to me to be troubling. But I only mentioned this in the beginning because some of you have stated that you are troubled by the over-regulation of kayakers and I felt that you might be able to use these arguments successfully before the local councils (or whomever promulgates the rules in your jurisdiction). Local jurisdictions could do few things more confusing to international commerce than fiddle with the ColRegs. Now I see you all defending these local rules. Since I will almost certainly never again pilot a ship in the s. hemisphere or paddle a kayak there then I'm only concerned on a "concerned international citizen" basis. If you want them to light a kayak up like a christmas tree then I have no argument other than it seems like I'd pitch a serious bitch if they tried to do it to me. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
How does Auckland propose to accommodate a kayak that crosses in and out of the 200m zone? Do you need their "local-special" lighting within, and "international-standard" without? GaryJ Paul Hayward wrote: > 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. > 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 ! *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Gary A reasonable question, but I believe that the answer is just the opposite of what you suggest. If you are on ARC's (Auckland Region Council) navigable water (which for us seems to run up to water's edge, then you must fulfil the minimum of the Int.ColRegs - to show a light 'in sufficient time'. If you are out beyond 200m from shore, then you must _also_ fulfil the ARC bylaw requirements - to show it all the time and all-round. Presumably, out beyond the 12-mile limit, you are free of any NZ regulation and can fall back to the minimum required by the Int.ColRegs. I am amused that a careful re-reading of the Int.ColRegs Section 25-d-ii seems to allow a kayak (if it so wishes) to show a single 360 white light anywhere in the world that these rules apply. Although I believe that it should be defined in Section 21, the word lantern is not defined anywhere in the Int.ColRegs. If we accept the traditional use of the word, it surely includes an all-round lamp. You are obliged to show it 'in sufficient time'. What's stopping you just hanging the damn thing up and leaving it there ? Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Gary J. MacDonald [mailto:garyj_at_rogers.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2009 22:45 To: pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz Cc: PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net; 'Craig Jungers'; 'rebyl_kayak' Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility How does Auckland propose to accommodate a kayak that crosses in and out of the 200m zone? Do you need their "local-special" lighting within, and "international-standard" without? GaryJ Paul Hayward wrote: > 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. > 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 ! *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
>> Hope this provides some reassurance that the rules are reasonably sensible >> for kayakers in this neck of the woods. >> Sometimes the rules may be sensible but the application is not. About 10 or so years ago in Pennsylvania, a PF&B officer ticketed a kayaker on Muddy Creek, a whitewater river, for not having all three required items on his person. The paddler had on: a PFD; with an attached whistle, but he did not have a flashlight. (On a ww river in broad daylight). It went to court and the judge instantly threw it out, taking the time to tell the officer never, not ever, to press that charge again. Since then the rules have changed -- a light visible from all directions is now required at only a few open water locations such as Lake Erie where ColRegs would apply, and only at night. Joe P. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Jun 26, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Joe P. wrote: Sometimes the rules may be sensible but the application is not. This reminds me of a humorous story. While kayaking on the Ocoee river my instructor commented on all of the rednecks swimming in the river without a PFD. I PFD must be worn by all boating or not. He wondered aloud why the rangers, who were present, werent ticketing them. The other instructor said he once asked a ranger that same question because a kayaker would not be allowed to get away with it. The ranger's response was that kayakers dont threaten to shoot you when you hand them a $50 ticket. Local Ocoee rednecks tend to lean that way. Jim et al *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day Paul, Craig and all, Thanks everyone for this discussion.and Paul for the lighting analysis and potential solution, something to think about. I'm afraid my email response to Craig didn't make it through the Paddlewise filter so I'm copying it again but without the quotation from ColRegs. Back to ColRegs: - If there's no room for interpretation by a local maritime authority then ColRegs seems to be imposing two unsafe alternatives on kayakers. Either run the risk of night blindness in a group because of multiple lights capable of being seen at 2 to 3 miles. Or use a torch or lantern and trust that in choppy water in the dark, it can be found and switched on in time to avoid a collision with a fast moving sail or powerboat. I use two lights fore and aft because that way I get 360 degree illumination while retaining an ability to roll. As mentioned previously, these are relatively low luminance torches to avoid night blindness in myself and my paddling buddies. This complies perfectly with our club regulations, those of NSW Maritime and with ColRegs because of rules 1 and 2. Thank heavens that NSW Maritime and our local insurance company allows this. Fortunately it's also very clear that the ColRegs allows the use of local judgement and doesn't intend to encourage unsafe practise. Reference Rules 1 and 2 of ColRegs "Application" and "Responsibility" All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Human activity always seems to involve a compromise. Bit like kayaks ;-) Local interpretation of International standards gives us flexibility to do good & necessary things (that are perhaps necessary only because of local conditions) - and sadly they also give the flexibility to do dumb-ass things because of inadequate experience by local regulators. At the public hearing (a few weeks ago) on kayak visibility, the Councillors were concerned that a 'torch displayed in time...' would be hard to do in rough conditions. As you might expect, we were dealing with elected representatives who had no kayaking experience and undoubtedly felt we were all flirting with disaster at the best of times. In responding to Councillors' questions, I was able to show my LED head-torch - which I normally wear when kayaking 'in traffic' at night. I know (from the comments of paddling buddies) that it easily works at one-km - and has quite a 'cold' white colour that makes it stand out. I prefer it to the standard type of big floating 6-volt torch that you might keep in a car boot - simply because it is always 'to hand' and can be easily directed where I'm looking (compass, reef or oncoming powerboat) while keeping both hands on the paddle. In fact, that head-torch is small enough and useful enough that it lives in my day-hatch and finds use in sea-caves and often for putting up or striking the tent. The head-torch explanation brought immediate relaxation to the Councillors - they could see that an alternative to a fixed and 'always-on' light could be made to work quite easily. We are awaiting the final wording of the bylaw and very much hope that the choice of fixed light or torch will remain at the discretion of the individual kayaker. Personally, if I am kayaking solo in traffic I'll continue to run my 360-fixed-blue plus my head-torch (turned on as necessary). This seems to keep me alive. When rock-hopping with a moon and in a group, I'll switch them all off. I believe that these are the safe & sensible responses to the conditions - let's hope they remain legal. Best Regards Paul *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day Peter, Craig and All, Hope I can do justice to your questions: - ORIGIN OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT Several years ago NSW Maritime Services, who I've always found reasonably sympathetic to kayaking issues, asked for submissions for a code of conduct for kayakers and rowers on Sydney Harbour. The NSWSKC and some of its members including myself, made submissions that seem to have been effective (mine didn't involve lighting). The need for a code of conduct came after jet skiers had been banned from the harbour following the actions of a few renegades that had outraged the public. I think there was also some pressure from commercial boating interests to remove or otherwise tightly control kayakers in the harbour. The code helped to stop this from happening. The code of conduct can be seen on http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/rec_boating/CodeOfConduct.html <http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/rec_boating/CodeOfConduct.html> As you are probably aware there have been deaths on the harbour through boaters not showing lights and the courts can treat those responsible, if they have survived, very severely. DO MOST PADDLERS COMPLY I've never done any kind of survey but am reasonably sure that the majority of night paddles around the Sydney environs are by members of the NSWSKC. The code of conduct follows very closely the normal practise used by NSWSKC and I have never heard of a paddler on Sydney Harbour who did not follow that practise. At least not one that was still alive. I'm told a couple died many years ago. I expect there may still be a few who don't know any better. DO MY TORCHES MEET THE 1km REQUIREMENTS For several years I paddled at night every week and early on must have spent a fortune on red lamps, green lamps, strobe lamps, LED torches etc. None of which proved particularly reliable under the conditions we paddle in. Finally I came across a $10 waterproof torch that used off the shelf parts and was incredibly reliable. A bit heavy on the batteries but I use rechargeables for environmental, cost and safety reasons. http://www.whitworths.com.au/main_itemdetail.asp?item=89888&search123=torch&i ntAbsolutePage=1 <http://www.whitworths.com.au/main_itemdetail.asp?item=89888&search123=torch& intAbsolutePage=1> I'm putting the link up just to illustrate the torches. I have no financial interest in the company that makes them. Wish I did! Never measured the distance but many of us use these torches and they are clearly visible from a good practical distance provided your batteries are charged. And I'd be very surprised if they were not visible at 1km. I'll check next time I'm on the water at night. ARE THEY EFFECTIVE AT KEEPING OTHER BOATS AT BAY Never had any problem, haven't been sworn at by any boaters at night and not aware of any incident reports from the club. Rock fishermen can certainly see us coming judging by their earnest imprecations to watch out for their "^%E$FV67%$)^%(%" fishing lines. Their was one notorious occasion .....but no thats another story and not at all suitable for Paddllewise:~) FLASHLIGHTS IN DAYLIGHT Sounds like a smart judge. No requirement here to carry a flashlight in daylight LOCAL REDNECKS Sounds like some smart rednecks and now I know why we've never been fined - we're way too scary. (yeah sure:~)) NIGHT VISION Night vision is something the groups I paddle with are very sensitive about. The lights we use are just fine, bright enough that we can see each other and not so bright as to cause excessive vision impairment. I would very soon find myself not invited to a paddle if I constantly used lights that were too bright. In this regard two lights are much better than one. Remember I quoted 180 degrees, there's a reason for that and the code of conduct states it concisely "Notwithstanding 3.1(a), it is considered acceptable for a light to be masked so as not to interfere with the vision of the vessel's occupants, provided at least one light is visible from any direction." The torches I use implement this quite well. There's a reasonable amount of thought gone into the way we paddle at night DISPARATE LOCAL REGULATIONS & POWER BOATERS If you go through the regulations I've quoted you will find that they do not preclude ColRegs but offer in addition alternatives. It happens that these alternatives are more practical in our waters and for the kind of paddling we do than the ColRegs and ColRegs allows us to use them via rules 1 and 2. So freedom to use commonsense is enhanced and we are not restricted by uninformed regulation to dangerous practice. I'm very sympathetic to Craig's point of view re power boaters but on the whole they are pretty responsible on Sydney Harbour. However, the argument is a non-sequiter as I would continue to use lights even if power boaters weren't present, because very often I'm the senior paddler in a group and owe a duty of care to my buddies and want to be able to locate them. (OK I take it back - power boaters may be responsible but they aren't pretty :~)) For an example of a challenging night paddle over here, see a trip report from one of my friends and imagine what it must be like for the trip leader with duty of care! (not a trip I'm up to participating in at the moment). Just out of curiosity these are the waters that Freya described as the toughest she had paddled in, though by the time she's finished her trip we probably won't hold that record:~) http://mattbezzina.blogspot.com/ <http://mattbezzina.blogspot.com/> . PAPER SOLUTIONS It may be that Paddlewise should consider proposing more relevant rules for sea kayakers to ColRegs, meanwhile I'm thankful that Rules 1 and 2 and our local guidelines have given us the freedom to paddle safely at night. Hopefully I've demonstrated that our local regulations and code of conduct are anything but paper solutions but came about for very good reason and through consultation with seamen kayakers who really understood what the local issues were. As a result I'm quite possibly older than I might have been and still allowed to paddle freely in and around Sydney Harbour. As I say thank heavens for rules 1 and 2 in ColRegs All the best, PeterO The law can be an ass - but not always *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Quoting rebyl_kayak <rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com>: > G'Day Peter, Craig and All, > > Hope I can do justice to your questions: - > Never had any problem, haven't been sworn at by any boaters at night and not > aware of any incident reports from the club. Rock fishermen can certainly see > us coming judging by their earnest imprecations to watch out for their > "^%E$FV67%$)^%(%" fishing lines. Their was one notorious occasion .....but no > thats another story and not at all suitable for Paddllewise:~) Tell us the fishing story, Peter. Brad Crain *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul,wrote: >At the public hearing (a few weeks ago) on kayak visibility, the Councillors >were concerned that a 'torch displayed in time...' would be hard to do in >rough conditions. As you might expect, we were dealing with elected >representatives who had no kayaking experience and undoubtedly felt we were >all flirting with disaster at the best of times. G'Day Paul, They don't sound dumbass to me at all. Its easy to hear a jetcat or sailboat coming from behind at speed. It sounds like a loud crunch and its the first and last thing you'll hear. We do have a lot of deaths on the water in NSW from boaters not using lights. Afraid I can't condone it. I'm curious that your practise in traffic seems to be contrary to the advice you gave the councillors in that you continue to run your 360-fixed-blue light as well as turning on your head torch when necessary, when kayaking solo in traffic. I like the idea of your headtop 360 degree light but would want it in white light. If its reliable, visible and doesn't give fellow paddlers night blindness then I'm in the market and I know several others who would be too. I've seen that approach before and theres something very distinctive about a lamp on someones head or on a mast attached to a kayak. The movement the light makes is quite weird and distinctive from a distance and by now I'd easily identify it as coming from a paddler. No need for multicoloured lights. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Looky there, fellers, a space a-li-en! Shoot it! -----Original Message----- [rebyl_kayak wrote] something very distinctive about a lamp on someones head or on a mast attached to a kayak. The movement the light makes is quite weird and distinctive from a distance *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Saturday, 27 June 2009 21:02 Peter wrote: >They don't sound dumbass to me at all. Its easy to hear a jetcat or sailboat >coming from behind at speed. It sounds like a loud crunch and its the first >and last thing you'll hear. We do have a lot of deaths on the water in NSW >from boaters not using lights. Afraid I can't condone it. I didn't mean that all local regs are dumb-ass - just that the potential is there for less-experienced folk to make hasty rules. The draft of our Auckland bylaw had clauses which required: - vessel name printed on the stern - visible 50m away - vessel over 4m to carry charts for the area - torch plus 2m all-round light - all paddles to have reflective tape applied These all applied to most kayaks (4m is 13') and all shells even though the Committee that had drafted it hadn't realised that any of it was difficult or impractical for these vessels. As it also applied to a small lake used heavily after dusk and before dawn by rowing clubs and K1 paddlers (including our Olympic Team), there were some very grumpy responses. As power-driven vessels on the lake are limited to coaches using 2 hp motors - and the collision incidence is zero - a little more consultation seemed to be in order. >I'm curious that your practise in traffic seems to be contrary to the advice >you gave the councillors in that you continue to run your 360-fixed-blue light >as well as turning on your head torch when necessary, when kayaking solo in >traffic. Not really. The presence of the torch makes my kayak compliant with both the Int.ColRegs and also our National Maritime Law. The blue light has been proven to keep me safe in traffic far more effectively than any number of fixed white lights. I find that the desire to turn off the blue light (to improve night vision) happens at about the time that traffic worries fade. When I'm working along a series of coastal reefs in the dark, there are very few nearby jetkats or sailboats. When I'm crossing a traffic lane in the urban harbour area, the container wharf lighting has already totally destroyed my night vision. Horses for courses. I will feel less safe if required to show a permanent 360 white ! Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I have found that staying alert and out of the way as much as possible is important, I usually scan the horizon and look at the boats that are on a collision heading to detrmine my best path and determine if I can cross before they get there. Sometimmes if theyt don't seem to be maintaining a steady heading, I try my VHF so that we can discuss who should pass who, sometimes I get an answer from them, other times I don't and have to decide between wating in place, turning back or sprinting accross. I used to be able to "escape" powerboats by getting to the edge of a rock garden, but find that with the currrent GPS navigation systems in some powerboats, that they have programmed in a route on a clear day that takes them just off the rocks and can run full speed in a fog, which makes my shelters more difficult to use ;-) Saul Saul Kinderis saul_at_isomedia.com cell 206.313.0107 http://www.isomedia.com/homes/saul *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> actively echo back the radar pulse somewhat amplified > ... it might be worth exploring, These do already exist - for example: www.speedseal.com/seame/howseameworks.htm These cost about $900 US and work for 3cm radar (not 10cm) - consuming almost no power when 'listening' and about a quarter amp at 12V when responding - so they are probably viable on a reasonable kayak battery. So, depending on the flavour of radar most used in your environment, they might be worth having - if you paddle in foggy shipping channels. At night, a set of bright nav lights might be a better investment. Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Richard wrote >Looky there, fellers, a space a-li-en! Shoot it! G'Day Richard Oh my, but theres a heap of wisdom in those few words. Over here we don't have guns just hoons who throw bottles! So guess I'll have to aspire to not looking weird on the water. Still leaves the problem of the land though! All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day Paul and Craig, Thanks for this discussion and Paul for the lighting analysis and potential solution, something to think about. Back to ColRegs: - If there's no room for interpretation by a local maritime authority then ColRegs seems to be imposing two unsafe alternatives on kayakers. Either run the risk of night blindness in a group because of multiple lights capable of being seen at 2 to 3 miles. Or use a torch or lantern and trust that in choppy water in the dark, it can be found and switched on in time to avoid a collision with a fast moving sail or powerboat. I use two lights fore and aft because that way I get 360 degree illumination while retaining an ability to roll. As mentioned previously, these are relatively low luminance torches to avoid night blindness in myself and my paddling buddies. This complies perfectly with our club regulations, those of NSW Maritime and with ColRegs because of rules 1 and 2. Thank heavens that NSW Maritime and our local insurance company allows this. Fortunately it's also very clear that the ColRegs allows the use of local judgement and doesn't intend to encourage unsafe practise. Reference Rules 1 and 2 of ColRegs "Application" and "Responsibility" copied below:- Rule 1 Application (a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. (b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere in the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules. (c) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by the Government of any State with respect to additional station or signal lights or shapes or whistle signals for ships of war and vessels proceeding under convoy, or with respect to additional station or signal lights for fishing vessels fishing as a fleet. These additional station or signal lights or whistle signals shall, so far as possible, be such that they cannot be mistaken for any light, shape, or signal authorized elsewhere under these Rules. (d) Traffic separation schemes may be adopted by the Organization for the purpose of these Rules. (e) Whenever the Government concerned shall have determined that a vessel of special construction or purpose cannot comply fully with the provisions of any of these Rules with respect to number, position, range or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, such vessel shall comply with such other provisions in regard to number, position, range or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, as her Government shall have determined to be the closest possible compliance with these Rules in respect to that vessel. Rule 2 Responsibility (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. (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 danger. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
[Please remove all old content that is not pertinent to your reply including old headers and footers. It's list policy.... this post was modified to meet policy] Peter Thanks for the insight on the situation in NSW. As I understand it, the NSW (State) Government has put out a 'Code of Conduct' for rowers & paddlers which, although un-enforced, explicitly claims to be a standard for 'good seamanship'. Having stated this officially, there is little doubt that any civil or coroner's court would frown an anyone not meeting this C-of-C's standards. That is an interesting approach - and one I've not encountered before. In this area, regulators usually set themselves up to issue deterrents of the 'speeding ticket' type - of an immediate & painful nature - rather than simply wait for a court to chastise the survivors ;-) Do most night-time paddlers comply ? Do your 'relatively low-luminance' lights meet the 0,54 nm (1 km) requirements ? Do you find them effective at keeping other boats at bay ? Best Regards Paul *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > Do most night-time paddlers comply ? > Do your 'relatively low-luminance' lights meet the 0,54 nm (1 km) > requirements ? > Do you find them effective at keeping other boats at bay ? > > The answer to these would be interesting. I'd also like to know how these lights affect their vision at night (and the vision of anyone paddling near them). But I cannot see how any steady light mounted anywhere on a kayak could help but interfere with night vision. Your blue light is great for being seen but terrible for your night vision, by the way. There is a reason we have red lights on the bridge at night. I have a lot of problems with these disparate local regulations. One problem is that it makes it more difficult to know what rules to follow. Another problem is that they are seldom written by people who have any experience in the field they are attempting to regulate. But my major problem is that it seems that local jurisdictions are finding it easier to target kayakers than to target powerboaters. Imagine the uproar if a municipality decided to require all pedestrians to wear special vests during the day and lights at night because that made them more visible to drivers. Requiring a kayak to have TWO white lights seems to me to be targeting the potential victims because targeting the potential perpetrators is too great a task. And it's easy because to the average citizen (and even, apparently, to some kayakers) it's just common sense to make a kayak have lights; and the more the better. But there are already rules requiring mariners to operate their vessels at safe speeds and in a safe manner. Why not just enforce these? Politicians certainly love paper solutions. They can point to their "solution" and proudly claim that they did something to stop the problem of kayakers being run over by powerboats. Then they can use that to get re-elected. The average person already thinks kayakers are crazy people too stupid to know how to be safe so we make easy targets. This is why I prefer to have one set of rules (the ColRegs) applicable everywhere. It eliminates the knee-jerk reaction of passing a rule after a local accident. Once you have international regulations you can then use education - and the enforcement of existing rules - to begin to solve the problems. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwpaddling.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day Craig and Paul, Just to answer and clarify NORMAL PRACTICE I'm speaking only for what is done in NSW and only for what is done with kayaks. LIGHTS, OARS, PADDLES AND RULE 22 Re flashing lights on boats Craig - I do agree with you I think this option is confusing and unnecessary Re my lights. They are made from waterproof torches with 180degree beam. I've used rechargeable NiMH cells, which have many advantages including a slightly lower voltage. This reduces the light somewhat to avoid night blindness. My reference to night blindness had nothing to do with the Col Regs or defining negatives, it simply indicated that the lights were fit for purpose. Re oars and paddles - maybe it is a bit of a stretch, but the fact is that several accidents in NSW have involved rowing sculls, which are traditionally paddled backwards and are very popular over here. Again it's the local factor coming into play. Fondly remember my Grandad (a salvage diver - fisherman) describing how to row forwards in the sea, never done it myself but thanks for that sweet memory:~) With respect to rule 22(d) I actually did mean that rule. Do kayaks come closer to being a vessel under oars or closer to being <an inconspicuous, partly submerged vessel> Would that distinction have any relevance in the unlikely event the ColRegs were expanded to include kayaks? I suspect not. Re slower boats on the harbour - I wish! OTOH 14 foot skiffs literally flying on their winged keels is a sight to behold:~) NOT JUST A GUIDELINE One approach to understanding the ColRegs is to take the rules as a whole not just each rule in isolation. This may not always be appropriate but does apply for inadequately described boats such as kayaks, in waters where particular local conditions apply and where in those waters there is a very well established practise. It is in this sense that I say the NSW rules are consistent with interpreting Rules 1, 2 and 25 holistically. I don't think any of my kayaking mates object to the NSW Maritime rules particularly. My reason for entering into the debate was that the question was asked several times why did NSW have these additional codes and rules? And I happened to know the answer. Anyway we've gone over this quite a few times and I'm pretty sure you know where I'm coming from in respect of busy harbours and ports in NSW. I can understand the desirability of consistency but I think building a modicum of adaptability into rules is worthwhile and seems to me the ColRegs are a good example of where this has been done effectively through rules 1 and 2. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:51 PDT