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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:51 PDT