"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a
boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid
the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being
overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule
7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule
8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim



Bzzt: Sailboat made a bad move. Prove I was not paying attention, and
that
an illegal direction change while being overtaken did not cause the
accident.
Bill, here is the proof for you. If "you" hit the sailboat that means
that
you were not paying attention to various factors, those factors being your
speed & your proximity to the sailboat. Ergo.......your broke Rule 5.
The
sailboat making a bad move has nothing to do with it. You were too
close!
You were going too fast! You hit the sailboat! You're in the
wrong.......

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.



I may get a minority of the blame, but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.

Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.


Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He
gets the majority of the fault.

Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK


Rule 17 a) i)

I'd support letting PWC back on the water if and only if they came
equipped with an explosive charge that detonated if the vehicle
exceeded the speed limits in mooring fields or other slow speed zones,
or within say 50m of the shoreline. Those who want to play chicken with
boats underway, I'd leave to the shotgun and rifle owning fraternity.

Actually these days it wouldn't be all that difficult to wire the
things to a mobile phone or datalogger with GPS. Then if a complaint
was made, it'd be easy to check the data and either fine or confiscate
the PWC.

PDW

In article . com,
wrote:

Fortunately, these days I live in a place where jetskis are banned.
Long may it stay that way. Guess why they got banned? Noisy offensive
buzzing insects driven by morons who broke every rule in the book

Okay, fine, but do me a favor, suppose this hypothetically:

What if, in recognition of existing problems, and in an effort to get
into your
town's good graces, and most importantly, to be allowed onto your
beautiful
waterways (where we pay the same taxes to support launch ramps and
other
boating-related services as do other boaters), the pwc-owning community
and
industry (not that powerful a lobbying bloc, there are only four
manufacturers),
took certain steps, for instance....

Suppose they/we actively and successfully supported and promoted
mandatory
education and licensing requirements for pwc operators, and as a
result, pwc-related
accident and injury statistics dropped for multiple years in a row, as
has happened in states where such laws have been enacted over the past
five or six years, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut; and
also, young or new pwc owners and operators were, increasingly,
demonstrably and enforceably, at least acquainted with the basics of
boating safety, courtesy and regulations before they could legally
operate a vehicle...(unlike with any other kind of boats, I might add
parenthetically)

Now, suppose further, bear with me here, that in addition, for more
than five years, the entire industry had been on a continuous and
highly effective campaign to make their 'skis dramatically quieter,
cleaner-running, vastly more fuel-efficient and with provably
far-reduced pollution and impact on wildlife and the environment (in
the end comparing at the very least favorably in those areas with
pretty much all other new power boats in the market). Let's say the
new 'skis were found to be 75% quieter than those from five years ago,
with (obviously) the ratio of these newer, clean./quiet models to
older/louder/dirtier boats out on the water, inevitably increased year
by year, obviously that trend stretching into the future...

Now, do you think it would be reasonable to ask those in your
community, those who'd voted for the pwc bans in the first place,
especially those with an interest in boating in general, to be informed
and aware of, and to acknowledge, these developments, and in fact to
reevaluate their impressions of pwc's and their riders, with these
changes in mind, after a number of years?

Would you yourself be willing to do that? To update your level of
knowledge in the topic even though it may not seem to affect you
personally (you never plan to buy a pwc), and to take the banned
community's responses and efforts to improve their reputation and the
entire situation, into account....would you ever be willing to
reconsider and revisit the issue in the name of simple fairness, even
regularly, every five years; would you be able to have your notions on
the matter changed over time by new information?

OR, would you stubbornly cling to your original perceptions and notions
about pwc's, refusing to be swayed by or bothered with ongoing changes
such as these, in your attitudes and policies toward the machines and
their riders.....always basing your final evaluation on the older,
original data on the basis of which you first formed your impressions
years ago? Would you in fact, in your mind, even possibly, tend to
unfairly prejudge and stereotype pwc's and the majority of their riders
based on conditions you observed anecdotally before any of these
changes (in statistics; in technology; in law; in a large percentage of
the riders themselves) had come about?

Rhetorical questions obviously. Just take a look at yourself, man, and
your attitude.

Remember we are all in this together when you talk about bans. There
are plenty of people who would love to see all power boats banned from
our waterways entirely....they are the ones who at FIRST seemed to be
succeeding with national park bans enacted back in the late '90s, until
science and reality bore out the fact that pwc's were not intrinsically
different from any other power boats, the results of the parks' own
studies causing these bans to be rolled back in the last couple years,
one after another....do you think the environmental extremists who
initiated these laws would have stopped at pwc's?

I just know I share a love of the water, and a great number of
responsibilities and concerns, with everybody on this newsgroup, and
every other boater and pwc enthusiast out on the water. Here's
another question: out of pwc's versus boaters at large, which group
more often has a beer in the hand of every person you seem to see on a
vessel underway? How about this: which group has a greater percentage
of always having life vests on? There is stupidity, irresposnbility,
and dangerous, illegal behavior perpretrated by boaters of ALL STRIPES
on all sizes and shapes of boats, but it is WRONG and UNFAIR to
prejudicially make statements painting all those boaters with the same
brush based on the behavior of the idiotic ones. It is just wrong.
And "banning" any type of vehicle based on the illegal behavior of
whatever percentage of its users, is even more wrong....you just might
not know it yet if hasn't affected you personaly with your "choice of
toy."

richforman

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

IN fact, I'd say the only thing you could deduce about somebody who has
a pwc vs. someone with a bigger boat
is that the pwc guy probably has a little less money. They're

Bigger? What about a smaller sailboat boat?

Yeah. Get a sailing dinghy. Not only will it cost less to buy than a
PWC, it'll cost a lot less to run, too, even with a 2HP Honda 4 stroke
outboard.

But people like this one don't do that, because they not only want to
be on the water, they also want to go fast without learning sailing
skills.

cigar boats) that zoom around, but not in an anchorage, because they
know better.

Now you're just showing your die-hard, inflexible, anti-pwc prejudice
loud and clear.

Why's that? Am I not allowed to be annoyed by bad behavior? Who the
f*ck made you god?

of the road, and who DRINK WHILE BOATING CONSTANTLY....almost EVERYBODY

What is up with this drinkin and drivin thing? I just don't get that?
What point are you trying to make?

Here's another take. A small sailboat is moving at 5 knots if you're
lucky. Jetskis top out at over 50 mph. 10X the speed. You need 1/10 of
the time to react to running someone or something over, and any impact
is going to result in an energy transfer *100* times greater for the
PWC than the sailboat. Short form, you could be ****ed as a newt in a
small sailboat and not do anyone or anything much damage. Not so in a
fast power vessel.


By the way....are you saying above that you don't think there are many,
many boaters
in your area who are drinking while they're boating and go untouched by
law enforcement? That it's

I'm saying that they are not very obvious if they are drinking and
driving. I'd say that the vast majority don't drink and drive, just
like the vast majority of car owners don't.

That I'd have to see to believe.

Well, you need to get out more... well, I take that back. You have a
PWC.

Oh no... here comes the missing sense of humor.....

Who gives a rat's, Jon. He has a PWC.

PDW

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT!
He
gets the majority of the fault.

Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK


Rule 17 a) i)

Wrong again Bill. Did you not read Rule 13 part (a)? If not, here it is
for you.
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and
II, any vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of the way of the
vessel being overtaken."

This means that you were, at 25 feet behind the sailboat, and going 25 MPH,
you were not in a position to "keep out of the way". Right Bill? Proof of
this is in Rule 17 (b) . Did you read this part Bill? If not, here it is
for you.
"When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed
finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the
give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid
collision. This could be the reason for her turning. Right Bill?

This means Bill, that if you collided with the sailboat, the majority of the
blame is YOURS.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.

Capt Joe,
All security experts strongly recommend you do not include your address and
phone number in your UseNet Posts.


"Captain Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2005 16:47:08 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

In article . net,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, so? What's your point? I know the regs and clearly you can quote
them. What are you trying to tell us here?

That you are an idiot.

Ah, a name caller. Well, ok then. You sure won that argument on the
merits.

Yes, you can be sure that Jon Gayanzy has NEVER resorted to name calling
when it
suited his own purposes.


Captain Joe Redcloud
1882 Chestnut Hill Road
Mohnton PA
(610) 856-7118

Jon,
In a passing situation both boats must maintain their course and heading.
Some boaters, both power and sail do not understand the ColRegs, the biggest
problem some sail boaters make is assuming they are a sailboat when they are
under power, and assuming they have the right of way under all conditions
when they are under sail.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, so? What's your point? I know the regs and clearly you can quote
them. What are you trying to tell us here?

That you are an idiot.

Ah, a name caller. Well, ok then. You sure won that argument on the
merits.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message news:fkaaf.4109
I
know what is involved with sailing. Married a good sailors daughter and
used to windsurf. But too many "sailors" figure they have the right of
way
as they have a sailboat. I have had "sailors" do a 90 degree in front of
me
when lifting the sails and the iron sail is still running, and then yell
at
me. They would yell even louder if I collided with them and when they
had
to pay enormous sums of money to me.

Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim

Doug,

When a sailboat or powerboat turns in front of a ship and the ship runs over
the boat, the ship's captain will not be held liable if a qualified,
reasonable qualified captain could not have avoided the collision. There
are many reasons why a qualified captain can have a collision and be found
free of responsibility for the collision.


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.


???

There is NO obligation for any vessel to "keep in a continuous direction
when being overtaken."

The overtakING vessel is burdened to keep clear, which means that you must
slow down and be ready to take avoiding action.


Jim Carter wrote:
Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.

It's quite true but I suspect that Bill (and many other motorheads) will
never ever believe it.

How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule 7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule 8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.


Most motorheads think that any other boat who "gets in their way" must be
at fault and/or in violation of something. Plenty also think that
sailboats deliberately turn in front of them for fun.

Unfortunately there's no rule against stupidity.

DSK