Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article t,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:
He has to avoid the tanker in the channel. If he causes the tanker to run
aground or hit a bridge piling to avoid the collision, the sailboat is going
to be liable for all damages. The tanker, the bridge, all the damage.

Bzzzzt. The tanker will not hit a bridge piling to avoid the
collision.


probably true

Bzzzzt. The tanker will not be damanged.

probably true


Bzzzzt. The tanker will not leave the channel.
Maybe not at the Golden Gate, but the was such a case in the
Chesapeake a few years back where the woman in the 25 foot boat the
got becalmed in the channel was held liable when the freighter grounded.


Bill... who has stand-on status on the ocean?

Actually, the sailboat is still the stand-on vessel, even when
crossing the TSS. It is, however, required "not to impede" the
tanker. You should know this stuff, Jon. You just took the test.


Suggestion (not a hint): Stay away from tankers.


good advice.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Doug,
I am able to manage my boat and go slow enough to avoid boat traffic, no
matter what the other boats do, but many ships are not. The ColRegs are not
written to regulate my actions but for all boat/ship traffic. I was
highlighting the obvious error you made when you said if any boat/ship is
involved in an accident, they are at fault. This is not correct.


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:

Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.


Actually, that's VERY wide as channels go. Are you suggesting that you
cannot manage to drive your boat along a course and keep it within 100
yards or so of where it should be?

Are you also suggesting that going SLOW when close to other boat traffic
is not an option?

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

I am talking about singling out pwc's among boaters at large (not
sailboats)
as being uniquely predisposed to annoying, stupid, dangerous, illegal
behavior; and also

They are and I am. Sorry, but it's a fact. I know you don't want to
acknowledge that there is a huge problem, but there is. That's why
some places have banned them I suppose.

And the fact that a lot of the "problems" are in fact based on
prejudice, personal irrational dislike and outdated stereotypes or just
outdated information about these machines, might be the reason why,
after analytic studies are done, so many of the former bans have been
rolled back, reversed and eliminated.

Can't think of anything positive to say about pwc's? I'll help you out
by pointing this out again: since mandataory boating education and
licensing requirements have been instituted in many states over the
last decade or so, pwc-related accident and injury statistics have gone
down by the year in their states. These regulations have been
promoted and supported by the pwc industry and riding community. What
has any other segment of the power boat community done analogously over
that same period of time to reduce the amount of stupidity and
uninformed dangerous behavior on the water? Have power boaters at
large rallied in support of mandatory education and licensing
requirements for all boats, or do you/they think that this wouldn't be
a good idea for everyone? Are you even aware of any of this, or is it
just more proof that you just don't know anything about the topic at
hand (pwc's).

Nothing good to say about pwc's? Do some research and you'll find that
the ones being manufactured now (and I'm talking about at least the
last 6 model years) have shown to be among the QUIETEST and
CLEANEST-RUNNING and most FUEL-EFFICIENT power boats on the water, as
well as being probably the most affordable, easiest to store and
maintain?

In fact, do you have anything positive to say about boats in general?
Because if so you have something positive to say about pwc's because
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE. THAT is what started me into this whole thread,
the idea that somehow pwc'ers are not boaters, that is the overall
point I started making so emphatically and repeatedly, that WE ARE.
NOt that we're perfect, not that there aren't plenty of idiots among us
just as there are across all segments of the boating world, not that we
don't have problems although we've made TREMENDOUS strides in the time
that I've been around, but simply that we ARE BOATERS, the SAME as
anyone else. Same rules to learn and follow, same things to worry
about, the same passion for being on the water, having outdoor fun with
our friends and families, travelling, cruising, enjoying the
exhiliration of a fast ride...that's it. I refuse to sit at the back
of the bus!

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

My point (I don't think it was that hard to discern) is that pwc
operators don't have any kind of lock on stupid, dangerous, illegal,
annoying boating behavior on the water, that all kinds of boats,
whatever their size or shape, are frequently operated by clueless
inconsiderate oblivious idiots....and similarly there are many
responsible, informed, thoughtful, careful, aware operators of both
pwc's and of power boats of other sizes and shapes. Neither of us
knows the exact percentage either way, there are way too many variables
to assign any kind of realistic number, but my position is that it is a
sign of ignorance, nastiness and hardened, long-held, inflexlible,
prejudiced judgements, to make broad sweeping generalizations about any
specific group of boaters based on the size and shape of the boat they
choose (or can afford). Like, I might be tempted to think that all or
most sailboaters are snobby, pretentious, effete, hoity-toit,
self-important blowhards (ha, good one!); or that everybody on a small
fishing boat is a drunken redneck; or that everyone who owns a yacht is
just a rich asshole who preferes to stay high and dry and show off
their wealth; but all of these opinions would actually be stupid and
unfair, and if I tried to pass them off as valid, intelligent
positions, I would expect people from those segments of the boating
world to maybe have their feathers ruffled a bit.

Do you get it now?

I'd say that the vast majority don't drink and drive, just
like the vast majority of car owners don't

Okay, now I know you're kidding. The ratio of boaters drinking on the
water is about the same as that of drivers on the road? I guess it's
obvious that conditions are obviously different between where you boat
and all the many places I've boated....in terms of boaters drinking,
and in terms of pwc'ers being obnoxious and annoying...I guess that
would have to explain the gulf between our respective impressions.

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.....

I have a sharper, more developed sense of humor than you, I'm positive
of it; but you don't seem to have made that remark in any kind of
friendly good humor, more out of meanness, like I know you literally
don't want to welcome me onto the waterways where you boat, you have as
much as said so, just based on the size and shape of my boat's hull,
and that's just not right. Hey, once you see me, individually, do
something stupid and obnoxious or dangerous or blatantly inconsiderate
(I"m not sure I'm convinced that "annoying" is enough of a legit
complaint, anyone can be annoyed by anything), then feel free to have
me kicked out of there....but to form an opinion of me and want me out
of there as soon as you see me coming, just based on the fact that I'm
a pwc? It just ain't right.

richforman

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.

What in the world are you talking about? That is nonsense! If I see a
boat on my way north on Lake Huron and I am going to pass him. I can alter
my course by two degrees and pass him with hundreds of meters to spare.


In Bill's situation, he would have been held partially responsible due to
the speed and distance he maintained in the overtaking situation.

No, Dr. Smithers. In Bill's situation, he would be 100% responsible.
He struck the sailboat in open waters. Nowhere did he say it was in a
narrow channel.


My point is, there are many situations that occur in narrow channels with
strong
currents/tides and winds that would not have allowed a powerboater to
avoid
a collision under all conditions.


Yes Dr. Smithers, but not in Bill's case.

It is possible that any boater can cause
an accident that the powerboater could not have avoided. The courts can
and
do assign partial blame for most accidents, but there are situations where
a
boater is 100% responsible for an accident.

Yes Dr. Smithers, you are correct in this instance.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
JimC,
Ignorance of ColRegs is not limited to either a sailboater or a
powerboater,
sort of like ignorance in rec.boats is not limited to any political party.
; )


Dr. Smithers, you are correct.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.

Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North Channel of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power in a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or barge.



"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.

What in the world are you talking about? That is nonsense! If I see a
boat on my way north on Lake Huron and I am going to pass him. I can
alter
my course by two degrees and pass him with hundreds of meters to spare.


In Bill's situation, he would have been held partially responsible due to
the speed and distance he maintained in the overtaking situation.

No, Dr. Smithers. In Bill's situation, he would be 100% responsible.
He struck the sailboat in open waters. Nowhere did he say it was in a
narrow channel.


My point is, there are many situations that occur in narrow channels
with
strong
currents/tides and winds that would not have allowed a powerboater to
avoid
a collision under all conditions.


Yes Dr. Smithers, but not in Bill's case.

It is possible that any boater can cause
an accident that the powerboater could not have avoided. The courts can
and
do assign partial blame for most accidents, but there are situations
where
a
boater is 100% responsible for an accident.

Yes Dr. Smithers, you are correct in this instance.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Yes I have and there are collisions between ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway
due to mechanical or human error. When this happens it is not necessary for
both ships to be at fault. One ship can assume 100% of the responsibility
even though the other ship was not avoid the collision.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.

Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes
System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one
boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in
the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North Channel
of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Yes I have and there are collisions between ships on the St. Lawrence
Seaway
due to mechanical or human error. When this happens it is not necessary
for
both ships to be at fault. One ship can assume 100% of the responsibility
even though the other ship was not avoid the collision.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

Yes, there have been some ships involved in collisions in the Seaway. I
thought we were talking about problems with pleasure boats in this area.
There is no reason to have two pleasure boats collide in the St. Lawrence
Seaway and not have them both responsible.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would
leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power in
a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or barge.

Dr. Smithers, are you only referring to ships not leaving the dock if there
shipping routes were only to be in River Systems or canals? or.....Are
you referring to ALL ships at sea not leaving their docks?

Just as a comment. The freighter that lost power in the Mississippi did
radio a warning to other traffic on the river which kept other shipping
away. They could not warn the pier to move out of the way. ;-) The
major factor in the ship hitting the pier was that it dropped it's anchor
and that caused the ship to swerve to the shore line. With that much mass
in motion, it takes some time to stop when the engine is not functioning.
It's rudder could not turn the ship due to the anchor that was dropped and
also it was moving with the current.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield