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.

Then of course you'd support the same system for ANY power boats, that
they'd ALL explode and kill the operator if you exceeded the speed
limits or broke any rules? If so,
I'd go RIGHT along with you.

Or that should only apply to pwc operators, because they annoy you and
you don't like them?

richforman

It is quite possible for there to be a collision with neither vessel
at fault. A small number of cases (under 5%) are resolved this way.
Mechanical failure is a primary cause, but as equipment becomes more
reliable, this is accepted less as an excuse. A failure that could
have been detected, or avoided with proper maintenance does not qualify.


Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
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

I was boating for a week there on my 4-stroke WaveRunner this summer,
it was pwc and boating paradise. I never saw such a huge number of
pwc's about before, or more harmoniously integrated with all the other
boaters. We and all the other hundreds of pwc's we saw every day
boating around the Thousand Islands area (and ranging pretty far out of
that area in both directions) were so clearly accepted and welcomed as
a non-special, non-different part of the boating environment, sharing
the channels, coves, public docks, and open water peacfeully and
non-problematically with all the other larger boats....a terrific
situation....and you really had to know what you're doing up there,
with all the rocks and shoals that come up out of nowhere all over the
place. But in four full days of boating, I didn't see anyone with any
kind of problem with anyone else, everybody seemed happy, no one
annoyed or threatening or suggesting to blow anyone up or shoot them or
ban them just because of what kind of boat they had. Only person I
encountered with a problem was a local on a small fishing boat who had
apparently bruised his hull on a marked shoal, just about run out of
gas, and putted up to me asking if I knew how to get back to the park
he had rented the boat from (I had a chart and a gps and was able to
show him where to go....he seemed like not the brightest bulb around,
but I didn't make any broader inferences about locals, boat renters,
fishermen, or any other category of boaters that he was a part of).
My silent-running, smokeless, shallow-draft, ultra-fuel-efficient pwc
was the perfect vehicle for the kind of exploration we loved doing,
cruising slowly past all the islands so my wife could take pictures of
all the fancy houses, beautiful landscapes, lighthouses and castles to
be gawked at; purring quietly up to the docks at all the local state
parks and up to the many beaches in the dozens of tempting peaceful
coves where just countless pwc'ers and other boaters were enjoying
nature, themselves and each other in friendship and more than peaceful
coexistence; idling happily through the beautiful International Rift
waterway where there's maybe an eighth of a mile separating the US from
Canada and stopping for lots of picnics and swim breaks; and also being
able to ride the waters pretty much from early morning 'til the sun
went down on less than a tank of gas each day....we went to Singer's
Castle on Dark Island, the very famous Boldt Castle on Hart Island
right across from the marina resort where we stayed (where we were
accomdated in a friendly manner by the dock staff in exactly the same
way as all the other boats docked there for the week), and to the
Antique Boating Museum in Clayton, all on my '05 FX HO....didn't buzz
or annoy anybody, go too close to anybody, bother anybody fishing or
saling, and didn't really get the impression that anyone else on the
millions of pwc's out there, were either. Any old prejudices against
the smaller machines seemed to have long ago dissolved in the reality
of modern boats, modern, educated, experienced riders, in an area where
boating and pwc's is so prevalent a part of life that people can't help
but have updated, informed, open-minded impressions about the boats and
their riders.

AND...just this last Sunday....I went out for another late-season ride
locally here in Long Island, and just a bit out into the harbor was a
small outboard with two fisherman whose engine had died on them, and
asked me for a tow back to the ramp which obviously I cheerfully gave
them. We had a few laughs as I towed them back...I don't think my
being there to help them out changed their view of pwc's or pwc'ers
because there was no problem with that to begin with - they saw me as a
fellow boater, out using the same ramp to go out enjoying the same
harbor on the same sunny fall day as them and a million other boaters
out there that beautiful day....pwc's are very prevalent here in Long
Island, too, and I think in general any stereotyped outdated
prejudicial notions about us in the minds of our fellow boats have long
since been dispelled, I get a sense of being welcomed and accepted as
a fellow, full-fledged boater the same as any other, at the docks, on
the ramps, on the beach coves, in the channels, in the salt
marshes....not judged on the basis of the size and shape of my boat, or
the irresponsible behavior of others in the past on similar
crafts...not like sometimes here on the newsgroup.

What about you, some of the guys I've been talking with on this
thread...would you accept a tow from a pwc'er if you needed it? Would
you be surprised if one was willng and able to help? If you don't like
pwc's or pwc'ers in general, would such an incident change your
feelings at all? Would it enable you to realize that maybe your ideas
about pwc's and their operators could be misperceptions? 'Coz I tell
you this happens all the time, I don't know a longtime pwc'er who
hasn't at some point been asked to help somebody on the water (and of
course who hasn't needed help from another boater)...in those instances
we're all in the same boat as it were, doesn't matter what kind of boat
you have, we are all boaters, have a great deal in common no matter
what kind of boat we have, and an inclination to like and relate to one
an other based on our shared values and interests.

I share these anecodtes in an ongoing effort to continue to try to
dispel and counteract the untrue, invalid, unfair, uninformed,
stereoptyped, outdated ideas about personal watercraft and their
operators, the things we do and the way we use our boats these days,
that are apparently being clung to and perpetrated by some posters here
and elsewhere. I don't know if it'll do any good, I don't know if some
of you guys have open-enough minds to admit that maybe you're wrong and
should give the issue an honest reconsideration, but it won't stop me
from trying.

richforman

wrote:
snip...
I share these anecodtes in an ongoing effort to continue to try to
dispel and counteract the untrue, invalid, unfair, uninformed,
stereoptyped, outdated ideas about personal watercraft and their
operators, the things we do and the way we use our boats these days,
that are apparently being clung to and perpetrated by some posters here
and elsewhere. I don't know if it'll do any good, I don't know if some
of you guys have open-enough minds to admit that maybe you're wrong and
should give the issue an honest reconsideration, but it won't stop me
from trying.

richforman

Which PWC manufacturer did you say you worked for?

Huh? I don't, if you think that's some kind of angle.

richforman

JimC,
My comment concerning the statement ", if "you" collided with them, "you"
would be at fault. It is your responsibility, under Rule 8, the
collision regulations, to avoid a collision.

I was pointing out there are situations where you can be involved in a
collision and not be held responsible, because there was nothing a
reasonable captain could have done to avoid the collision. If a boater is
traveling too fast for the situation, or too close for the speed, he can be
held responsible for the collision, if the sailboat turns directly in front
of the powerboater, even if the powerboater is traveling too fast and too
close to the sailboat, the sailboater can be found partially responsible for
the accident.

At this point, the horse has been beat to death, dragged through the fiedl
and left to rot, so it probably is a good time to end this thread.




gers.com wrote in message ...

"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

Jeff,
Hopefully your post is able to convey my message better than I was able.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
It is quite possible for there to be a collision with neither vessel at
fault. A small number of cases (under 5%) are resolved this way.
Mechanical failure is a primary cause, but as equipment becomes more
reliable, this is accepted less as an excuse. A failure that could have
been detected, or avoided with proper maintenance does not qualify.


Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
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

Again, to both of you, I guess you're being oh so humorous, but should
these same kind of penalties be applied towards other non-pwc boaters
who break the rules, speed or wake zones, overtaking or being overtaken
improperly, not having enough life jackets on board or not having
jackets on all children, drinking alcoholic beverages while
boating....or is it just those violators whose boat types annoy you
personally, who should be subject to this kind of thing? Just
wondering.

richforman

A couple of years ago a small craft stalled as it was crossing the shipping
channel south of Detroit, the was a lake freighter upbound, and crushed the
small craft........the freighter was not at fault.

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
JimC,
My comment concerning the statement ", if "you" collided with them,
"you"
would be at fault. It is your responsibility, under Rule 8, the
collision regulations, to avoid a collision.

I was pointing out there are situations where you can be involved in a
collision and not be held responsible, because there was nothing a
reasonable captain could have done to avoid the collision. If a boater is
traveling too fast for the situation, or too close for the speed, he can
be
held responsible for the collision, if the sailboat turns directly in
front
of the powerboater, even if the powerboater is traveling too fast and too
close to the sailboat, the sailboater can be found partially responsible
for
the accident.

At this point, the horse has been beat to death, dragged through the fiedl
and left to rot, so it probably is a good time to end this thread.




gers.com wrote in message ...

"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

Paul,
It is not as unusual as some might want to believe.


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
A couple of years ago a small craft stalled as it was crossing the shipping
channel south of Detroit, the was a lake freighter upbound, and crushed
the
small craft........the freighter was not at fault.

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
JimC,
My comment concerning the statement ", if "you" collided with them,
"you"
would be at fault. It is your responsibility, under Rule 8, the
collision regulations, to avoid a collision.

I was pointing out there are situations where you can be involved in a
collision and not be held responsible, because there was nothing a
reasonable captain could have done to avoid the collision. If a boater
is
traveling too fast for the situation, or too close for the speed, he can
be
held responsible for the collision, if the sailboat turns directly in
front
of the powerboater, even if the powerboater is traveling too fast and too
close to the sailboat, the sailboater can be found partially responsible
for
the accident.

At this point, the horse has been beat to death, dragged through the
fiedl
and left to rot, so it probably is a good time to end this thread.




gers.com wrote in message ...

"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