Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Who's at fault here
Gregory Hall wrote:
The Coast Guard? Just what are THEY gonna do about it? They're out there issuing licenses to admitted illegal recreational drug abusers so I guess they don't care a whole lot about operational safety in the first place. this is getting really boring, can't you dream up something more amusing? Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------ Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble! -- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ---- |
#22
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Who's at fault here
"otnmbrd" wrote in message .70... Wayne.B wrote in : On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:59:04 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: I get it... seems like unless we're really missing a lot of the perspective, the boat taking the vid should have changed taken evasive action well before getting into this spot. Yes, unless the smaller, faster boat maneuvered into an untenable situation. The bigger boat (where the video was taken) can not stop on a dime or turn sharply. If the small boat entered that danger zone, they share the blame at the very least. It would be a somewhat similar situation if you approached a tug and barge from the starboard side at the last minute. That was the basis for my original comment stating that faster more maneuverable boat has some obligation not to put themselves into harms way. I can't really agree with you here. Speed and maneuverability are not factors under the Rules in the case we are looking at. First off, though the vessel the video was shot from is definitely larger, from what we see we cannot say what it's potential maneuverability is/was versus the smaller boat..... Secondly, if your boat is slower less maneuverable, then you should take action sooner, to avoid, and fast or slow, you have that obligation not to put yourself in harm's way. A. My main point is that video's such as this are generally too short to give enough background info to make a good decision as to what happened. B. From experience, the head to head or nearly so situation can frequently get out of hand and cause collisions due to slight visual perception differences and wrong direction turns to avoid ( the video shows a small angle crossing situation but this could have been something else earlier) C. BG In reality....lumbering big ship versus twin screw Donzi..... Donzi.....get the hell outa the way! (the Rules purist will have a ball with that statement) Your conclusion is simplistic and unrealistic. These are the facts: 1) both vessels share some part of the blame for the collision as is always the case anytime two vessels collide. 2) the greater portion of the blame (90%) lies with the larger vessel in the foreground. This was the give-way vessel and he should never have allowed that close quarters situation to take place. A simple VERY SMALL turn of the wheel to starboard BEFORE the close quarters situation occurred would have avoided the close quarters situation and no collision would have occurred. 3) the reason the smaller vessel shares some share of the blame is he failed to take appropriate action to avoid a collision when it became apparent the larger vessel was not taking the action required of it by the rules. I'm always happy to educate a so-called professional who's view of the world is warped because he thinks "might makes right" as evidenced by that ignorant last statement that the little boat get the hell out of the way of the larger boat. Sorry, but the rules don't allow that. The rules REQUIRE the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed until it becomes apparent that the give way vessel is causing a close quarters situation and a danger of collision exists. Then and only then is the stand on vessel required to take action to avoid a collision. Now, run along and review the Rules of the Road. It looks like you need to brush up. Wilbur Hubbard |
#23
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Who's at fault here
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in news:4718ed10
: Your conclusion is simplistic and unrealistic. These are the facts: 1) both vessels share some part of the blame for the collision as is always the case anytime two vessels collide. 2) the greater portion of the blame (90%) lies with the larger vessel in the foreground. This was the give-way vessel and he should never have allowed that close quarters situation to take place. A simple VERY SMALL turn of the wheel to starboard BEFORE the close quarters situation occurred would have avoided the close quarters situation and no collision would have occurred. 3) the reason the smaller vessel shares some share of the blame is he failed to take appropriate action to avoid a collision when it became apparent the larger vessel was not taking the action required of it by the rules. I'm always happy to educate a so-called professional who's view of the world is warped because he thinks "might makes right" as evidenced by that ignorant last statement that the little boat get the hell out of the way of the larger boat. Sorry, but the rules don't allow that. The rules REQUIRE the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed until it becomes apparent that the give way vessel is causing a close quarters situation and a danger of collision exists. Then and only then is the stand on vessel required to take action to avoid a collision. Now, run along and review the Rules of the Road. It looks like you need to brush up. Wilbur Hubbard You need to read Rule 17 again and learn to look futher than the tip of your nose when viewing a video. |
#24
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Who's at fault here
"otnmbrd" wrote in message .70... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in news:4718ed10 : Your conclusion is simplistic and unrealistic. These are the facts: 1) both vessels share some part of the blame for the collision as is always the case anytime two vessels collide. 2) the greater portion of the blame (90%) lies with the larger vessel in the foreground. This was the give-way vessel and he should never have allowed that close quarters situation to take place. A simple VERY SMALL turn of the wheel to starboard BEFORE the close quarters situation occurred would have avoided the close quarters situation and no collision would have occurred. 3) the reason the smaller vessel shares some share of the blame is he failed to take appropriate action to avoid a collision when it became apparent the larger vessel was not taking the action required of it by the rules. I'm always happy to educate a so-called professional who's view of the world is warped because he thinks "might makes right" as evidenced by that ignorant last statement that the little boat get the hell out of the way of the larger boat. Sorry, but the rules don't allow that. The rules REQUIRE the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed until it becomes apparent that the give way vessel is causing a close quarters situation and a danger of collision exists. Then and only then is the stand on vessel required to take action to avoid a collision. Now, run along and review the Rules of the Road. It looks like you need to brush up. Wilbur Hubbard You need to read Rule 17 again and learn to look futher than the tip of your nose when viewing a video. That's exactly what I was talking about in the above paragraph. Wilbur Hubbard |
#25
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Who's at fault here
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in news:471a52a8$0
: You need to read Rule 17 again and learn to look futher than the tip of your nose when viewing a video. That's exactly what I was talking about in the above paragraph. Wilbur Hubbard I saw what you were talking about, which is why I said you need to read it again |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Who's fault is it? | General | |||
It's not Bush's Fault!!!!! | General |