"otnmbrd" wrote in message
.70...
"Capt. JG" wrote in
:




It didn't quite look like head-to-head. It looked like a crossing
situation somewhat. The boat on the right is right, but both are at
fault. Both boats should have turned to starboard. I don't see how you
can say the faster boat would have or wouldn't have the ability to
maneuver. Looks like plenty of sea room to me for both boats.

Idiots....



It's the "nearly so" part of that statement that gets a lot of people in
trouble.
Yes, at the time of this video, the boat taking the video should have
come
right, but they are so close to that "nearly so" that I wonder about the
perspective leading up to this. BG not sure I'm explaining this
correctly


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.

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

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.

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)

"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

"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.

"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

"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