On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:41:26 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The sailboats are just slower at getting out of the way after they do
something dumb.

Yes, and then there's that "holier than thou" attitude to contend
with.

:-)

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:41:26 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The sailboats are just slower at getting out of the way after they do
something dumb.

Yes, and then there's that "holier than thou" attitude to contend
with.


Last year I took the ferry from Martha's Vineyard to Wood's Hole and sat
up by the bow to watch the traffic. Dozens of powerboats crossed in
front, all clearing by a wide margin. But amongst them were four
sailboats, limited to 5-6 knots. Three were able to pass clear, but the
smallest one obviously wasn't going to make it, and the 230 foot ferry
had to use reverse to stop in time. I wish I had seen the beginning of
the sequence, I thought the sailboats tacked in front of the ferry, but
I wasn't sure.

So this brings up the question: in some jurisdictions the ferry boats
have right of way while in their assigned channels. I think SF is one
such place, but I don't believe Massachusetts has that rule. Does
anyone know of other places that do?

Here's a video taken about 20 miles away. As it turned out, the
sailboat won the law suit, I assume because the ferry refused to back
down and give it time to turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZPWA_3YfIM

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:41:26 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The sailboats are just slower at getting out of the way after they do
something dumb.

Yes, and then there's that "holier than thou" attitude to contend
with.


Last year I took the ferry from Martha's Vineyard to Wood's Hole and sat
up by the bow to watch the traffic. Dozens of powerboats crossed in
front, all clearing by a wide margin. But amongst them were four
sailboats, limited to 5-6 knots. Three were able to pass clear, but the
smallest one obviously wasn't going to make it, and the 230 foot ferry had
to use reverse to stop in time. I wish I had seen the beginning of the
sequence, I thought the sailboats tacked in front of the ferry, but I
wasn't sure.

So this brings up the question: in some jurisdictions the ferry boats have
right of way while in their assigned channels. I think SF is one such
place, but I don't believe Massachusetts has that rule. Does anyone know
of other places that do?

Here's a video taken about 20 miles away. As it turned out, the sailboat
won the law suit, I assume because the ferry refused to back down and give
it time to turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZPWA_3YfIM


No. The ferries out here do not have right-of-way status... except leaving
or arriving at the ferry dock of course.

There's no way you could get out of their way in the middle of the bay.
They're fast, maneauverable, and only a portion of them are on fixed routes,
so it's hard to predict where they're going. They routinely slow and change
course to avoid sailboats under sail. All that said, most intelligent people
don't twist the ferries' tails. We maintain our course and speed, worst
case. Best case, we take early action to let them know our intentions.
Sometimes there are hundreds of sailboats, and it would be chaos if they all
tried to take evasive action.

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

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:41:26 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The sailboats are just slower at getting out of the way after they do
something dumb.

Yes, and then there's that "holier than thou" attitude to contend
with.


Last year I took the ferry from Martha's Vineyard to Wood's Hole and sat
up by the bow to watch the traffic. Dozens of powerboats crossed in
front, all clearing by a wide margin. But amongst them were four
sailboats, limited to 5-6 knots. Three were able to pass clear, but the
smallest one obviously wasn't going to make it, and the 230 foot ferry had
to use reverse to stop in time. I wish I had seen the beginning of the
sequence, I thought the sailboats tacked in front of the ferry, but I
wasn't sure.

So this brings up the question: in some jurisdictions the ferry boats have
right of way while in their assigned channels. I think SF is one such
place, but I don't believe Massachusetts has that rule. Does anyone know
of other places that do?

Here's a video taken about 20 miles away. As it turned out, the sailboat
won the law suit, I assume because the ferry refused to back down and give
it time to turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZPWA_3YfIM


I believe Syndey harbor has such a rule...


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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:TMGdnTi8ufcsDobVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@bayareasolut ions...
"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:41:26 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The sailboats are just slower at getting out of the way after they do
something dumb.

Yes, and then there's that "holier than thou" attitude to contend
with.


Last year I took the ferry from Martha's Vineyard to Wood's Hole and sat
up by the bow to watch the traffic. Dozens of powerboats crossed in
front, all clearing by a wide margin. But amongst them were four
sailboats, limited to 5-6 knots. Three were able to pass clear, but the
smallest one obviously wasn't going to make it, and the 230 foot ferry
had to use reverse to stop in time. I wish I had seen the beginning of
the sequence, I thought the sailboats tacked in front of the ferry, but I
wasn't sure.

So this brings up the question: in some jurisdictions the ferry boats
have right of way while in their assigned channels. I think SF is one
such place, but I don't believe Massachusetts has that rule. Does anyone
know of other places that do?

Here's a video taken about 20 miles away. As it turned out, the sailboat
won the law suit, I assume because the ferry refused to back down and
give it time to turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZPWA_3YfIM


I believe Syndey harbor has such a rule...


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

Yes, Sydney Harbour Ferries carry an orange diamond signal which gives them
priority of way over sailing vessels. I have just come back from a week on
Sydney Harbour which can be very busy at times and require regular changes
of course to avoid other vessels.
Bill

Jeff,

You provide a link to a video and state that the sailboat won a lawsuit
over something. Can you provide more info on the lawsuit? A URL?

Dave M.

David L. Martel wrote:
Jeff,

You provide a link to a video and state that the sailboat won a lawsuit
over something. Can you provide more info on the lawsuit? A URL?

Sorry, all I know of it (other then some vague memories) is in the
comments under the video. One person who claims knowlege of the orignal
events and lawsuit has made a number of posts explaining what actually
(in his mind) transpired.

Jeff,

I went back to the video page and read the comments. Both skippers were
found to be at fault. The sailboat skipper later sued to prevent public
display of the movie that is shown. He won that suit in court. Of course,
that did not stop someone from posting it. This info is based on the
comments on the youtube page and may be totally wrong.

Dave M.

Cept the 'sail boat' had no sails up. . . .

-al-


On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:30 -0400, jeff wrote:


Here's a video taken about 20 miles away. As it turned out, the
sailboat won the law suit, I assume because the ferry refused to back
down and give it time to turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZPWA_3YfIM

The boat is still a "sailboat" even if the sails are down. I own a
"sailboat" even though the mast is down, the sails are stashed away, and
its high and dry in the yard.

Of course, for the purpose of the rules, it is only a "sailing vessel"
(i.e. vessel that is sailing) if it is under sailing and propulsion
machinery is not being used. The term "sailboat" never actually occurs
in the the rules.

As it turns out I was incorrect about the lawsuit - here's the comment
by a local observer:
"This case was brought to court and both parties were found to be at
fault. In the end it came down to the fact that neither the skipper of
the sail boat nor the steam ship authority captain wanted to yield to
the other party and this is how it ended."
The lawsuit that was won was to suppress the video - that didn't work
for too long!

Al Thomason wrote:
Cept the 'sail boat' had no sails up. . . .

-al-


On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:30 -0400, jeff wrote:

Here's a video taken about 20 miles away. As it turned out, the
sailboat won the law suit, I assume because the ferry refused to back
down and give it time to turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZPWA_3YfIM