No attempt to avoid collision
 

Constant bearing decreasing range:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLErvNBf1Y

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Constant bearing decreasing range:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLErvNBf1Y


The Coast Guard vessel was the give-way vessel because it had the other on
its own starboard bow. It should have slowed down, turned to starboard and
passed astern of the skiff.

Pathetic! Where was the horn - the five short blast danger signal?

Wilbur Hubbard

No attempt to avoid collision
 

On Jul 10, 12:21*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

The Coast Guard vessel was the give-way vessel because it had the other on
its own starboard bow. It should have slowed down, turned to starboard and
passed astern of the skiff.

Pathetic! Where was the horn - the five short blast danger signal?

Wilbur Hubbard

What is pathetic is your understanding of the Rules of the Road.
Everyone knows, except you obviously, that an enforcment vessel has a
"de facto" right of way while conducting an enforment mission. I cant
belive you dont know that since you are such a self elavated sailing
expert.

I hope someday you will become as skilled as I am. When I was running
crew boats I would have kicked a deck hand off for being twice as
smart as you are.

Fred

No attempt to avoid collision
 

Perhaps the CG vessel was on a mission, but that doesn't excuse running into
another boat. It seems pretty obvious that the CG could have avoided the
collision. Another few seconds would have been the entire delay. Yelling at
another speedboat gets you nothing.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 12:21 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

The Coast Guard vessel was the give-way vessel because it had the other on
its own starboard bow. It should have slowed down, turned to starboard and
passed astern of the skiff.

Pathetic! Where was the horn - the five short blast danger signal?

Wilbur Hubbard

What is pathetic is your understanding of the Rules of the Road.
Everyone knows, except you obviously, that an enforcment vessel has a
"de facto" right of way while conducting an enforment mission. I cant
belive you dont know that since you are such a self elavated sailing
expert.

I hope someday you will become as skilled as I am. When I was running
crew boats I would have kicked a deck hand off for being twice as
smart as you are.

Fred




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

No attempt to avoid collision
 

Exactly. As has been pointed out here endlessly, being the stand on vessel
doesn't make you blameless if you take no action to avoid the collision.
Rules aside, the CG boat would have gotten to its mission objective a lot
sooner if it had followed the full rules of the road instead of just the one
governing the passing situation.

--
Roger Long

No attempt to avoid collision
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:01:23 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Exactly. As has been pointed out here endlessly, being the stand on vessel
doesn't make you blameless if you take no action to avoid the collision.
Rules aside, the CG boat would have gotten to its mission objective a lot
sooner if it had followed the full rules of the road instead of just the one
governing the passing situation.

Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do, if this case
ever came to an admiralty court it's likely that the CG vessel would
be assigned the majority of blame regardless of rules of the road,
respondinig to an emergency, etc. That's because the primary rule is
to take evasive action to avoid a collision if at all possible. The
other boat, not seeing the CG vessel could of course to nothing to
avoid the collision. But the CG vessel, having seen the whole thing
develop, could have easily avoided the collision either by changing
course or even just sounding a horn to warn the other vessel. But
they did nothing and so have the vast majority of the blame.

Steve

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

,snipped
.. The
other boat, not seeing the CG vessel could of course to nothing to
avoid the collision.

This is the bit that bothers me. The CG vesel was big enough and going (I
think) slower than he was.
Anyway, I think he must have seen it and was pretty stupid to keep going
and make no attempt to avoid collision

But the CG vessel, having seen the whole thing
develop, could have easily avoided the collision either by changing
course or even just sounding a horn to warn the other vessel. But
they did nothing and so have the vast majority of the blame.

I am not arguing with that despite what I have written above.

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Steve" wrote

Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do ....

Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple
of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat
with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging
federal property, and terrorism thrown in. We're pretty much a police state
now.

--
Roger Long

No attempt to avoid collision
 

On Jul 11, 9:47*am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Steve" wrote



Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do ....

Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple
of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat
with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging
federal property, and terrorism thrown in. *We're pretty much a police state
now.

--
Roger Long

As can plainly be seen the USCG boat is manned by personal who even
do not know the basics to pull up a fender after leaving the dock.
Both deserve equal blame IMO.

Fred

No attempt to avoid collision
 

On Jul 11, 6:51*am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:47*am, "Roger Long" wrote:

"Steve" wrote

Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do ....

Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple
of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat
with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging
federal property, and terrorism thrown in. *We're pretty much a police state
now.

--
Roger Long

*As can plainly be seen the USCG boat is manned by personal who even
do not know the basics to pull up a fender after leaving the dock.
Both deserve equal blame IMO.

*Fred

I forgot another thought. As in other events law enforment kill people
their justification is, "I felt in danger for my life." That is all
that is needed to shoot to death an unarmed "suspect" in the back as
the suspect is walking away. It is clear in the USCG situation they
felt in danger and therefore were justified to use deadly force to
protect themselves.... In this case ramming the recreational vessel
who obviosly approaced the USCG vessel to closely. THe same holds true
for any other war ship. If yo get "too close" they can blow you out of
the water. REmember the USS COLE? Never again.those guys in the speed
boat were very possibly terrorists and therefore the USCG was justifed
in ramming the boat.

Fred