BoatBanter.com - Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/116003-tennessee-boaters-killed-tug-barges.html)

Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges

"Harold" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2010 11:34 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are
more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have
diver
flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common
sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty
obvious
who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge
operator
will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything
'right',
she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.

If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you
can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a
certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously
less
maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under
power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn
of
it's
intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for
election
and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked
right
of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if
so
marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane.
But if
outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact
guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have
been
going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the
small
boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if
the
barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the
barge
captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common
sense.

What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable
waterways and shipping lanes?

Steve

Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to
be
anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote you
the
reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here. Lots of
right of way questions.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common
sense.

Actually there is no "right of way" with boats. But you cut in front
of a
1000 foot tanker and have a power failure or misjudge speeds, you have
a
great chance of death. I personally have heard sail boaters say they
have
the right of way over a tanker or freighter coming under the Golden
Gate
Bridge. Fishing boat caused a tanker to hit the San Raphael Bridge a
year
or two ago. Anchored in the channel. Had to pay for the damage to the
bridge piling bumper and to the ship. Luckily ship did not have much
damage. Anchored pleasure power boat fishing, is not considered not
under
power as he can turn on the engine. He is not a fishing boat per regs
as he
is not commercial and not nets or multiple lines out.

http://www.boatus.com/foundation/gui...igation_1.html

--
We all work for government, they ceased working for us a long time ago.

And, it's in the actual NavRules document published by the Coast Guard:

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm

Rule 9, 14, and Annex V

Canuck - finally proves he can read...

Tell us how your date went last night.

I don't "date." No point in asking you, since I sincerely doubt any woman
would have you.

Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 12:30 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harold" wrote in message

...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2010 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harold" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 11:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
.. .
On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
. ..
On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in
message
news:b2k226926nbtfsn40dkefkrjm2ge13 ...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets...
sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and
you
are
more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you
have
diver
flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out
common
sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's
pretty
obvious who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the
barge
operator will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing
everything
'right', she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.

If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much
you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to
turn
on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a
certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being
obviously
less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small
boat
is
under power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST
warn of
it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell
bent
for
election and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a
marked
right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the
small boat
if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active
shiping
lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable
to
the
barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in
fact
guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a
diver
flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may
have
been going faster than he could safely control it. For
example,
if the
small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the
right
and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a
problem
with the barge captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out
common
sense.

They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed.

Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But
there
are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes.

I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to
get a
good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this.
Could
be a juicy law suit.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out
common
sense.

Or, you're just an idiot. Occam's razor at work.

You know for one that claims for be a lawyer or legal clerk, or
tolet cleaner in a legal office, you really know ****.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common
sense.

Fortunately, that would still have me knowing more than 10 of you.

English please Nombnuts

No nuts here... certainly I don't have any and just as certainly you
don't.

Yep, we know, a she-it. Because it can't be determined what you
really
are.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common
sense.

Fortunately, we _can_ determine what you are... an ignorant racist.

BTW, do let me know when the slapping you're getting becomes
burdensome.

Are your hands sore yet. Perhaps you should do some finger exercises.
It
might brighten your attitude.

Dummy... I've been using a 2 x 4 on your head so long that the piece of
wood
just filed a police report.

Is that the same 2x4 that your boyfriend ties around the back of his
waist so that he doesn't fall in?

Sounds like you have experience with this.

Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges

In article ,
says...

Harry ? wrote:
On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...
3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains.

Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made
the determination?

You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or
health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to
college instead of to the marines...

BTW, you still have no boat, right?
Say what? What was the stolen money earmarked for?

Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them...

I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets
at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no
more virtuous than anyone else.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml

I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson
that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion?

http://labornotes.org/node/1029

Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about
their members. It is all about money, power and influence.

http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc

"Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires
representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an
organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and
its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit
180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while
their company and its pension funds were left in the cold."

http://laborpains.org/2008/04/

"Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better
known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted
from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five-
year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s
corruption."

Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges

In article ,
says...

On 6/27/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleOcednTK2JpWPKLvRnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

Harry ? wrote:
On 6/26/10 11:07 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlePKGdnYjTKv3sk7vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...
3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains.

And once again, Bertie-Brain Robbins, you demonstrate why you weren't
able to continue your education after high school and why you joined the
marines, instead. The reason: you're just not very bright.

Now, back to the continuing question...

Do you own...a boat?

No?

That's what I thought.

Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them...

Are you the spokesperson referenced in the first link?

I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets
at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no
more virtuous than anyone else.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml

I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson
that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion?

http://labornotes.org/node/1029

Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about
their members. It is all about money, power and influence.

http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc

"Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires
representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an
organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and
its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit
180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while
their company and its pension funds were left in the cold."

http://laborpains.org/2008/04/

"Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better
known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted
from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five-
year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s
corruption."

Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,

Harry ? wrote:

3. No one at ULLICO stole anyone's retirement funds, **** for brains.

BAR asked:

Was there a judicial finding regarding this or was it ULLICO that made
the determination?

Harry answered with his pants obviously on fi

You obviously have no understanding of that situation. Retirement or
health insurance funds were not the issue. Perhaps if you have gone to
college instead of to the marines...

BTW, you still have no boat, right?

BAR, obviously frustrated by Harry's deflection replied:

Since Harry cut out my cites I'll repost them...

I understand the issue Harry. Union bosses tried to fatten their wallets
at the expense of the working man. It appears that labor leaders are no
more virtuous than anyone else.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml

I really like the section titled "The Fallout". Are you the spokesperson
that is mentioned in the second paragraph of that secion?

http://labornotes.org/node/1029

Shows that the leaders of the unions really don't give a crap about
their members. It is all about money, power and influence.

http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...-the-ullico-sc

"Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959 (commonly referred to as the Landrum-Griffin Act) requires
representatives of labor organizations to manage and invest an
organization's assets "solely for the benefit of the organization and
its members." The inside stock deals at Ullico have twisted the benefit
180 degrees. The union directors made millions in personal profits while
their company and its pension funds were left in the cold."

http://laborpains.org/2008/04/

"Yesterday, the beleaguered Union Labor Life Insurance Company, better
known as ULLICO, posted a $2.4 million net loss, much of which resulted
from a $20 million settlement with the Department of Labor after a five-
year investigation into the union-administered insurance company?s
corruption."

Nothing illustrates the kind of slimeball Harry is, better than this post.
The sort of folks
he deals with, and him attempting to whitewash their evil deeds by boldface
lying, clearly
shows what a corrupt ****head Harry really is.
Thank you BAR for bringing this to our attention.

Tennessee Boaters Killed By Tug and Barges