"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
...
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.

On Jun 25, 10:58*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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:b2k226926nbtfsn40dkefkrjm2ge1357 ...
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.

Polly want a cracker?

On Jun 25, 2:56*pm, "mmc" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jun 24, 8:19 am, I am Tosk wrote:



In article d7d0cc54-b70c-4ae3-97cc-
,
says...

On Jun 23, 8:06 pm, "mmc" wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in
l-september.org....

In article 1660a4fc-2c0c-46bd-a669-a72a65d5d112
@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 22, 10:34 pm, Wayne.B
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:29:00 -0400, W1TEF

wrote:

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life
jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It is sad, and it's really not clear exactly how it could have
been
avoided other than greater vigilance/keeping out of the way. I
have
to admit that I'm not much into wearing life jackets either
except
under the most extreme circumstances, and it's not really clear
that
wearing a life jacket will save you from being run over by 8
barges
and a tug. Probably not is my guess but you never know.

They probably became distracted by their fishing and didn't
notice the
barges until too late, or perhaps their engine failed to start at
the
critical juncture, or maybe they had an anchor own and couldn't
get
it up, etc. There are lots of possibilities I suppose but it does
drive home the danger associated with small recreational boats
mixing
in with large commercial traffic.

One has to wonder if the tug operator suffers from the same malady
that many of the 18 wheeler drivers do. The "I'm a 'professional'
driver, and these mere regular people in their cars and trucks need
to
get out of my way" attitude. Rules of navigation notwithstanding,
it's on his conscience now.

Must be a local thing... Most truckdrivers here are pretty good on
the
road. They hate to crash, slows them down plenty..

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

I drove some for a couple jobs I had and after experiencing enough
idiots
cutting in front of me and hearing about truckers dying or ending up
seriously injured rather than running (literally) over a "4 wheeler" I
took
the attitude that if a driver was stupid enough to make it a him/her
or me
situation it was going to be him/her.

Are you one of those truckers who will run up behind a "4 wheeler" and
sit there, tailgating, a foot or two off their bumper, knowing that
you don't have a prayer of stopping if traffic slows suddenly? Or one
of those who switches into the left passing lane going downhill,
knowing full well an uphill is just a few hundred feet ahead, and now
you'll just become a moving roadblock, running beside your brethren
trucker in the right lane, for the next 5 miles, unwilling to speed up
to get by and move back over? Or the trucker that pulls out into a
two lane road with traffic approching, knowing it will take you a mile
or two of struggling just to barely approach the speed limit, all the
while with traffic backing up behind you?

And then you wonder why people seemingly cut in front of you? It's
because of many trucker's bad driving behavior and general lack of
driving courtesy. Besides, if you guys were such great drivers, we
wouldn't have to shut down the interstate on a nearly weekly basis
because some dumb trucker has spilled his load on one of the off-
ramps... you know, the ones that are clearly marked with a sharp turn
sign and a low speed limit.

I believe that 18 wheelers should be limited to interstates only, and
have to off-load their cargo to smaller trucks within a mile or two of
the interstate. That would eliminate the severe damage they inflict
on the secondary roads, and the havoc they inflict on traffic. If
they spill their load, they personally pay for the cleanup. Cause an
accident, lose your commercial license *forever*.

I do appreciate them hauling our cargo. Just don't act like an
asshole and try to kill us while doing it!

Wow, you must live in some weird bizarro world! Truckers here are pretty
good, it's the "4 wheelers" who do everything you just said, rarely
truckers...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

You have 4 wheelers spilling their loads on off-ramps?

Seriously, we have two "major" ports, Savannah and Charleston, that
puts lots of trucker traffic on the roads around here. *And while
there are certainly plenty of cars that exhibit some of the same
behavior, I can get around or avoid a car much easier than an 80 foot
long truck. *An idiot in a 40 ton truck is *far* more dangerous than
in a 2 ton car.

Besides, mmc gave us a peek into a trucker's mind... he said he
developed an attitude that instead of trying to avoid an accident he
would just plow right through us in his truck. *Nice, huh?
--------
Actually, what I said, or meant to say was that I wasn't going to die by
driving into a bridge abutment, tree line, whatever because someone else
made a stupid mistake. I'd do anything I could short of the above to avoid
making contact with another vehicle, including running off the road or
tipping the truck. I think I'm as important as the dumbass on the cell
phone, reading the paper, drunk or whatever on his commute.
I'm not all truckers. I only speak for myself Jack.

Just realize that truck drivers also talk on their cell phones while
driving their 40 ton vehicles down the road, with the same results as
the 4 wheelers who do the same. I've observed it. The actions you
want to place on the 4 wheeler drives are also done by the 18 wheeler
divers... with much bigger consequences. There is no difference in
the actions of the drivers, except for the real world results incurred
by them.

The 18 wheeler drivers are supposed to be "professionals". I just
want them to act like it, and to be held to that standard.

Now, a bus full of politicians or lawyers and all bets are off!

OK.

"Canuck57" 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.

"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
...
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.

In article ,
says...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

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

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life
jackets
at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run
over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with
those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume
that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is
not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young
or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation
call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed
seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug
operator
might have missed seeing them.


According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges.
What
size
barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge
operator
could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the
small
boat,
it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even changed the
direction of that train of barges significantly.

Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to
post
a
forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge.

Good point... or maybe they should be restricted in how many barges
they
can
push in a confined space.
We have a bit of a similar controversy up here on 'road trains'...
that
is
18 wheelers pulling two trailers, rather than one.
Lots of safety concerns from the public.

How is a two trailer truck rig similar to a tug pushing barges,
little
buddy?

Kevin.. keep quiet. The men are discussing an important safety
concern.
If we get around to preventing broken arms in pre-teens, we'll advise
you.

First of all, WTF is Kevin? I'm Harry, the best at everything. I have
everything, I know everything. I'm refined and cultured. I would never
stoop so low as to call people silly names. With that said, why not
answer the question if you are so concerned about safety?

For the 27th time (man, you are slow off the start) Kevin Noble of
Snellville Ga (reputed to be 54 years old) is the short tempered, cocky
engineering technician who has such a poor reputation (something to do
with
broken arms) that he feels the need to steal the ids of decent posters.
He also fancies himself as a bit of a badass...an adult version of the
Karate Kid.


Thanks for the information little buddy! I am curious, though, how you
know so much about this guy. Did he really break someone's arms???


Ask him!

I don't know who you are talking about, little buddy!

On 6/26/10 9:11 AM, Harry? wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

wrote in message
m...
On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

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

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life
jackets
at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run
over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with
those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume
that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is
not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young
or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation
call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed
seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug
operator
might have missed seeing them.


According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges.
What
size
barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge
operator
could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the
small
boat,
it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even changed the
direction of that train of barges significantly.

Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to
post
a
forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge.

Good point... or maybe they should be restricted in how many barges
they
can
push in a confined space.
We have a bit of a similar controversy up here on 'road trains'...
that
is
18 wheelers pulling two trailers, rather than one.
Lots of safety concerns from the public.

How is a two trailer truck rig similar to a tug pushing barges,
little
buddy?

Kevin.. keep quiet. The men are discussing an important safety
concern.
If we get around to preventing broken arms in pre-teens, we'll advise
you.

First of all, WTF is Kevin? I'm Harry, the best at everything. I have
everything, I know everything. I'm refined and cultured. I would never
stoop so low as to call people silly names. With that said, why not
answer the question if you are so concerned about safety?

For the 27th time (man, you are slow off the start) Kevin Noble of
Snellville Ga (reputed to be 54 years old) is the short tempered, cocky
engineering technician who has such a poor reputation (something to do
with
broken arms) that he feels the need to steal the ids of decent posters.
He also fancies himself as a bit of a badass...an adult version of the
Karate Kid.


Thanks for the information little buddy! I am curious, though, how you
know so much about this guy. Did he really break someone's arms???


Ask him!

I don't know who you are talking about, little buddy!


Sure you do, loogy-flajim-asshole-whatever. You know, loogy, the dumb
little cowardly twerp whose alleged daughter suffered two broken arms
under strange circumstances...the fellow who lied about the sheriff, a
lawyer, and a trip north. Just look in the mirror.

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.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 6/25/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:

Either way, I live and work,
and drive just outside NYC and NJersey, drove a truck down in the city
for a while and drive over 50,000 miles a year


You do not live and work "just outside" New York City and New Jersey.

You live in eastern Connecticut, close to Rhode Island, and you do not work.

You are a freaking expert on everything and everyone aren't you?

Harry is an idiot. First off, I work every day and have challenged the
asshole several times to prove he works because I can... You can see my
work on line 24/7... Oh, and the asshole doesn't know ****. I don't live
in "Eastern CT", in fact I live just about dead center of the State.

Harry spends everyday, 24/7 here insulting and cowering under his desk,
he has never ever shown us any evidence at all he does anything but live
on the stolen retirement funds of the Uuilco elderly he ****ed out of
their money and the pension, hard working blue collar guys earned for
him...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

On 6/26/10 10:20 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In om,
says...

In ,
says...

On 6/25/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:

Either way, I live and work,
and drive just outside NYC and NJersey, drove a truck down in the city
for a while and drive over 50,000 miles a year


You do not live and work "just outside" New York City and New Jersey.

You live in eastern Connecticut, close to Rhode Island, and you do not work.

You are a freaking expert on everything and everyone aren't you?

Harry is an idiot. First off, I work every day and have challenged the
asshole several times to prove he works because I can... You can see my
work on line 24/7... Oh, and the asshole doesn't know ****. I don't live
in "Eastern CT", in fact I live just about dead center of the State.

Harry spends everyday, 24/7 here insulting and cowering under his desk,
he has never ever shown us any evidence at all he does anything but live
on the stolen retirement funds of the Uuilco elderly he ****ed out of
their money and the pension, hard working blue collar guys earned for
him...


1. You don't work.

2. If you live in the center of Connecticut, you are not "just outside
New York City and New Jersey." Middletown is about in the center of
Connecticut. It is about 110 miles from Middletown to New York City, and
New Jersey is farther. 110 miles is not "just outside," period.

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