|
Right of Way
On Aug 20, 9:26*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 20/08/2011 2:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600, wrote: On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, * wrote: In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@giganews. com, says... I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you are on the highway or on the water. According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the time. Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an altercation." The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped. Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that. I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in any of the rules, inland or international. This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my comments: Who had the right of way *here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or more beeps I believe. or how about here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response time. In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60% fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat that was hit. I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also. Again, your wrong on the second video too. *But the second video is not as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing a freighter in the channel. This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns used. *The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right but secondary as avoid collisions is #1. Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision. Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat. There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.) Agreed. *But some blame belongs on both, but agree the boat taking the video gets the majority of the blame. *No horn, and as you say passed on the right which I would bet they had plenty of time to do. If I owned the boat which the video was shot, I would fire the captain with cause and hang him to dry. So, basically, you agree with this conclusion when a guy says it, but when a woman says it, she's wrong. You're an asshole and stupid. No, D'Plume. He's come to the conclusion that they are right, and you are an idiot! |
Right of Way
On Aug 20, 10:40*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:01:04 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:59:11 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote: The boat taking the video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged vessel in his danger zone Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary. It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any significant part of the blame. *Turning to starboard is also appropriate if it avoids collision. There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and speed. I see no negligence on his part at all. It depends on circumstances of course. *It is very easy for a small, fast, maneuverable boat to approach from the starboard side in such a way that a collision is ineveitable. *That is why the Rules of the Road/COLREGS burdens both vessels with avoiding collisions. Which brings us back to video 1 where there is a big discrepancy in the ability to maneuver. Don't go "plume" on me *;-) Excuse me.... I never claimed there was anything the tanker should have done in the first vid. I thought it was 100% or close to that the sailboats fault. The only thing I didn't hear, which might have been a factor for the tanker to accept some blame, was a warning of five beeps. Your arguments prove the reason why you're not practicing law. |
Right of Way
On Aug 20, 10:41*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:23:48 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:25:50 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote: The boat taking the video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged vessel in his danger zone Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary. It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any significant part of the blame. *Turning to starboard is also appropriate if it avoids collision. There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and speed. I see no negligence on his part at all. So, knowing a collision is about to happen, the skipper does nothing and you think no blame would be assigned????? In that situation, where I knew the burdened vessel was not *making any contact with me and was not making any effort to avoid the impending collision (constant bearing and decreasing range) I would slow down as Wayne said but I would do it about 3 miles ago. I would assume the offending ship was on auto pilot and the helmsman was below taking a ****. I might still come close enough to wake them up but it would be astern of them or maneuver to come up on the shoulder If this was a Coast Guard cutter that they cut off they would be boarded and life would take a turn for the worse for them. There are ALWAYS violations. No argument from me. That all sounds quite reasonable. I will even accept the "always" comment, even though I always don't. LOL You never had a valid argumenttot begin with. |
Right of Way
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:01:04 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:59:11 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:28:03 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote: The boat taking the video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged vessel in his danger zone Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary. It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any significant part of the blame. Turning to starboard is also appropriate if it avoids collision. There appeared to be plenty of visibility and I assume both boats had RADAR. It would have been trivial for the burdened vessel to make a small course correction miles away to avoid this collision. (just be sure your relative bearing to the target is changing to port). Once he swings across your bow, your burden is relieved and disaster averted.The other vessel was just supposed to maintain course and speed. I see no negligence on his part at all. It depends on circumstances of course. It is very easy for a small, fast, maneuverable boat to approach from the starboard side in such a way that a collision is ineveitable. That is why the Rules of the Road/COLREGS burdens both vessels with avoiding collisions. Which brings us back to video 1 where there is a big discrepancy in the ability to maneuver. Don't go "plume" on me ;-) It won't happen. :-) We were involved in an interesting, fast moving scenario on our way north this year. We were moving SE at idle speed, just emerging from the Cape May, NJ canal into the inner harbor, constrained by draft on both sides. It was immediately obvious that a large party fishing boat was approaching from the port side on a collision course. If he turned right into the canal we'd be OK, but continuing straight would hit us amidships. As the "stand on" vessel I immediately called him on VHF 16 to clarify his intentions. It sounds easy in retrospect but things happen fast between two approaching vessels and it's absolutely critical to get it right. |
Right of Way
On 8/20/11 10:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600, wrote: On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote: In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com, says... I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you are on the highway or on the water. According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the time. Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an altercation." The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped. Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that. I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in any of the rules, inland or international. This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my comments: Who had the right of way here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or more beeps I believe. or how about here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response time. In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60% fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat that was hit. I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also. Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing a freighter in the channel. This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right but secondary as avoid collisions is #1. Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision. Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat. There is nothing confusing about the second video. The boat taking the video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged vessel in his danger zone when he got the confirming blast . (dead ahead to 22 degrees abaft the starboard beam.) Yes, that's how I read it. However, both are required to avoid a collision; thus, I assigned a percentage of blame to both. You might argue with the %, but not with the conclusion. I can and will disagree with you. Your discussion about the tanker and sailboat highlight how little you know about boating. |
Right of Way
On 8/20/2011 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:56:32 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote: The boat taking the video was burdened and should have given one short blast to signal the intent and turned to starboard to pass on the right of the privileged vessel in his danger zone Better to slow down if there is time, all the way zero if necessary. It's very difficult for a boat doing zero knots to be apportioned any significant part of the blame. Turning to starboard is also appropriate if it avoids collision. I would think it wouldn't be that difficult. The boat is moving and is being trailed by another boat. The boat ahead has the right of way, since you can't run into the back of it (assuming several things like restrictions, in channels, etc.). The boat in front stops. Some blame could be assigned to that boat. Doubt it. |
Right of Way
In article ,
says... On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 20/08/2011 10:46 AM, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:04:15 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:00:06 -0400, wrote: In article8OGdnUEBcLTORdfTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews. com, says... I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI The bigger you are the more right of way you have. Doesn't matter if you are on the highway or on the water. According to the regulation I've read, this is incorrect a lot of the time. Read this, "The bigger you are, the more likely you are to win in an altercation." The sailboat loses. End of story. No admiralty court is going to fault the supertanker captain. Even with a proper lookout, there is no way in hell they could have seen the sailboat dart in from of them. Even if they could have, there is no way they could have stopped. Boats don't have brakes. You have to work around that. I never said otherwise. However, the statement that bigger you are gives you "more right of way" is wrong. There is no such language in any of the rules, inland or international. This is what Tim posted as a counter example, and I've included my comments: Who had the right of way here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE The boat from which the vid was taken, obviously. However, it had nothing to do with the size of either boat. I would assign 90% blame to the sailboat and 10% to the larger boat. It was a crossing situation, but the bigger boat didn't attempt (as far as can be seen or heard) to either take evasive action or sound an alarm... five or more beeps I believe. or how about here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related You gotta remember that the larger the vessel, the slower the response time. In the case of the second vid, my reading of the rules are that it was a crossing situation, so the boat being hit was probably "right" but should have tried to avoid the collision. And, the boat that was taking the vid should have avoided the situation. I would assign 60% fault to the boat from which the vid was taken and 40% to the boat that was hit. I'm sure there is precedence that the court would look at also. Again, your wrong on the second video too. But the second video is not as cut and dried as the first where the sailboat was dead wrong crossing a freighter in the channel. This is near head on, and both will get blame, I would say 65/35 but might come down hard on the boat taking the pictures as it appears he made no effort to pass on the right and I didn't hear warning horns used. The oncoming boat should not have to pass his boat on the right but secondary as avoid collisions is #1. Would be interesting to see the missing minutes before the collision. Sure glad you can't afford to own or rent a boat. Well moron, again you're not too bright. As I said for the second for the second video, 60/40. I guess reading isn't your strong suit. There is a precedent in these matters called "last clear chance". Meaning, just because the other party may not be doing something correctly, you have the duty to avoid collision if possible. |
Right of Way
Can anyone point me to the original video that started this? The danger signal may be used by ANY vessel doubting the actions of another. otn wrote in : BTW, your five "beeps" are only exchanged in accordance with Rule 34, which allows only "authorized" or "required" maneuvers, which this was not. By the way, the five beeps are really 5 short and rapid blasts of a whistle. Sounds trivial, but if you ever sit for a captains license, that is enough to miss a few questions. The USCG must think it is important. |
Right of Way
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500, otnmbrd wrote:
Can anyone point me to the original video that started this? The danger signal may be used by ANY vessel doubting the actions of another. otn wrote in : BTW, your five "beeps" are only exchanged in accordance with Rule 34, which allows only "authorized" or "required" maneuvers, which this was not. By the way, the five beeps are really 5 short and rapid blasts of a whistle. Sounds trivial, but if you ever sit for a captains license, that is enough to miss a few questions. The USCG must think it is important. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com