Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:13:42 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

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.

There are two different collision videos kicking around, each with
entirely different circumstances.

The first shows a tourist boat approaching a somewhat larger vessel
from the starboard side. The smaller boat ends up crossing the
larger boat's bow and collides almost head on. There is some shared
blame in my opinion with the larger boat more at fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH2nZK3_sMk

The second video, shows a racing sailboat approaching the bow of a
large freighter from the starboard side. The sailboat tries to cross
and ends up geting hit. His spinnaker becomes entangled on the
freighter's anchor and becomes dismasted as a result. The sailboat is
clearly in violation of 18(b) and 100% at fault in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoU...layer_embedded



There are three vids "floating" around. Can't you get anything right?

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:25:49 -0400, X ~ Man
wrote:

On 8/21/11 2:13 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:27:48 -0500,
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.

There are two different collision videos kicking around, each with
entirely different circumstances.

The first shows a tourist boat approaching a somewhat larger vessel
from the starboard side. The smaller boat ends up crossing the
larger boat's bow and collides almost head on. There is some shared
blame in my opinion with the larger boat more at fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH2nZK3_sMk

The second video, shows a racing sailboat approaching the bow of a
large freighter from the starboard side. The sailboat tries to cross
and ends up geting hit. His spinnaker becomes entangled on the
freighter's anchor and becomes dismasted as a result. The sailboat is
clearly in violation of 18(b) and 100% at fault in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoU...layer_embedded





There's just something about Wayne and his holier than thou posts that
remind me of the First Lord's song from HMS Pinafo

As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk
I served the writs with a smile so bland
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand
He copied all the letters in a big round hand
I copied all the letters in a hand so free
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy
He copied all the letters in a hand so free
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

He's really a pill. He can't seem to get his story straight even if
you hand him the information.

Right of Way
 

On 8/21/2011 3:14 PM, wrote:

So, you didn't read where I said, "The only thing I didn't see (hear)
was lack of warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened
and we just didn't hear it in the vid."

If you think I have some obligation to do tons of research to be
perfect, you're mistaken. So, you win. I didn't read the entire quote
below the vid. Big deal. My statement stands as written.

Problem is your mouth starts running too soon before digesting
information and analyzing it. Your statements never stand on their own
and rarely hold water at all. Thus it is very difficult to take you
seriously.

If you'll notice the ships horn was sounding as the video starts. Can
you conclude the horn might have sounded a couple of times before the
vid started? Also the horn might have sounded as a warning to all of the
idiot racers who might not have noticed there was a super tanker in
their midst.

Right of Way
 

On 21/08/2011 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, 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.

Actually, after reviewing more information, I suspect the tanker
captain would be ruled as contributing a certain amount of negligence
to the accident.

In that area, during the frequent races, there is a speed limit
imposed. The tanker is clearly hauling ass.

I strongly suspect it would be a case of two wrongs contributing to an
inevitable accident.

It's hard to tell. The only thing I didn't see (hear) was lack of
warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened and we just
didn't hear it in the vid.

Hey dumb**** parrot, watch it again, and turn on the volume.

From what I've read on maritime courts, they almost always assign some
blame to both parties.


--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

Right of Way
 

John H wrote in
:

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
m:



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

Thanks.

Maximum speed I'd give that tanker is "slow ahead" (@ 6k..no appreciable
bow wave). Obviously blowing danger signal as video starts and considering
buoyed channel and all other traffic I'd say the sailboat needs to thank
their luck they weren't killed. Also I'd say race officials and others need
to coordinate a good deal better.

2nd video of sailboat and ferry appears to be 2 powerdriven vessels head
to head,,,, why sailboat came to port is curious (never a good idea head to
head or nearly so).

3rd video.... start of video, it might (note: I said MIGHT) be considered
head to head or NEARLY so....always one that can lead to trouble. Hard to
know from video, but appears NEITHER vessel took any action.

otn

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:09:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:14:43 -0700, wrote:

You didn't read the accompanying story with the video did you?

... or even google up the other stories about it.


So, you didn't read where I said, "The only thing I didn't see (hear)
was lack of warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened
and we just didn't hear it in the vid."

If you think I have some obligation to do tons of research to be
perfect, you're mistaken. So, you win. I didn't read the entire quote
below the vid. Big deal. My statement stands as written.

Tons of research? You did not e=ven read the commentary on the You
Tube video where it said the tanker was honking his horn the whole
time.,

Thus, you claiming that I was wrong when I said "it's possible that
happened." Question: What's your problem?

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:52:08 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/08/2011 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:39 -0700, 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.

Actually, after reviewing more information, I suspect the tanker
captain would be ruled as contributing a certain amount of negligence
to the accident.

In that area, during the frequent races, there is a speed limit
imposed. The tanker is clearly hauling ass.

I strongly suspect it would be a case of two wrongs contributing to an
inevitable accident.

It's hard to tell. The only thing I didn't see (hear) was lack of
warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened and we just
didn't hear it in the vid.

Hey dumb**** parrot, watch it again, and turn on the volume.

From what I've read on maritime courts, they almost always assign some
blame to both parties.

Hey Peewee... you're not an adult and you're stupid.

Right of Way
 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:54:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:39:17 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:09:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:14:43 -0700, wrote:

You didn't read the accompanying story with the video did you?

... or even google up the other stories about it.


So, you didn't read where I said, "The only thing I didn't see (hear)
was lack of warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened
and we just didn't hear it in the vid."

If you think I have some obligation to do tons of research to be
perfect, you're mistaken. So, you win. I didn't read the entire quote
below the vid. Big deal. My statement stands as written.

Tons of research? You did not e=ven read the commentary on the You
Tube video where it said the tanker was honking his horn the whole
time.,

Thus, you claiming that I was wrong when I said "it's possible that
happened." Question: What's your problem?

You are trolling again

Huh? I'm participating in a discussion about rules on the water.

The ORIGINAL video had a description of the accident and you didn't
read it, you started popping off about how the tanker should have
blown his horn (which he did) ... like the sailboat didn't see that
big red mother honker coming.

And, regarding the original video, I said that I thought the sailboat
was, if not 100% at fault, nearly so. I also said that I didn't hear
the required "blasts" from the tanker, but they could have happened.
Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description. The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened.

So, I ask again, what's your problem?

If you were willing to do a little more research you would see the
yachting people saying this guy was trying to advance his position in
the race by taking a stupid chance with the tanker.

If you were willing to have a normal conversation and actually read
what I wrote, you'd see that you're the one being a jerk.

I hope they charge him for a paint job on the tanker.

I hope they do also. So?

I know it breaks your ambulance chasing heart but this is not going to
court. it happened Aug 8 and they are still in the investigation but
there will not be a court case., The Brits are not as tort driven as
we are. To start with LOSER PAYS!

You're a rude jerk. I'm not and have never been interested in
"ambulance" chasing. Even when I was in the corporate legal field I
hated it when I had to give someone who was representing a company a
choice of settle or go to court. I always tried to work it out, and I
was mostly successful. The only patent work I do now, very part time,
is for individual inventors who come to me in a word of mouth fashion.
You know for sure it won't go to court? How do you know this? Does it
say it somewhere in your "research"? Or, more likely it's your
OPINION.

The Brits are not as tort driven? Really? Do you even know what "tort"
means? I doubt it. Tort is a wrongful act that leads to legal
liability. What you were trying to say, although you mangled it, is
that people in the US tend to sue more than people in Britain. I doubt
there's much truth to it, but lets say that's true. Feel free to do
the research on that one and let me know....

What you're probably trying to say with that is that in the US there
are fewer limits on punitive damage awards than there are in Britain
(cite: Rookes v Barnard, 1964 - yes, I had to look it up, because I
haven't been in law school for quite a while).

Basically, you don't know what you're trying to say, so I'm trying to
muddle through your gibberish in an honest attempt to help you clarify
your thoughts. I doubt I was successful, so feel free to go back to
hiding I guess.

Right of Way
 

On Aug 21, 11:56*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:54:10 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:39:17 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:09:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:14:43 -0700, wrote:

You didn't read the accompanying story with the video did you?

... or even google up the other stories about it.

So, you didn't read where I said, "The only thing I didn't see (hear)
was lack of warning from the tanker, but it's possible that happened
and we just didn't hear it in the vid."

If you think I have some obligation to do tons of research to be
perfect, you're mistaken. So, you win. I didn't read the entire quote
below the vid. Big deal. My statement stands as written.

Tons of research? You did not e=ven read the commentary on the You
Tube video where it said the tanker was honking his horn the whole
time.,

Thus, you claiming that I was wrong when I said "it's possible that
happened." Question: What's your problem?

You are trolling again

Huh? I'm participating in a discussion about rules on the water.

The ORIGINAL video had a description of the accident and you didn't
read it, you started popping off about how the tanker should have
blown his horn (which he did) *... like the sailboat didn't see that
big red mother honker coming.

And, regarding the original video, I said that I thought the sailboat
was, if not 100% at fault, nearly so. I also said that I didn't hear
the required "blasts" from the tanker, but they could have happened.
Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description. The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened.

So, I ask again, what's your problem?

If you were willing to do a little more research you would see the
yachting people saying this guy was trying to advance his position in
the race by taking a stupid chance with the tanker.

If you were willing to have a normal conversation and actually read
what I wrote, you'd see that you're the one being a jerk.

I hope they charge him for a paint job on the tanker.

I hope they do also. So?

I know it breaks your ambulance chasing heart but this is not going to
court. it happened Aug 8 and they are still in the investigation but
there will not be a court case., The Brits are not as tort driven as
we are. To start with LOSER PAYS!

You're a rude jerk. I'm not and have never been interested in
"ambulance" chasing. Even when I was in the corporate legal field I
hated it when I had to give someone who was representing a company a
choice of settle or go to court. I always tried to work it out, and I
was mostly successful. The only patent work I do now, very part time,
is for individual inventors who come to me in a word of mouth fashion.
You know for sure it won't go to court? How do you know this? Does it
say it somewhere in your "research"? Or, more likely it's your
OPINION.

The Brits are not as tort driven? Really? Do you even know what "tort"
means? I doubt it. Tort is a wrongful act that leads to legal
liability. What you were trying to say, although you mangled it, is
that people in the US tend to sue more than people in Britain. I doubt
there's much truth to it, but lets say that's true. Feel free to do
the research on that one and let me know....

What you're probably trying to say with that is that in the US there
are fewer limits on punitive damage awards than there are in Britain
(cite: Rookes v Barnard, 1964 - yes, I had to look it up, because I
haven't been in law school for quite a while).

Basically, you don't know what you're trying to say, so I'm trying to
muddle through your gibberish in an honest attempt to help you clarify
your thoughts. I doubt I was successful, so feel free to go back to
hiding I guess.

Bull**** D'Plume. We know you are trying to save face in this entire
thread, but it will never work. Even by throwing it from the accident
to spouting some legal hubub, it only makes you look like you are
gasping for air, Keep babbling and insulting if it makes you feel
better, though.

Right of Way
 

On Aug 21, 11:56*pm, wrote:

"Excuse the **** out of me if I didn't read the entire description.
The
fact is that I was correct when I said they could have happened."

Ah, so now you are inviting Fretwell to exchange bodily fluids with
you.

BTW, You still aren't correct.