|
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:14:16 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. How "evasive" do you think a 200,000 ton tanker is? In that short clip you might not even have seen the effect of turning the rudder over full. It is not a "rule" it is a law. Newtons first law of motion. As I said, on the open ocean when it's pretty clear from a great distance that one is going to run down the other, it's the obligation of the one running the other down to avoid it. Your comment has nothing to do with the original thread. A tanker is not going to be able to turn to avoid a sailboat that he probably can't even see from the bridge. What about when it can? What about when it knows it's there? As I said, repeatedly, size isn't listed in the regulations related to this issue. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Looking? He couldn't even see a boat that close to him and this did not look like international waters to me. I wasn't talking about that case. I clearly and REPEATEDLY said that the sailboat was at fault. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. Of course it does, What the hell was that sailboat doing if it wasn't trying to beat the tanker to the crossing and get by in front of him. I bet he forgot the tanker was going to take away the wind. See previous and get off your high horse. The guy in the sailboat was clearly 100% wrong See previous. You're arguing with me because you haven't read what I wrote. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:44:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 18/08/2011 11:14 PM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. You don't have the IQ to understand. Those regs are pretty much international. You might as well admit your too stupid for your own good. Hopelessly an idiot. Even if the freighter was faster, and it was intentionally trying to run down the sailboat, which it was not but lets for arguments sake say it was. The sailboat could dodge the freighter all day long. The idiot played chicken and lost. You have a negative IQ. |
Right of Way
|
Right of Way
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:20:31 -0400, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John H wrote: Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense. In that example both boats re restricted in their ability to maneuver by virtue of their size. They are governed by the rules of the road however which say that the vessel being overtaken is the "stand on" vessel (see COLREGS definitions). That said, both vessels have the obligation to avoid a collission. If there is doubt about another vessels intent, they are *required* to make contact on the radio and/or signal their intentions using whistles or horns. I have found, in my 67 years on this earth, that admitting an error is extremely difficult for some folks. I expect you will be bombarded with inanities until you give up. Maybe I'll be proven wrong this time. |
Right of Way
On 8/16/2011 4:51 PM, Eisboch wrote:
I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI I like the comment below the video.. SNIP Very simple, same old rules of the road - wood gives way to plastic & plastic gives way to steel. Of course, keeping your eyes open helps... /SNIP Sounds like a good rule;) |
Right of Way
|
Right of Way
On 19/08/2011 6:52 AM, X ~ Man wrote:
In raweb.com, "not a says... On 8/19/2011 1:02 AM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:01:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote: 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. Quit playing lawyer. You aren't any good at it and you don't have the skills to interpret correctly what you read. Someone should assign you to an asylum. Just my two cents. ;-) Yes I am good at it. Ooops, I mean SHE'S good at it. Good part is you are too skint to have or rent a boat. -- Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear. |
Right of Way
On 19/08/2011 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:14:16 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. How "evasive" do you think a 200,000 ton tanker is? In that short clip you might not even have seen the effect of turning the rudder over full. It is not a "rule" it is a law. Newtons first law of motion. As I said, on the open ocean when it's pretty clear from a great distance that one is going to run down the other, it's the obligation of the one running the other down to avoid it. Your comment has nothing to do with the original thread. A tanker is not going to be able to turn to avoid a sailboat that he probably can't even see from the bridge. What about when it can? What about when it knows it's there? As I said, repeatedly, size isn't listed in the regulations related to this issue. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Looking? He couldn't even see a boat that close to him and this did not look like international waters to me. I wasn't talking about that case. I clearly and REPEATEDLY said that the sailboat was at fault. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. Of course it does, What the hell was that sailboat doing if it wasn't trying to beat the tanker to the crossing and get by in front of him. I bet he forgot the tanker was going to take away the wind. See previous and get off your high horse. The guy in the sailboat was clearly 100% wrong See previous. You're arguing with me because you haven't read what I wrote. It wasn't worth reading. -- Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear. |
Right of Way
On 19/08/2011 11:22 AM, Jimmy wrote:
On 8/19/2011 1:04 PM, wrote: As usual you changed the subject and went off on a totally unrelated tangent and then call everyone who questions you a moron. That is why I should know better than to ever feed the troll. I apologize to the group That's _precisely_ what I thought when I read it. A tanker and a sail boat somehow became a tanker and a tanker. Ouch! Especially if deplume was a captain of one. -- Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear. |
Right of Way
On 19/08/2011 3:44 AM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/19/2011 1:14 AM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. Your knowledge and attitude would make any boat you pilot a hazard to navigation. You are an incompetent and insane skipper. And I use the term skipper very loosely. Thank god you don't own even part of a boat. And is too broke to rent one. -- Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear. |
Right of Way
|
Right of Way
On Aug 19, 3:14*pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:39:10 -0400, wrote: The RADAR we had in 1965 probably wasn't as good as what you have on your trawler today. No question about it. *It would have taken a whole ship full of electronics to duplicate the functionality, just like with computer equipment. *The CPU power and storage of our three laptops would have taken an entire large scale data center, and the high speed data bandwidth that we now take for granted didn't even exist. *I had a few summer jobs with AT&T during he early '60s and 1200 baud was high speed datacomm at that time. "...and 1200 baud was high speed datacomm at that time. " Blinding speed! ?8^0 |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:23:05 -0400, John H
wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:20:31 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John H wrote: Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense. In that example both boats re restricted in their ability to maneuver by virtue of their size. They are governed by the rules of the road however which say that the vessel being overtaken is the "stand on" vessel (see COLREGS definitions). That said, both vessels have the obligation to avoid a collission. If there is doubt about another vessels intent, they are *required* to make contact on the radio and/or signal their intentions using whistles or horns. I have found, in my 67 years on this earth, that admitting an error is extremely difficult for some folks. I expect you will be bombarded with inanities until you give up. Maybe I'll be proven wrong this time. I have found, in my years on this earth, that it's quite easy to figure out who's a liar and/or a racist in a very short period of time. You are both. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:04:35 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:12:47 -0700, wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:14:16 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. How "evasive" do you think a 200,000 ton tanker is? In that short clip you might not even have seen the effect of turning the rudder over full. It is not a "rule" it is a law. Newtons first law of motion. As I said, on the open ocean when it's pretty clear from a great distance that one is going to run down the other, it's the obligation of the one running the other down to avoid it. Your comment has nothing to do with the original thread. A tanker is not going to be able to turn to avoid a sailboat that he probably can't even see from the bridge. What about when it can? What about when it knows it's there? As I said, repeatedly, size isn't listed in the regulations related to this issue. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Looking? He couldn't even see a boat that close to him and this did not look like international waters to me. I wasn't talking about that case. I clearly and REPEATEDLY said that the sailboat was at fault. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. Of course it does, What the hell was that sailboat doing if it wasn't trying to beat the tanker to the crossing and get by in front of him. I bet he forgot the tanker was going to take away the wind. See previous and get off your high horse. The guy in the sailboat was clearly 100% wrong See previous. You're arguing with me because you haven't read what I wrote. As usual you changed the subject and went off on a totally unrelated tangent and then call everyone who questions you a moron. That is why I should know better than to ever feed the troll. I apologize to the group I did not. I was talking about Tim's vid link postings. Sorry if you can't figure it out. I even quoted his links directly. You're welcome to not reply to anything I post. As usual, you'd rather hide. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:29:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/08/2011 11:22 AM, Jimmy wrote: On 8/19/2011 1:04 PM, wrote: As usual you changed the subject and went off on a totally unrelated tangent and then call everyone who questions you a moron. That is why I should know better than to ever feed the troll. I apologize to the group That's _precisely_ what I thought when I read it. A tanker and a sail boat somehow became a tanker and a tanker. Ouch! Especially if deplume was a captain of one. Especially if you're an idiot, which you are. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:28:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/08/2011 9:12 AM, wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:14:16 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. How "evasive" do you think a 200,000 ton tanker is? In that short clip you might not even have seen the effect of turning the rudder over full. It is not a "rule" it is a law. Newtons first law of motion. As I said, on the open ocean when it's pretty clear from a great distance that one is going to run down the other, it's the obligation of the one running the other down to avoid it. Your comment has nothing to do with the original thread. A tanker is not going to be able to turn to avoid a sailboat that he probably can't even see from the bridge. What about when it can? What about when it knows it's there? As I said, repeatedly, size isn't listed in the regulations related to this issue. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Looking? He couldn't even see a boat that close to him and this did not look like international waters to me. I wasn't talking about that case. I clearly and REPEATEDLY said that the sailboat was at fault. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. Of course it does, What the hell was that sailboat doing if it wasn't trying to beat the tanker to the crossing and get by in front of him. I bet he forgot the tanker was going to take away the wind. See previous and get off your high horse. The guy in the sailboat was clearly 100% wrong See previous. You're arguing with me because you haven't read what I wrote. It wasn't worth reading. Yes, we know you can't read. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:47:17 -0400, Wayne B
wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote: Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Yes Greg, I know that is not your post. The above statement is total nonsense. Rule 18(b) is identical for both local and international waters, no difference, nada. A *large* (tanker/freighter/warship) is always limited in it's ability to maneuver. It can take two or three miles to turn or stop, which by anyone's definition is limited. Just this morning we heard some weenie on a sailboat complaining to the coast guard on marine VHF radio that a large naval warship coming out of Naraganset Bay, Rhode Island was not granting right of way to his sailboat. He was practically laughed off the radio by everyone who heard the broadcast. There is nothing anywhere in the Rules of the Road/COLREGS which discusses the obligations of a so called "larger/faster" vessel. Meanwhile all of these rules are readily available on the internet along with definitions, examples, practice questions, etc. Whoever is posting this drivel (and I can guess), should take some time to study all of the above and take a course or two before even thinking about setting foot behind the wheel of a boat. So, what you're tell us is that with the "always" comment is that you know very little about boating, which is pretty shocking. Again, take the case of two tankers. Both see each other on radar, for example, in international waters, many miles apart. Which one is "restricted"? Neither. As I've said, and which you've deliberately ignored is that there is no mention of "size" in 18b. But, you're not enough of a man to admit that. Neither do you have enough brains to actually read the rules, apparently. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:39:10 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:47:17 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote: Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Yes Greg, I know that is not your post. The above statement is total nonsense. Rule 18(b) is identical for both local and international waters, no difference, nada. A *large* (tanker/freighter/warship) is always limited in it's ability to maneuver. It can take two or three miles to turn or stop, which by anyone's definition is limited. Just this morning we heard some weenie on a sailboat complaining to the coast guard on marine VHF radio that a large naval warship coming out of Naraganset Bay, Rhode Island was not granting right of way to his sailboat. He was practically laughed off the radio by everyone who heard the broadcast. There is nothing anywhere in the Rules of the Road/COLREGS which discusses the obligations of a so called "larger/faster" vessel. Meanwhile all of these rules are readily available on the internet along with definitions, examples, practice questions, etc. Whoever is posting this drivel (and I can guess), should take some time to study all of the above and take a course or two before even thinking about setting foot behind the wheel of a boat. I was always amazed at how small boats would play chicken with a weather cutter. It never happened around Norfolk because those folks knew the warships maintain course and speed but we had it in Nassau. That was before they had a lot of cruise ship traffic. The funny thing is our weather cutters had an E2 or E3 at the helm and if this was outside the harbor, the OD was usually down in officer country reading a book or napping. The ship was operated by three of the most junior non-rated guys on the boat, (deck watch was a helmsman, a lookout and a messenger) They had a standing order to maintain course and speed unless the lookout saw a contact on RADAR or made some visual contact. Then the messenger went for the OD. If you had a little boat, offshore at night without a decent RADAR reflector we might just run over your ass and never know it. The RADAR we had in 1965 probably wasn't as good as what you have on your trawler today. There was certainly no autopilot capability or the "fly by wire" controls they have on ships now. This was state of the art stuff in WWII but pretty dated, even for the 60s. I think they updated it right before we gave the ships to the Vietnamese. Keep hiding. Don't address the actual post. So much for all you "boys" claiming I don't do boating related posts. |
Right of Way
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:30:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/08/2011 3:44 AM, BeachBum wrote: On 8/19/2011 1:14 AM, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote: Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability, since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the other Nothing but physics. I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have (Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet). Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size. Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea. That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road. Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way. Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are. It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up on the beach in Norfolk. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt it's fun to watch. Your knowledge and attitude would make any boat you pilot a hazard to navigation. You are an incompetent and insane skipper. And I use the term skipper very loosely. Thank god you don't own even part of a boat. And is too broke to rent one. Whoo... two losers agree! Shocking! |
Right of Way
"Tim" wrote in message
... On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:39:10 -0400, wrote: The RADAR we had in 1965 probably wasn't as good as what you have on your trawler today. No question about it. It would have taken a whole ship full of electronics to duplicate the functionality, just like with computer equipment. The CPU power and storage of our three laptops would have taken an entire large scale data center, and the high speed data bandwidth that we now take for granted didn't even exist. I had a few summer jobs with AT&T during he early '60s and 1200 baud was high speed datacomm at that time. "...and 1200 baud was high speed datacomm at that time. " Blinding speed! ?8^0 Reply: I was the maintenance Field Engineer for an on-line data center for banks. Mid 1960's. Data center located in San Francisco and we had customers from the Canadian border to Salt Lake City. 110 Baud lease lines. |
Right of Way
"Califbill" wrote in message m... Reply: I was the maintenance Field Engineer for an on-line data center for banks. Mid 1960's. Data center located in San Francisco and we had customers from the Canadian border to Salt Lake City. 110 Baud lease lines. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sounds like Mod 28 Teletype gear |
Right of Way
On 8/19/2011 10:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:47:17 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote: Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking. Yes Greg, I know that is not your post. The above statement is total nonsense. Rule 18(b) is identical for both local and international waters, no difference, nada. A *large* (tanker/freighter/warship) is always limited in it's ability to maneuver. It can take two or three miles to turn or stop, which by anyone's definition is limited. Just this morning we heard some weenie on a sailboat complaining to the coast guard on marine VHF radio that a large naval warship coming out of Naraganset Bay, Rhode Island was not granting right of way to his sailboat. He was practically laughed off the radio by everyone who heard the broadcast. There is nothing anywhere in the Rules of the Road/COLREGS which discusses the obligations of a so called "larger/faster" vessel. Meanwhile all of these rules are readily available on the internet along with definitions, examples, practice questions, etc. Whoever is posting this drivel (and I can guess), should take some time to study all of the above and take a course or two before even thinking about setting foot behind the wheel of a boat. So, what you're tell us is that with the "always" comment is that you know very little about boating, which is pretty shocking. Again, take the case of two tankers. Both see each other on radar, for example, in international waters, many miles apart. Which one is "restricted"? Neither. As I've said, and which you've deliberately ignored is that there is no mention of "size" in 18b. But, you're not enough of a man to admit that. Neither do you have enough brains to actually read the rules, apparently. Here's a little quiz for Deplume. Your radarman reports a blip at 10 miles and bearing 22 degrees. His next fix on the target is 8 miles and a bearing of 22 degrees. Was happenin Deplume and what actions, if any, should be taken. Please no comments from the peanut gallery. |
Right of Way
|
Right of Way
On 8/20/11 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:44:26 -0500, wrote: wrote in : O 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. LOL I have feeling I'm glad I just saw this thread but wish I'd seen it's beginning.....Interpret6ation of Rules always interesting This is the story that accompanied the video. Whilst the Extreme Racing series was entertaining the crowds at this years' Aberdeen Asset Management Cowes Week, the supertanker hit a yacht which was then dismasted as its spinnaker sail was snagged by the ship's anchor. The Marine Knutsen supertanker was being guided by a pilot boat into Southampton docks and was making its presence known by repeatedly sounding its horn. By one yacht didn't seem to give itself enough time to clear the massive boat and was hit before having its mast and rigging ripped off when one of its sail got caught in the supertankers anchor. The yacht was quickly attended by several vessels offering assistance. It's not know if anyone was hurt. The incident was captured by Tim Addison for COWES.co.uk The Tories probably won't want the accident investigation subbed out to private sector investigators. |
Right of Way
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, BAR wrote: In article , 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. |
Right of Way
|
Right of Way
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Califbill" wrote in message m... Reply: I was the maintenance Field Engineer for an on-line data center for banks. Mid 1960's. Data center located in San Francisco and we had customers from the Canadian border to Salt Lake City. 110 Baud lease lines. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sounds like Mod 28 Teletype gear ___________________________________________ Probably same technology. |
Right of Way
In article ,
says... On 8/20/11 11:55 AM, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:44:26 -0500, wrote: wrote in : O 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. LOL I have feeling I'm glad I just saw this thread but wish I'd seen it's beginning.....Interpret6ation of Rules always interesting This is the story that accompanied the video. Whilst the Extreme Racing series was entertaining the crowds at this years' Aberdeen Asset Management Cowes Week, the supertanker hit a yacht which was then dismasted as its spinnaker sail was snagged by the ship's anchor. The Marine Knutsen supertanker was being guided by a pilot boat into Southampton docks and was making its presence known by repeatedly sounding its horn. By one yacht didn't seem to give itself enough time to clear the massive boat and was hit before having its mast and rigging ripped off when one of its sail got caught in the supertankers anchor. The yacht was quickly attended by several vessels offering assistance. It's not know if anyone was hurt. The incident was captured by Tim Addison for COWES.co.uk The Tories probably won't want the accident investigation subbed out to private sector investigators. What an idiotic statement. |
Right of Way
iBoat More wrote in
: In article , says... On 8/20/11 11:55 AM, wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:44:26 -0500, wrote: wrote in : O 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. Pilot boats don't guide ships into port, they just deliver the pilot to the ship. If I assume that the ship was in a narrow, buoyed channel then it's probably not going to do too well in the courts. + LOL I have feeling I'm glad I just saw this thread but wish I'd seen it's beginning.....Interpret6ation of Rules always interesting This is the story that accompanied the video. Whilst the Extreme Racing series was entertaining the crowds at this years' Aberdeen Asset Management Cowes Week, the supertanker hit a yacht which was then dismasted as its spinnaker sail was snagged by the ship's anchor. The Marine Knutsen supertanker was being guided by a pilot boat into Southampton docks and was making its presence known by repeatedly sounding its horn. By one yacht didn't seem to give itself enough time to clear the massive boat and was hit before having its mast and rigging ripped off when one of its sail got caught in the supertankers anchor. The yacht was quickly attended by several vessels offering assistance. It's not know if anyone was hurt. The incident was captured by Tim Addison for COWES.co.uk The Tories probably won't want the accident investigation subbed out to private sector investigators. What an idiotic statement. |
Right of Way
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. -- Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear. |
Right of Way
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. |
Right of Way
|
Right of Way
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_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.) 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. -- Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear. |
Right of Way
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. |
Right of Way
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, wrote:
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. 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. |
Right of Way
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. |
Right of Way
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????? |
Right of Way
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_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.) 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. |
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 ;-) 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com