On 21/08/2011 1:40 AM, TopBassDog wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:26 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600,
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!

She is a righteous idiot.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.