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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:09:13 -0400, Wayne B
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 ;-)

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.

It won't happen? You're a pompous jerk.

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, 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.

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.

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

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


--
Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing
conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the
quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:02:19 -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, 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.

Your analysis is ridiculous. This was in NO way a crossing situation.
This was simply a head-on. Apparently, you have never piloted
anything larger than a runabout. A captain of a large vessel, even
with proper lookout, can't see what is under the bow. This sailboat
was, probably for 100 yards or more under the bow of the larger
vessel. This is so simple, Rule 2 covers the whole idiotic happening.

This is a lot like driving down the road in a tractor trailer and some
idiot decides to dive into a driveway on your right. Even if you
manage to T-bone them instead of dead-centering their grille, it is a
head-on, and if you were reasonably and lawfully operating your
vehicle, you bear no responsibility in the accident.

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.

You sound like the ridiculous one. Did you even look at the second
vid?

Here are the three vids:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

I heard three horn sounds from what appears to be the tanker. Five is
the minimum. However, it's possible there were five.

The sailboat is clearly approaching 100% at fault.

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

This is for sure a crossing situation. Again, the sailboat is clearly
mostly at fault. However, I didn't see any evasive change in course
from the ferry or any sound signals. The sailboat was clearly visible
for quite a while. Some blame would go to both.

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qwq...eature=related

I think this is a crossing situation also, but even if it's a head on,
both vessels need to act. Neither did. Both were visible to the other.
No sound signals, no heading changes. Both have fault.

On 20/08/2011 8:26 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_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.

No, but you can always count on always wrong depume the parrot to get it
wrong.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

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.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:29:40 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

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.

You are 100% stupid.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:29:12 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/08/2011 8:26 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_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.

No, but you can always count on always wrong depume the parrot to get it
wrong.

I got it right. You're a little misogynistic asshole who pretends to
be a man.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:27:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:19:46 -0700, 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, 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.

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.

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


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.