Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a
boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being
overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule
7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule
8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim



Bzzt: Sailboat made a bad move. Prove I was not paying attention, and
that
an illegal direction change while being overtaken did not cause the
accident.
Bill, here is the proof for you. If "you" hit the sailboat that means that
you were not paying attention to various factors, those factors being your
speed & your proximity to the sailboat. Ergo.......your broke Rule 5. The
sailboat making a bad move has nothing to do with it. You were too close!
You were going too fast! You hit the sailboat! You're in the
wrong.......

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a
boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being
overtaken.
???
There is NO obligation for any vessel to "keep in a continuous direction
when being overtaken."

The overtakING vessel is burdened to keep clear, which means that you
must slow down and be ready to take avoiding action.
Jim Carter wrote:
Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.

It's quite true but I suspect that Bill (and many other motorheads) will
never ever believe it.

How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule
7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule
8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.
Most motorheads think that any other boat who "gets in their way" must
be at fault and/or in violation of something. Plenty also think that
sailboats deliberately turn in front of them for fun.

Unfortunately there's no rule against stupidity.

DSK

Thank you for confirming what I thought was obvious. It's too bad that
Bill and many others have the mistaken belief that their power boats have
the "right of might" over sailing vessels.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



The boat being overtaken has to continue in the same general direction,
allowing the safe passing. Review the Colregs. Maybe not an exact straigh
line.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.. .

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is
your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a
boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid
the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being
overtaken.

Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.
How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule
7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule
8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.

Jim



Bzzt: Sailboat made a bad move. Prove I was not paying attention, and
that
an illegal direction change while being overtaken did not cause the
accident.
Bill, here is the proof for you. If "you" hit the sailboat that means
that
you were not paying attention to various factors, those factors being your
speed & your proximity to the sailboat. Ergo.......your broke Rule 5.
The
sailboat making a bad move has nothing to do with it. You were too
close!
You were going too fast! You hit the sailboat! You're in the
wrong.......

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.



I may get a minority of the blame, but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT
OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He gets the majority of the fault.


Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT! He
gets the majority of the fault.

Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK


Rule 17 a) i)

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
I may get a minority of the blame

Nah, majority.

... but he CAN NOT CHANGE DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THE OVERTAKING BOAT!
He
gets the majority of the fault.

Please cite the ColReg which says so.

DSK


Rule 17 a) i)

Wrong again Bill. Did you not read Rule 13 part (a)? If not, here it is
for you.
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and
II, any vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of the way of the
vessel being overtaken."

This means that you were, at 25 feet behind the sailboat, and going 25 MPH,
you were not in a position to "keep out of the way". Right Bill? Proof of
this is in Rule 17 (b) . Did you read this part Bill? If not, here it is
for you.
"When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed
finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the
give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid
collision. This could be the reason for her turning. Right Bill?

This means Bill, that if you collided with the sailboat, the majority of the
blame is YOURS.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Capt Joe,
All security experts strongly recommend you do not include your address and
phone number in your UseNet Posts.


"Captain Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2005 16:47:08 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

In article . net,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, so? What's your point? I know the regs and clearly you can quote
them. What are you trying to tell us here?

That you are an idiot.

Ah, a name caller. Well, ok then. You sure won that argument on the
merits.

Yes, you can be sure that Jon Gayanzy has NEVER resorted to name calling
when it
suited his own purposes.


Captain Joe Redcloud
1882 Chestnut Hill Road
Mohnton PA
(610) 856-7118

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jon,
In a passing situation both boats must maintain their course and heading.
Some boaters, both power and sail do not understand the ColRegs, the biggest
problem some sail boaters make is assuming they are a sailboat when they are
under power, and assuming they have the right of way under all conditions
when they are under sail.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, so? What's your point? I know the regs and clearly you can quote
them. What are you trying to tell us here?

That you are an idiot.

Ah, a name caller. Well, ok then. You sure won that argument on the
merits.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message news:fkaaf.4109
I
know what is involved with sailing. Married a good sailors daughter and
used to windsurf. But too many "sailors" figure they have the right of
way
as they have a sailboat. I have had "sailors" do a 90 degree in front of
me
when lifting the sails and the iron sail is still running, and then yell
at
me. They would yell even louder if I collided with them and when they
had
to pay enormous sums of money to me.

Bill, if "you" collided with them, "you" would be at fault. It is your
responsibility, under Rule 8, the collision regulations, to avoid a
collision.
Jim

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Doug,

When a sailboat or powerboat turns in front of a ship and the ship runs over
the boat, the ship's captain will not be held liable if a qualified,
reasonable qualified captain could not have avoided the collision. There
are many reasons why a qualified captain can have a collision and be found
free of responsibility for the collision.


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.


???

There is NO obligation for any vessel to "keep in a continuous direction
when being overtaken."

The overtakING vessel is burdened to keep clear, which means that you must
slow down and be ready to take avoiding action.


Jim Carter wrote:
Yes Bill, You would still be at fault in this instance.

You are breaking several of the Collision Regulations. rule 5, rule 6,
rule
7, and rule 8. You have disregarded all of these.

It's quite true but I suspect that Bill (and many other motorheads) will
never ever believe it.

How? You were not paying attention in rule 5, and allowed yourself to
get
too close to the sailboat. You were going to fast to avoid the
collision
which is in contradiction of rule 6. You, most definitely broke rule 7,
(part a.) in as much as you collided with the sailboat. You broke rule 8
because you did not take action to avoid the collision.


Most motorheads think that any other boat who "gets in their way" must be
at fault and/or in violation of something. Plenty also think that
sailboats deliberately turn in front of them for fun.

Unfortunately there's no rule against stupidity.

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.

Dr. Smithers, the first part of your statement is absolutely correct. The
second part of your statement is incorrect in as much as there is no such
thing as it being "not reasonable" for the powerboater to avoid the
collision in the way Bill has described the situation. In this case it
would have been the fault of Bill's judgement. He was too close and too
fast in the situation. He MUST stay clear in the overtaking situation.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.


Do you realize that your two statements are a direct contradiction of
each other?

Jim Carter wrote:
Dr. Smithers, the first part of your statement is absolutely correct. The
second part of your statement is incorrect in as much as there is no such
thing as it being "not reasonable" for the powerboater to avoid the
collision in the way Bill has described the situation. In this case it
would have been the fault of Bill's judgement. He was too close and too
fast in the situation. He MUST stay clear in the overtaking situation.


But to most motorboaters, it is unreasonable to slow down and give other
boats a wide berth. They have a RIGHT to go blasting right past any
sailboat, close aboard, and by golly that durn sailboat better just stay
outta their way!

We can only hope that a maritime court would, in the event of tragedy,
see things in a slightly more adult viewpoint.

And it's probably not going to do any good to review the ColRegs, even
with a motorboater who knows what they are, because obviously 1- he
can't read them clearly and 2- has no concept that they are applied in
order and 3- clings to the idea that he has no personal responsibility
or accountability.

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a
passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for
the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.


Do you realize that your two statements are a direct contradiction of
each other?

Jim Carter wrote:
Dr. Smithers, the first part of your statement is absolutely correct.
The
second part of your statement is incorrect in as much as there is no
such
thing as it being "not reasonable" for the powerboater to avoid the
collision in the way Bill has described the situation. In this case it
would have been the fault of Bill's judgement. He was too close and
too
fast in the situation. He MUST stay clear in the overtaking
situation.


But to most motorboaters, it is unreasonable to slow down and give other
boats a wide berth. They have a RIGHT to go blasting right past any
sailboat, close aboard, and by golly that durn sailboat better just stay
outta their way!

We can only hope that a maritime court would, in the event of tragedy,
see things in a slightly more adult viewpoint.

And it's probably not going to do any good to review the ColRegs, even
with a motorboater who knows what they are, because obviously 1- he
can't read them clearly and 2- has no concept that they are applied in
order and 3- clings to the idea that he has no personal responsibility
or accountability.

DSK

Again, Mr. DSK, you are correct. On my trips on Lake Huron, from
Bayfield to Tobermory, I travel off shore. There have been several
occasions when I have been passed by large cruisers who do not seem to want
to alter their course and they pass too close to me. I am not within
sight of land and there is the whole lake out there and they have to pass
close by. What are they thinking? I don't understand why they don't
alter their course to pass at a distance from me. They seem to delight in
how much they can rock my boat. "The Boat" is a 27 foot twin engine power
boat, which I sold this past summer.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.

In Bill's situation, he would have been held partially responsible due to
the speed and distance he maintained in the overtaking situation. My point
is, there are many situations that occur in narrow channels with strong
currents/tides and winds that would not have allowed a powerboater to avoid
a collision under all conditions. It is possible that any boater can cause
an accident that the powerboater could not have avoided. The courts can and
do assign partial blame for most accidents, but there are situations where a
boater is 100% responsible for an accident.


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a
passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.


Do you realize that your two statements are a direct contradiction of each
other?

Jim Carter wrote:
Dr. Smithers, the first part of your statement is absolutely correct.
The
second part of your statement is incorrect in as much as there is no such
thing as it being "not reasonable" for the powerboater to avoid the
collision in the way Bill has described the situation. In this case it
would have been the fault of Bill's judgement. He was too close and too
fast in the situation. He MUST stay clear in the overtaking situation.


But to most motorboaters, it is unreasonable to slow down and give other
boats a wide berth. They have a RIGHT to go blasting right past any
sailboat, close aboard, and by golly that durn sailboat better just stay
outta their way!

We can only hope that a maritime court would, in the event of tragedy, see
things in a slightly more adult viewpoint.

And it's probably not going to do any good to review the ColRegs, even
with a motorboater who knows what they are, because obviously 1- he can't
read them clearly and 2- has no concept that they are applied in order and
3- clings to the idea that he has no personal responsibility or
accountability.

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

JimC,
Ignorance of ColRegs is not limited to either a sailboater or a powerboater,
sort of like ignorance in rec.boats is not limited to any political party.
; )


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
JimC,
If there is a collision and both boats could have avoided the
collision,
both boats can be held partially reasonable. If the sailboat in a
passing
situation turns in front of another boat and it is not reasonable for
the
other boater to avoid the collision, the powerboater will not be held
responsible.


Do you realize that your two statements are a direct contradiction of
each other?

Jim Carter wrote:
Dr. Smithers, the first part of your statement is absolutely correct.
The
second part of your statement is incorrect in as much as there is no
such
thing as it being "not reasonable" for the powerboater to avoid the
collision in the way Bill has described the situation. In this case
it
would have been the fault of Bill's judgement. He was too close and
too
fast in the situation. He MUST stay clear in the overtaking
situation.


But to most motorboaters, it is unreasonable to slow down and give other
boats a wide berth. They have a RIGHT to go blasting right past any
sailboat, close aboard, and by golly that durn sailboat better just stay
outta their way!

We can only hope that a maritime court would, in the event of tragedy,
see things in a slightly more adult viewpoint.

And it's probably not going to do any good to review the ColRegs, even
with a motorboater who knows what they are, because obviously 1- he
can't read them clearly and 2- has no concept that they are applied in
order and 3- clings to the idea that he has no personal responsibility
or accountability.

DSK

Again, Mr. DSK, you are correct. On my trips on Lake Huron, from
Bayfield to Tobermory, I travel off shore. There have been several
occasions when I have been passed by large cruisers who do not seem to
want
to alter their course and they pass too close to me. I am not within
sight of land and there is the whole lake out there and they have to pass
close by. What are they thinking? I don't understand why they don't
alter their course to pass at a distance from me. They seem to delight
in
how much they can rock my boat. "The Boat" is a 27 foot twin engine
power
boat, which I sold this past summer.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

DSK wrote:
Not when he is 15' from me and makes a 90 degree turn in front of a boat
moving 25 miles per hour. His responsibility requires him to avoid the
collision and has to keep in a continous direction when being overtaken.


???

There is NO obligation for any vessel to "keep in a continuous direction
when being overtaken."

The overtakING vessel is burdened to keep clear, which means that you
must slow down and be ready to take avoiding action.


RULE 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel
(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other
shall keep her course and speed.

....

I would not, however, want this to indicate support for Bill's
position. At 25 knots he's going over 42 ft/sec; or 422 feet in the
10 secs it took the sailboat to tack. It was reckless and in obvious
violation of various rules to even be within 15 feet of a sailboat
while going that fast. I would claim that the statement the sailboat
"turned 15 feet in front of boat doing 25 knots" is a clear indication
that the powerboater was not in full control of his faculties.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:

Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.


???

Do you really have ANY concept of how big the oceans are?

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:

Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.


???

Do you really have ANY concept of how big the oceans are?

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Bill McKee wrote:
....


If your gas engine is running, you are a power boat! If you are in neutral,
engine running, you are a power boat,

Wrong! The propulsion system must be "used" for it to be a sailboat.
It is clearly true that if you see a sailboat, with the sails up,
making way as a sailboat, and not showing the steaming light or cone,
you must treat it as a sailboat.

And similarly, if you are being treated as a sailboat, it would be
best to behave in a consistent manner.

On the other hand, if you had an engine available for immediate use,
and failed to use it to avoid a collision, you'd have some serious
explaining to do! But, that would also be true even if the engine
wasn't running.

This does not mean, of course, that a sailboat under power can slip
into neutral anytime and suddenly claim rights as a sailor. But, if
an engine is running it doesn't mean it is automatically a powerboat.
For example, some engines require several minutes of warmup before
they can be engaged.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:

Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.


Actually, that's VERY wide as channels go. Are you suggesting that you
cannot manage to drive your boat along a course and keep it within 100
yards or so of where it should be?

Are you also suggesting that going SLOW when close to other boat traffic
is not an option?

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article t,
Bill McKee bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:
He has to avoid the tanker in the channel. If he causes the tanker to run
aground or hit a bridge piling to avoid the collision, the sailboat is going
to be liable for all damages. The tanker, the bridge, all the damage.

Bzzzzt. The tanker will not hit a bridge piling to avoid the
collision.


probably true

Bzzzzt. The tanker will not be damanged.

probably true


Bzzzzt. The tanker will not leave the channel.
Maybe not at the Golden Gate, but the was such a case in the
Chesapeake a few years back where the woman in the 25 foot boat the
got becalmed in the channel was held liable when the freighter grounded.


Bill... who has stand-on status on the ocean?

Actually, the sailboat is still the stand-on vessel, even when
crossing the TSS. It is, however, required "not to impede" the
tanker. You should know this stuff, Jon. You just took the test.


Suggestion (not a hint): Stay away from tankers.


good advice.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Doug,
I am able to manage my boat and go slow enough to avoid boat traffic, no
matter what the other boats do, but many ships are not. The ColRegs are not
written to regulate my actions but for all boat/ship traffic. I was
highlighting the obvious error you made when you said if any boat/ship is
involved in an accident, they are at fault. This is not correct.


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:

Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.


Actually, that's VERY wide as channels go. Are you suggesting that you
cannot manage to drive your boat along a course and keep it within 100
yards or so of where it should be?

Are you also suggesting that going SLOW when close to other boat traffic
is not an option?

DSK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.

What in the world are you talking about? That is nonsense! If I see a
boat on my way north on Lake Huron and I am going to pass him. I can alter
my course by two degrees and pass him with hundreds of meters to spare.


In Bill's situation, he would have been held partially responsible due to
the speed and distance he maintained in the overtaking situation.

No, Dr. Smithers. In Bill's situation, he would be 100% responsible.
He struck the sailboat in open waters. Nowhere did he say it was in a
narrow channel.


My point is, there are many situations that occur in narrow channels with
strong
currents/tides and winds that would not have allowed a powerboater to
avoid
a collision under all conditions.


Yes Dr. Smithers, but not in Bill's case.

It is possible that any boater can cause
an accident that the powerboater could not have avoided. The courts can
and
do assign partial blame for most accidents, but there are situations where
a
boater is 100% responsible for an accident.

Yes Dr. Smithers, you are correct in this instance.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
JimC,
Ignorance of ColRegs is not limited to either a sailboater or a
powerboater,
sort of like ignorance in rec.boats is not limited to any political party.
; )


Dr. Smithers, you are correct.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.

Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North Channel of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power in a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or barge.



"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug and JimC,

If ships were to maintain a speed and distance that would allow them to
avoid all collision, no ship would leave the dock.

What in the world are you talking about? That is nonsense! If I see a
boat on my way north on Lake Huron and I am going to pass him. I can
alter
my course by two degrees and pass him with hundreds of meters to spare.


In Bill's situation, he would have been held partially responsible due to
the speed and distance he maintained in the overtaking situation.

No, Dr. Smithers. In Bill's situation, he would be 100% responsible.
He struck the sailboat in open waters. Nowhere did he say it was in a
narrow channel.


My point is, there are many situations that occur in narrow channels
with
strong
currents/tides and winds that would not have allowed a powerboater to
avoid
a collision under all conditions.


Yes Dr. Smithers, but not in Bill's case.

It is possible that any boater can cause
an accident that the powerboater could not have avoided. The courts can
and
do assign partial blame for most accidents, but there are situations
where
a
boater is 100% responsible for an accident.

Yes Dr. Smithers, you are correct in this instance.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Yes I have and there are collisions between ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway
due to mechanical or human error. When this happens it is not necessary for
both ships to be at fault. One ship can assume 100% of the responsibility
even though the other ship was not avoid the collision.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.

Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes
System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one
boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in
the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North Channel
of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Yes I have and there are collisions between ships on the St. Lawrence
Seaway
due to mechanical or human error. When this happens it is not necessary
for
both ships to be at fault. One ship can assume 100% of the responsibility
even though the other ship was not avoid the collision.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

Yes, there have been some ships involved in collisions in the Seaway. I
thought we were talking about problems with pleasure boats in this area.
There is no reason to have two pleasure boats collide in the St. Lawrence
Seaway and not have them both responsible.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would
leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power in
a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or barge.

Dr. Smithers, are you only referring to ships not leaving the dock if there
shipping routes were only to be in River Systems or canals? or.....Are
you referring to ALL ships at sea not leaving their docks?

Just as a comment. The freighter that lost power in the Mississippi did
radio a warning to other traffic on the river which kept other shipping
away. They could not warn the pier to move out of the way. ;-) The
major factor in the ship hitting the pier was that it dropped it's anchor
and that caused the ship to swerve to the shore line. With that much mass
in motion, it takes some time to stop when the engine is not functioning.
It's rudder could not turn the ship due to the anchor that was dropped and
also it was moving with the current.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

It is quite possible for there to be a collision with neither vessel
at fault. A small number of cases (under 5%) are resolved this way.
Mechanical failure is a primary cause, but as equipment becomes more
reliable, this is accepted less as an excuse. A failure that could
have been detected, or avoided with proper maintenance does not qualify.


Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
Yes I have and there are collisions between ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway
due to mechanical or human error. When this happens it is not necessary for
both ships to be at fault. One ship can assume 100% of the responsibility
even though the other ship was not avoid the collision.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.
Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes
System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one
boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in
the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North Channel
of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

I was boating for a week there on my 4-stroke WaveRunner this summer,
it was pwc and boating paradise. I never saw such a huge number of
pwc's about before, or more harmoniously integrated with all the other
boaters. We and all the other hundreds of pwc's we saw every day
boating around the Thousand Islands area (and ranging pretty far out of
that area in both directions) were so clearly accepted and welcomed as
a non-special, non-different part of the boating environment, sharing
the channels, coves, public docks, and open water peacfeully and
non-problematically with all the other larger boats....a terrific
situation....and you really had to know what you're doing up there,
with all the rocks and shoals that come up out of nowhere all over the
place. But in four full days of boating, I didn't see anyone with any
kind of problem with anyone else, everybody seemed happy, no one
annoyed or threatening or suggesting to blow anyone up or shoot them or
ban them just because of what kind of boat they had. Only person I
encountered with a problem was a local on a small fishing boat who had
apparently bruised his hull on a marked shoal, just about run out of
gas, and putted up to me asking if I knew how to get back to the park
he had rented the boat from (I had a chart and a gps and was able to
show him where to go....he seemed like not the brightest bulb around,
but I didn't make any broader inferences about locals, boat renters,
fishermen, or any other category of boaters that he was a part of).
My silent-running, smokeless, shallow-draft, ultra-fuel-efficient pwc
was the perfect vehicle for the kind of exploration we loved doing,
cruising slowly past all the islands so my wife could take pictures of
all the fancy houses, beautiful landscapes, lighthouses and castles to
be gawked at; purring quietly up to the docks at all the local state
parks and up to the many beaches in the dozens of tempting peaceful
coves where just countless pwc'ers and other boaters were enjoying
nature, themselves and each other in friendship and more than peaceful
coexistence; idling happily through the beautiful International Rift
waterway where there's maybe an eighth of a mile separating the US from
Canada and stopping for lots of picnics and swim breaks; and also being
able to ride the waters pretty much from early morning 'til the sun
went down on less than a tank of gas each day....we went to Singer's
Castle on Dark Island, the very famous Boldt Castle on Hart Island
right across from the marina resort where we stayed (where we were
accomdated in a friendly manner by the dock staff in exactly the same
way as all the other boats docked there for the week), and to the
Antique Boating Museum in Clayton, all on my '05 FX HO....didn't buzz
or annoy anybody, go too close to anybody, bother anybody fishing or
saling, and didn't really get the impression that anyone else on the
millions of pwc's out there, were either. Any old prejudices against
the smaller machines seemed to have long ago dissolved in the reality
of modern boats, modern, educated, experienced riders, in an area where
boating and pwc's is so prevalent a part of life that people can't help
but have updated, informed, open-minded impressions about the boats and
their riders.

AND...just this last Sunday....I went out for another late-season ride
locally here in Long Island, and just a bit out into the harbor was a
small outboard with two fisherman whose engine had died on them, and
asked me for a tow back to the ramp which obviously I cheerfully gave
them. We had a few laughs as I towed them back...I don't think my
being there to help them out changed their view of pwc's or pwc'ers
because there was no problem with that to begin with - they saw me as a
fellow boater, out using the same ramp to go out enjoying the same
harbor on the same sunny fall day as them and a million other boaters
out there that beautiful day....pwc's are very prevalent here in Long
Island, too, and I think in general any stereotyped outdated
prejudicial notions about us in the minds of our fellow boats have long
since been dispelled, I get a sense of being welcomed and accepted as
a fellow, full-fledged boater the same as any other, at the docks, on
the ramps, on the beach coves, in the channels, in the salt
marshes....not judged on the basis of the size and shape of my boat, or
the irresponsible behavior of others in the past on similar
crafts...not like sometimes here on the newsgroup.

What about you, some of the guys I've been talking with on this
thread...would you accept a tow from a pwc'er if you needed it? Would
you be surprised if one was willng and able to help? If you don't like
pwc's or pwc'ers in general, would such an incident change your
feelings at all? Would it enable you to realize that maybe your ideas
about pwc's and their operators could be misperceptions? 'Coz I tell
you this happens all the time, I don't know a longtime pwc'er who
hasn't at some point been asked to help somebody on the water (and of
course who hasn't needed help from another boater)...in those instances
we're all in the same boat as it were, doesn't matter what kind of boat
you have, we are all boaters, have a great deal in common no matter
what kind of boat we have, and an inclination to like and relate to one
an other based on our shared values and interests.

I share these anecodtes in an ongoing effort to continue to try to
dispel and counteract the untrue, invalid, unfair, uninformed,
stereoptyped, outdated ideas about personal watercraft and their
operators, the things we do and the way we use our boats these days,
that are apparently being clung to and perpetrated by some posters here
and elsewhere. I don't know if it'll do any good, I don't know if some
of you guys have open-enough minds to admit that maybe you're wrong and
should give the issue an honest reconsideration, but it won't stop me
from trying.

richforman

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

On 3 Nov 2005 09:52:34 -0800, wrote:

I share these anecodtes in an ongoing effort to continue to try to
dispel and counteract the untrue, invalid, unfair, uninformed,
stereoptyped, outdated ideas about personal watercraft and their
operators, the things we do and the way we use our boats these days,
that are apparently being clung to and perpetrated by some posters here
and elsewhere. I don't know if it'll do any good, I don't know if some
of you guys have open-enough minds to admit that maybe you're wrong and
should give the issue an honest reconsideration, but it won't stop me
from trying.

richforman

Do you consider yourself the exception or the rule?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Harry,
Unlike you, I don't need to fabricate stories concerning my boats, my wife,
my education, my income or where I have been boating. I will tell you I
have not sailed a small sailboat around the Cape Horn. Why don't you tell
the story about the time you sailed around the Cape. Didn't you say you had
made the voyage 3 times. I bet that was a real adventure, huh? :)




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim Carter wrote:
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.

Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes
System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one
boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in
the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North Channel
of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



It is unlikely Smithers boats anywhere.

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Huh? I don't, if you think that's some kind of angle.

richforman

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

JimC,
My comment concerning the statement ", if "you" collided with them, "you"
would be at fault. It is your responsibility, under Rule 8, the
collision regulations, to avoid a collision.

I was pointing out there are situations where you can be involved in a
collision and not be held responsible, because there was nothing a
reasonable captain could have done to avoid the collision. If a boater is
traveling too fast for the situation, or too close for the speed, he can be
held responsible for the collision, if the sailboat turns directly in front
of the powerboater, even if the powerboater is traveling too fast and too
close to the sailboat, the sailboater can be found partially responsible for
the accident.

At this point, the horse has been beat to death, dragged through the fiedl
and left to rot, so it probably is a good time to end this thread.




gers.com wrote in message ...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's
example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would
leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid
the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power in
a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or barge.

Dr. Smithers, are you only referring to ships not leaving the dock if
there
shipping routes were only to be in River Systems or canals? or.....Are
you referring to ALL ships at sea not leaving their docks?

Just as a comment. The freighter that lost power in the Mississippi did
radio a warning to other traffic on the river which kept other shipping
away. They could not warn the pier to move out of the way. ;-) The
major factor in the ship hitting the pier was that it dropped it's anchor
and that caused the ship to swerve to the shore line. With that much
mass
in motion, it takes some time to stop when the engine is not functioning.
It's rudder could not turn the ship due to the anchor that was dropped and
also it was moving with the current.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Jeff,
Hopefully your post is able to convey my message better than I was able.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
It is quite possible for there to be a collision with neither vessel at
fault. A small number of cases (under 5%) are resolved this way.
Mechanical failure is a primary cause, but as equipment becomes more
reliable, this is accepted less as an excuse. A failure that could have
been detected, or avoided with proper maintenance does not qualify.


Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
Yes I have and there are collisions between ships on the St. Lawrence
Seaway due to mechanical or human error. When this happens it is not
necessary for both ships to be at fault. One ship can assume 100% of the
responsibility even though the other ship was not avoid the collision.


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Do you have any idea how narrow many channels are?
Take a look at the majority of the St. Law. Seaway.
Dr. Smithers, have you ever boated on the St. Lawrence Seaway?

This Seaway has HUGE wide channels in it. Large Freighter pass one
another regularly. I have 1000's of hours boating the Great Lakes
System.
There are some area's where there are channels so narrow that only one
boat
is permitted to proceed at one time through them. These are mainly in
the
30,000 Island area of Georgian Bay and in some areas of the North
Channel of
Lake Huron. In these areas the rule of Up Bound and Down Bound are in
effect. The speed limit is also in effect.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

A couple of years ago a small craft stalled as it was crossing the shipping
channel south of Detroit, the was a lake freighter upbound, and crushed the
small craft........the freighter was not at fault.

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
JimC,
My comment concerning the statement ", if "you" collided with them,
"you"
would be at fault. It is your responsibility, under Rule 8, the
collision regulations, to avoid a collision.

I was pointing out there are situations where you can be involved in a
collision and not be held responsible, because there was nothing a
reasonable captain could have done to avoid the collision. If a boater is
traveling too fast for the situation, or too close for the speed, he can
be
held responsible for the collision, if the sailboat turns directly in
front
of the powerboater, even if the powerboater is traveling too fast and too
close to the sailboat, the sailboater can be found partially responsible
for
the accident.

At this point, the horse has been beat to death, dragged through the fiedl
and left to rot, so it probably is a good time to end this thread.




gers.com wrote in message ...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's
example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would
leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid
the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power
in
a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or
barge.

Dr. Smithers, are you only referring to ships not leaving the dock if
there
shipping routes were only to be in River Systems or canals?
or.....Are
you referring to ALL ships at sea not leaving their docks?

Just as a comment. The freighter that lost power in the Mississippi did
radio a warning to other traffic on the river which kept other shipping
away. They could not warn the pier to move out of the way. ;-)
The
major factor in the ship hitting the pier was that it dropped it's
anchor
and that caused the ship to swerve to the shore line. With that much
mass
in motion, it takes some time to stop when the engine is not
functioning.
It's rudder could not turn the ship due to the anchor that was dropped
and
also it was moving with the current.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:48:09 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @
Diploma Mill .com wrote:

Harry,
Unlike you, I don't need to fabricate stories concerning my boats, my wife,
my education, my income or where I have been boating. I will tell you I
have not sailed a small sailboat around the Cape Horn. Why don't you tell
the story about the time you sailed around the Cape. Didn't you say you had
made the voyage 3 times. I bet that was a real adventure, huh? :)

I like the one about his daddy taking a 21 footer across the Atlantic and
getting a fireboat's welcome in New York city. That's especially inspirational
for me because I own a 21 footer. I wonder where I'd keep all the fuel?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

Jet Ski overheating problem
 

Paul,
It is not as unusual as some might want to believe.


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
A couple of years ago a small craft stalled as it was crossing the shipping
channel south of Detroit, the was a lake freighter upbound, and crushed
the
small craft........the freighter was not at fault.

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
JimC,
My comment concerning the statement ", if "you" collided with them,
"you"
would be at fault. It is your responsibility, under Rule 8, the
collision regulations, to avoid a collision.

I was pointing out there are situations where you can be involved in a
collision and not be held responsible, because there was nothing a
reasonable captain could have done to avoid the collision. If a boater
is
traveling too fast for the situation, or too close for the speed, he can
be
held responsible for the collision, if the sailboat turns directly in
front
of the powerboater, even if the powerboater is traveling too fast and too
close to the sailboat, the sailboater can be found partially responsible
for
the accident.

At this point, the horse has been beat to death, dragged through the
fiedl
and left to rot, so it probably is a good time to end this thread.




gers.com wrote in message ...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Jim C,

I think we disagreed because you thought I was referring to Bill's
example
and I was not.

In reference to my comment about If ships were to maintain a speed and
distance that would allow them to avoid all collision, no ship would
leave
the dock.

If two ships are passing in a channel and one suddenly behaves in a
completely unexpected manner, the other ship will not be able to avoid
the
collision. I mentioned the ship on the Mississippi who lost all power
in
a
bend in the river and slammed into a shopping mall. If another ship
or
barge was coming up the river, it would have hit the other ship or
barge.

Dr. Smithers, are you only referring to ships not leaving the dock if
there
shipping routes were only to be in River Systems or canals?
or.....Are
you referring to ALL ships at sea not leaving their docks?

Just as a comment. The freighter that lost power in the Mississippi
did
radio a warning to other traffic on the river which kept other shipping
away. They could not warn the pier to move out of the way. ;-)
The
major factor in the ship hitting the pier was that it dropped it's
anchor
and that caused the ship to swerve to the shore line. With that much
mass
in motion, it takes some time to stop when the engine is not
functioning.
It's rudder could not turn the ship due to the anchor that was dropped
and
also it was moving with the current.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield