|
Who's fault is it?
wrote in message oups.com... Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on" vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give way" vessel. It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably) alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass astern of the stand on vessel. It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat. Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk of collision was apparent. That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat. It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG. I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I can't hear a thing that's being said on it. |
Who's fault is it?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:41:55 GMT, Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************ * Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************ * Clearly the CG failed to yield right of way to a vessel forward of his starboard beam. The other guy was looking in the direction of the priviledged vessel on HIS starboard beam ... as he should. There may be some contributary negligence since you should always be on the lookout in all directions but it is not the main issue. I think Uncle Sam owes this guy a new boat and an apology. The captain of the CG boat should be sailing a desk. Agreed on all points. |
Who's fault is it?
"NOYB" wrote in message et... wrote in message oups.com... Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on" vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give way" vessel. It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably) alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass astern of the stand on vessel. It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat. Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk of collision was apparent. That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat. It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG. I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I can't hear a thing that's being said on it. I had to install a remote speaker on our 32 footer, even though the engine cover was very well insulated and the boat ran pretty quite at the helm seat at cruising speed. |
Who's fault is it?
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message et... wrote in message oups.com... Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on" vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give way" vessel. It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably) alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass astern of the stand on vessel. It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat. Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk of collision was apparent. That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat. It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG. I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I can't hear a thing that's being said on it. I had to install a remote speaker on our 32 footer, even though the engine cover was very well insulated and the boat ran pretty quite at the helm seat at cruising speed. The Grady White has an ICOM that must be amplified. It's louder than hell, and I can hear it even at WOT. |
Who's fault is it?
In article ,
says... Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? I did a bit of searching for "stand on vessel" and found this site to be informative: http://www.boatingbasicsonline.com/c...ing/6_2_b1.php and http://www.boatingbasicsonline.com/c...2_b1print.php? PHPSESSID=b0a5453b45108d3f4c06258fee845cce Pretty much shows the CG as the guilty vessel. There is a mention of : "If the skipper of the blue vessel does not observe the red vessel taking action to avoid collision, then he/she must take the required action to avoid a collision." But clearly the CG is at fault. ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* |
Who's fault is it?
"Scott Sexton" wrote in message ... Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* Regardless who is at fault, the private boat (stand on vessel) should have taken action when he saw that the USCG vessel was maintaining course. The folks in that boat seemed clueless, as did the those in the USCG boat. Bottom line........who cares who is "at fault". This accident could and should have been avoided. But...........shame on you USCG. |
Who's fault is it?
wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on" vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give way" vessel. It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably) alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass astern of the stand on vessel. It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat. Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk of collision was apparent. That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat. It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG. Both would probably be held responsible. As to the VHF, sometimes on weekends and during derbies the VHF is turned off, there is so much bad talk on 16. Swearing, racist comments, etc. Sorry to hear that profane racists have taken over VHF down there. Is 16 your emergency hailing channel or are you in one of the CG districts where the emergency hailing channel has been moved to 9? The Coast Guard still jumps pretty quickly on Ch16 violators up this way, warning them to take their traffic to another channel. VHF, partcularly Ch 16, is such an important safety consideration that no bunch of mouthy drunks making profane or racist comments should be allowed to disrupt it. No, it is still 16 here. But when the derbies are going, seems to bring out the worst. They are on it so much, the CG probably can not get a word in. But since all the ship traffic is on 13, we monitor that, if we have it on. |
Who's fault is it?
"NOYB" wrote in message . net... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message et... wrote in message oups.com... Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on" vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give way" vessel. It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably) alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass astern of the stand on vessel. It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat. Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk of collision was apparent. That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat. It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG. I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I can't hear a thing that's being said on it. I had to install a remote speaker on our 32 footer, even though the engine cover was very well insulated and the boat ran pretty quite at the helm seat at cruising speed. The Grady White has an ICOM that must be amplified. It's louder than hell, and I can hear it even at WOT. I have an Icom M45. Speaker SUX! Have a remote speaker, but do not like that one either. May hook it up to the stereo speakers and see if that works. |
Who's fault is it?
I have a 17' whaler too. Mounting a 2" West Marine remote speaker on the console rail made a world
of difference underway. "NOYB" wrote in message et... wrote in message oups.com... Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on" vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give way" vessel. It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably) alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass astern of the stand on vessel. It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat. Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk of collision was apparent. That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat. It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG. I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I can't hear a thing that's being said on it. |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
Scott Sexton wrote: Does anyone know who was cited for this accident? http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or the PB for not paying attention? ************************************************* Scott H. Sexton help@ www.sexton.com sexton.com Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com ************************************************* While both skippers are responsible for avoiding a collision, the skipper of the little runabout could be charged with a felony simply for being where he was. How many legal rights do you retain when you are conducting an illegal activity? Let's not forget that there is currently a 400-yard security zone surrounding all commerical, cruise ship, and military (i.e. the Coast Guard) vessels. No vessel shall approach to within 100 yards under any circumstance, and if within 400 yards speed must be reduced to the minimum amount required to maintain steerage. This was a stupid accident from all sides, and both skippers should have taken action to avoid the collision. Once the lawyers get involved and the stench starts to cloud up over the issue of who was at "fault" here, the point that the little runabout was operating illegally by aproaching the CG vessel at speed would certainly become a consideration. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com