On Aug 20, 10:40*pm, 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 *;-)

Excuse me.... I never claimed there was anything the tanker should
have done in the first vid. I thought it was 100% or close to that the
sailboats fault. The only thing I didn't hear, which might have been a
factor for the tanker to accept some blame, was a warning of five
beeps.

Your arguments prove the reason why you're not practicing law.