In article ,
says...

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:48:50 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/08/2011 11:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:01:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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.

Bull****. If the judge or any juror was a sailor, the sailboat owner is
toast.

Everyone is truly glad you're too stupid to even contemplate owning a
boat.

In the words of Harry Krause you're "boatless".

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:14:16 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote:

Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid
collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability,
since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the
other

Nothing but physics.
I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have
(Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet).

Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several
sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing
to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of
following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size.

How "evasive" do you think a 200,000 ton tanker is?
In that short clip you might not even have seen the effect of turning
the rudder over full.
It is not a "rule" it is a law.
Newtons first law of motion.

As I said, on the open ocean when it's pretty clear from a great
distance that one is going to run down the other, it's the obligation
of the one running the other down to avoid it.

Your comment has nothing to do with the original thread.

A tanker is not going to be able to turn to avoid a sailboat that he
probably can't even see from the bridge.

What about when it can? What about when it knows it's there? As I
said, repeatedly, size isn't listed in the regulations related to this
issue.

Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking
about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea.
That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other
communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road.

Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way.

Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the
obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat
like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a
small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read
reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking.

Looking? He couldn't even see a boat that close to him and this did
not look like international waters to me.

I wasn't talking about that case. I clearly and REPEATEDLY said that
the sailboat was at fault.

I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the
Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are.
It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good
rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up
on the beach in Norfolk.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt
it's fun to watch.

Of course it does, What the hell was that sailboat doing if it wasn't
trying to beat the tanker to the crossing and get by in front of him.
I bet he forgot the tanker was going to take away the wind.

See previous and get off your high horse.

The guy in the sailboat was clearly 100% wrong

See previous. You're arguing with me because you haven't read what I
wrote.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:44:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/08/2011 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote:

Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid
collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability,
since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the
other

Nothing but physics.
I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have
(Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet).

Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several
sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing
to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of
following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size.

Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking
about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea.
That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other
communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road.

Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way.

Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the
obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat
like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a
small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read
reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking.

I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the
Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are.
It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good
rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up
on the beach in Norfolk.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt
it's fun to watch.

You don't have the IQ to understand. Those regs are pretty much
international. You might as well admit your too stupid for your own
good. Hopelessly an idiot.

Even if the freighter was faster, and it was intentionally trying to run
down the sailboat, which it was not but lets for arguments sake say it
was. The sailboat could dodge the freighter all day long.

The idiot played chicken and lost.

You have a negative IQ.

On 8/19/2011 1:04 PM, wrote:

As usual you changed the subject and went off on a totally unrelated
tangent and then call everyone who questions you a moron.

That is why I should know better than to ever feed the troll.
I apologize to the group

That's _precisely_ what I thought when I read it. A tanker and a sail
boat somehow became a tanker and a tanker.

Ouch!

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:20:31 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:39:16 -0400, John H
wrote:

Take the limiting case of two tankers. The one overtaking is 700 ft
long. The one being overtaken is 300 ft long. Your claim that the
smaller one must get out of the way of the bigger one is nonsense.

In that example both boats re restricted in their ability to maneuver
by virtue of their size. They are governed by the rules of the road
however which say that the vessel being overtaken is the "stand on"
vessel (see COLREGS definitions). That said, both vessels have the
obligation to avoid a collission. If there is doubt about another
vessels intent, they are *required* to make contact on the radio
and/or signal their intentions using whistles or horns.

I have found, in my 67 years on this earth, that admitting an error is extremely difficult for some
folks.

I expect you will be bombarded with inanities until you give up.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong this time.

On 8/16/2011 4:51 PM, Eisboch wrote:
I suspect this sailboat captain is rethinking who has the "Right of Way".

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

I like the comment below the video..

SNIP Very simple, same old rules of the road - wood gives way to
plastic & plastic gives way to steel. Of course, keeping your eyes open
helps... /SNIP

Sounds like a good rule

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote:

Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the
obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat
like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a
small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read
reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking.

Yes Greg, I know that is not your post.

The above statement is total nonsense. Rule 18(b) is identical for
both local and international waters, no difference, nada.

A *large* (tanker/freighter/warship) is always limited in it's ability
to maneuver. It can take two or three miles to turn or stop, which by
anyone's definition is limited.

Just this morning we heard some weenie on a sailboat complaining to
the coast guard on marine VHF radio that a large naval warship coming
out of Naraganset Bay, Rhode Island was not granting right of way to
his sailboat. He was practically laughed off the radio by everyone
who heard the broadcast.

There is nothing anywhere in the Rules of the Road/COLREGS which
discusses the obligations of a so called "larger/faster" vessel.

Meanwhile all of these rules are readily available on the internet
along with definitions, examples, practice questions, etc. Whoever is
posting this drivel (and I can guess), should take some time to study
all of the above and take a course or two before even thinking about
setting foot behind the wheel of a boat.

On 19/08/2011 6:52 AM, X ~ Man wrote:
In raweb.com, "not a
says...

On 8/19/2011 1:02 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:01:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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.

Quit playing lawyer. You aren't any good at it and you don't have the
skills to interpret correctly what you read. Someone should assign you
to an asylum. Just my two cents. ;-)

Yes I am good at it. Ooops, I mean SHE'S good at it.

Good part is you are too skint to have or rent a boat.

--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

On 19/08/2011 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:45:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:14:16 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:20:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:31:50 -0700, wrote:

Tankers and large vessels are required by international law to avoid
collisions. They are not necessarily restricted in maneuverability,
since there are nothing preventing them from moving to one side or the
other

Nothing but physics.
I am sure you have never actually been at the helm of a ship. I have
(Coast Guard cutters 311 and 327 feet).

Depends on the definition of ship. I've been "at the helm" of several
sailboats. It may be a matter of "simple physics" but that has nothing
to do with the rules of the road as I read them. It's a matter of
following the rules. There's no rule that mentions size.

How "evasive" do you think a 200,000 ton tanker is?
In that short clip you might not even have seen the effect of turning
the rudder over full.
It is not a "rule" it is a law.
Newtons first law of motion.

As I said, on the open ocean when it's pretty clear from a great
distance that one is going to run down the other, it's the obligation
of the one running the other down to avoid it.

Your comment has nothing to do with the original thread.

A tanker is not going to be able to turn to avoid a sailboat that he
probably can't even see from the bridge.

What about when it can? What about when it knows it's there? As I
said, repeatedly, size isn't listed in the regulations related to this
issue.

Even that small a ship does not turn on a dime. We are really talking
about an appreciable part of a mile if you are underway at sea.
That is why it is important that ships coming close to each other
communicate their intentions and follow the rules of the road.

Small boats just have to get the **** out of the way.

Not in International waters when neither boat is restricted. It's the
obligation of the much faster boat to not run over a much slower boat
like a sailboat. The tanker is going, what 30 mph or knots? I doubt a
small sailboat would be able to get out of the way, and I've read
reports where nobody on the tanker is even looking.

Looking? He couldn't even see a boat that close to him and this did
not look like international waters to me.

I wasn't talking about that case. I clearly and REPEATEDLY said that
the sailboat was at fault.

I have seen people try to race freighters to "the crossing" in the
Chesapeake bay to find out the freighter is going as fast as they are.
It is fun to watch them make a tactical retreat but they do get a good
rocking. If they did press this right of way thing they would wash up
on the beach in Norfolk.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no doubt
it's fun to watch.

Of course it does, What the hell was that sailboat doing if it wasn't
trying to beat the tanker to the crossing and get by in front of him.
I bet he forgot the tanker was going to take away the wind.

See previous and get off your high horse.

The guy in the sailboat was clearly 100% wrong

See previous. You're arguing with me because you haven't read what I
wrote.

It wasn't worth reading.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.

On 19/08/2011 11:22 AM, Jimmy wrote:
On 8/19/2011 1:04 PM, wrote:

As usual you changed the subject and went off on a totally unrelated
tangent and then call everyone who questions you a moron.

That is why I should know better than to ever feed the troll.
I apologize to the group

That's _precisely_ what I thought when I read it. A tanker and a sail
boat somehow became a tanker and a tanker.

Ouch!

Especially if deplume was a captain of one.
--
Flea party (leftie) fear, begets flea party smear.