On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:23:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:25:50 -0700, 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.

So, knowing a collision is about to happen, the skipper does nothing
and you think no blame would be assigned?????


In that situation, where I knew the burdened vessel was not making
any contact with me and was not making any effort to avoid the
impending collision (constant bearing and decreasing range) I would
slow down as Wayne said but I would do it about 3 miles ago.
I would assume the offending ship was on auto pilot and the helmsman
was below taking a ****.
I might still come close enough to wake them up but it would be astern
of them or maneuver to come up on the shoulder If this was a Coast
Guard cutter that they cut off they would be boarded and life would
take a turn for the worse for them.

There are ALWAYS violations.

No argument from me. That all sounds quite reasonable. I will even
accept the "always" comment, even though I always don't. LOL

On Aug 20, 9:26*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:56:56 -0600, Canuck57
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!

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.

On Aug 20, 10:41*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:23:48 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:25:50 -0700, 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.

So, knowing a collision is about to happen, the skipper does nothing
and you think no blame would be assigned?????

In that situation, where I knew the burdened vessel was not *making
any contact with me and was not making any effort to avoid the
impending collision (constant bearing and decreasing range) I would
slow down as Wayne said but I would do it about 3 miles ago.
I would assume the offending ship was on auto pilot and the helmsman
was below taking a ****.
I might still come close enough to wake them up but it would be astern
of them or maneuver to come up on the shoulder If this was a Coast
Guard cutter that they cut off they would be boarded and life would
take a turn for the worse for them.

There are ALWAYS violations.

No argument from me. That all sounds quite reasonable. I will even
accept the "always" comment, even though I always don't. LOL

You never had a valid argumenttot begin with.

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.

On 8/20/11 10:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:33:32 -0400, 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.)

Yes, that's how I read it. However, both are required to avoid a
collision; thus, I assigned a percentage of blame to both. You might
argue with the %, but not with the conclusion.

I can and will disagree with you. Your discussion about the tanker and
sailboat highlight how little you know about boating.

On 8/20/2011 10:25 PM, 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.

I would think it wouldn't be that difficult. The boat is moving and is
being trailed by another boat. The boat ahead has the right of way,
since you can't run into the back of it (assuming several things like
restrictions, in channels, etc.). The boat in front stops. Some blame
could be assigned to that boat.

Doubt it.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:06:37 -0600, Canuck57
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.

Well moron, again you're not too bright. As I said for the second for
the second video, 60/40. I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

There is a precedent in these matters called "last clear chance".
Meaning, just because the other party may not be doing something
correctly, you have the duty to avoid collision if possible.

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.

otn




wrote in
:



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.

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.

otn




wrote in
:



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.

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