Stupid Stupid Stupid

[Genesis]

There is one place right of way is stated, as we learned in Captains school...

New Reels Catch Fish So Purchase Some

Each words first letter is in the order of right of way:

N - NOT UNDER COMMAND vessels
R - RESTRICTED IN ABILITY TO MANEUVER
C - CONSTRAINED BY DRAFT
F - FISHING VESSELS (NOT you and me with 4 lines out back...commercial with trawls, etc.)
S - SAILING VESSELS (only when powered by wind ONLY)
P - POWERBOATS
S - SEAPLANES

This is in order from having the most right of way to having the least.

If your Captain's School actually called this "Right of Way", then they didn't teach 'ya very well.

There is no such thing on the water!

There is a duty to keep clear, but the converse - a "Right of Way" for the other vessel - does not exist.

A vessel that has "Right of Way" would be exhonerated if it struck one with "less" navigational priority.

It doesn't work that way.

Read 'em guys. Rule 2 is one of the "Catch Alls" - you are actually required to break the OTHER rules (any and all of them) if it is necessary to avoid a collision!

Rule 5 requires a proper lookout so you can apprise yourself of the risk of collision at all times - you are required to maintain full 360 degree situation awareness.

Rule 6 requires that you proceed only at a speed which does not cause a collision.

And the nasty one - Rule 7 - says, quite bluntly, that if you're not sure if there's a risk of collision - for the purposes of the Colregs - there is!

So if you don't maintain a proper lookout (e.g. you don't see it coming), you get tagged for that under Rule 5. If you do but aren't sure if there's a risk of collision and are proven wrong by a "crunch", Rule 7 gets you. If you are travelling faster than your lookout can see (under the current conditions), then Rule 6 gets you. And if some numb-nuts does something stupid and you hit him, you get nailed with Rule 5 for not seeing him, Rule 6 for going too fast to avoid him, Rule 7 for not analyzing the situation and determining that there was a risk of collision with enough leadtime to do something about it and finally, Rule #2 if you could have avoided the collision if you had broken one or more of the other rules!

If you are involved in a collision and you're legally under way there is almost no way to avoid partial responsibility under either the COLREGs or Inland Rules.

I have come to the conclusion that the COLREGs are written this way ON PURPOSE, to INSURE that there is no way for a boat involved in a collision to escape at least partial responsibility.

This is radically different than your responsibilities on the road. If you are struck from behind you are almost always considered entirely "not at fault", even if you could have driven off the road into a ditch to avoid the collision but did not.

That does not work on the water.

The COLREGs and Inland Rules should be known to ALL boaters. You're actually required to have a copy of the Inland Rules on board if your boat is over 40' (if I recall correctly.) If 'ya got one, sit down and read it.

 

[yachtsmanbill]

CORRECTOMUNDO !! Its nice to know that somebody else pays attention to the RULES also! All the guys with the 100 MPH bass boats always tell me that they dont need to know that stuff because theyre fast enuff to get outa da way ws

 

[jim rosenthal]

Hmmm....seems like I've heard that same argument from some motorcyclists and car drivers....some of the same ones that end up coming to visit me at work. Fast enough to avoid trouble? that's what the guy that sold me the Brooklyn Bridge said, too.

But I got a great deal on the bridge....

 

[Freebird]

Sorry if my use of the term "right of way" didn't gel with those of you who went to captains school (tomatoe, tomatto?).

The original question remains, is consideration given to a big boat that gets PT-109'd by a little boat because he couldn't get out of the way?

 

[CapetaniosG]

It is very sad that a young boy lost his life this way. He is not coming back. I can understand Randy's feelings as a parent. I'm a grandfather of a 2 year old, and I can't even begin to think how I would feel if I was in that father's shoes. It is a plain tragedy for all involved.

Having said that, someone was responsible for causing this accident and it is only right that the authorities determine the facts so that the rest of us can benefit from this unfortunate experience.

At the same time, we can't toss away the Rules of the Road that were written with the expressed objective to prevent collisions at sea. Obviously one or more of these rules were violated by one or both parties and it is important that the CG investigation determines that.

If alcohol as involved, we should want to know who of the two skippers was under the influence or may be both were. Were they exhibiting the proper navigation lights, or was speed a factor? What if the investigation determines that the father of the boy was operating under the influence of alcohol or one or both crafts did not exhibit running lights. These are all questions that must be answered and published with the hope that someone will not go thru the same tragedy these two families are going thru.

As far as the legal responsibility, is concerned , let the courts decide. That's why we have them for.

CapetaniosG

 

[Genesis]

The original question remains, is consideration given to a big boat that gets PT-109'd by a little boat because he couldn't get out of the way?

Some. Responsibility on the water is typically proportionate (that is, even if you're a TOTAL bonehead, unless there was simply NO WAY for the other vessel to avoid the collision you won't be found 100% at fault.)

The example is above - small CC which gets T-boned by a barge. He simply was not paying attention and was fishing in the middle of a commercial shipping channel with his engine off!

Irrespective of this and the fact that it takes a very long distance to stop a barge, the captain was still cited under the rules for failure to sound proper signals! In other words, he was found partially at fault. I presume the investigators determined (or believed him) that he saw the other boat (e.g. he didn't fail in his lookout duty, but did fail to do everything he was able to about it - he couldn't stop the barge in time but he could have sounded DANGER.)

Now he can try to contest that, but the fact remains that the FWC cited both operators, and I bet both citations hold up....

 

[Freebird]

Irrespective of this and the fact that it takes a very long distance to stop a barge, the captain was still cited under the rules for failure to sound proper signals! In other words, he was found partially at fault. I presume the investigators determined (or believed him) that he saw the other boat (e.g. he didn't fail in his lookout duty, but did fail to do everything he was able to about it - he couldn't stop the barge in time but he could have sounded DANGER.)

Thanks for the clarification. In other words, if I blow my horn just before that dumb SOB in the 90mph bass boat bounces off my hull, I'll be in the clear. Thank God for thick-hulled Hatts and big ole' air horns!

 

[yachtsmanbill]

A 70 foot head boat that I looked at in Tuckaho N.J. was T boned by a couple of 18 Y.O.s in their dads Grady white-- No injuries and both boats totalled. Headboat was D.I.W. --dead in water due to fog and signalling when the GW hit them at 25kn.
At CG inquiry both youths stated that " There were no targets on the GPS so we tried to hurry in--". ( ??? ) Headboat skipper had them on radar and blasted 5 times X 3 but it STILL HAPPENED. There is no substitute for
experience !!

 

[Freebird]

At CG inquiry both youths stated that " There were no targets on the GPS so we tried to hurry in--". ( ??? ) !!

This guy would be one you may find in a submarine collision (didn't show up on his fishfinder)! "No targets on the GPS", don't feel too bad, some shoals don't show up on those things either!

 

[Norm Mayer]

This whole thread boils down to a very simple principal. Regardless of fault, a prudent captain will do everything in his power to avoid a collision. 1 because the consequences could be severe for anyone/everyone concerned including this innocent boy. 2. even with NO bodily injury, do I want a scratch or worse on my Hatt? 3. It will take hours to do the paperwork AT MINIMUM and ruin your day.
Bottom line? I do what I was taught when riding a motorcycle. I EXPECT everyone out there is an idiot, and I try to make sure I am not their target.

 

[Freebird]

I do what I was taught when riding a motorcycle. I EXPECT everyone out there is an idiot, and I try to make sure I am not their target.

Hey Norm,

I'm with you on that one. I ride like everybody's mission in life is to kill my hillbilly ass while I'm riding my Hog! To that end, Kenworths and Town Cars are best viewed in your rear-view mirror!

 

[Gunsmoke]

Very upsetting thread for this father of three. That's why I believe boating courses should be mandatory!
Of course, that doesn't help the victims of the morons that insist on drinking while operating a boat.

 

[Freebird]

Very upsetting thread for this father of three. That's why I believe boating courses should be mandatory!
Of course, that doesn't help the victims of the morons that insist on drinking while operating a boat.

Dang Gunsmoke, I thought I stayed up late!!! I'm with you on mandatory boating courses complete with color video of the consequences of BUI. Glad to see another response from a member who appreciated the big picture without going off on some tangent here.

 

[Genesis]

Mandatory boating classes - or any other form of licensing - will not solve the problem. Does it on the highways? (50,000 dead annually due to car crashes)

Nope. Inch by inch we cede our freedom in the name of (false) security......

 

[J's Dream]

OK, maybe my wording is off. Right of way should be "order of duty to stay clear and avoid any possibility of collisions". I don't care if a guy's on a jet ski and I'm on a sailboat, if he's coming at me damnit I'm gonna do my best to avoid him, even though he has more maneuverability and speed. That doesn't take away from the fact that everyone - EVERYONE - on the water has a responsibility to do anything in their power to avoid a collision.

 

[Paul45c]

Mandatory boating classes - or any other form of licensing - will not solve the problem. Does it on the highways? (50,000 dead annually due to car crashes)

Nope. Inch by inch we cede our freedom in the name of (false) security......

STRONG ditto, Carl. If the kind of guys that cause these senseless accidents, sans alcohol or no, are forced to get boater's licenses or some such, they'll immediately file and forget all they supposedly learned and still commit the same mayhem. You just can't regulate bad judgment.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

More regulations is not the answer. It would just be another way to tax us with more licensing fees.

 

[Freebird]

Mandatory boating classes - or any other form of licensing - will not solve the problem. Does it on the highways? (50,000 dead annually due to car crashes)

Nope. Inch by inch we cede our freedom in the name of (false) security......

Karl,

I respectfully disagree on your view of mandatory boating classes and licensing for that matter. I think both are a good ideas and should include color video of the end result of BUI. This will most certainly not put an end to the problem, but it will provide a basic education that so many are lacking. Much like required hunter safety classes, there's still no guarantee that some dumb SOB who passed the test won't mistake you for a deer while you're out in the woods!

I for one would happily concede this part of my "freedom in the name of (false) security......"

 

[Genesis]

It has never worked Randy.

Not here, not anywhere else. It has not worked for driving, teen sex, hunting, or any other form of licensure. In each and every case the data collected and stored has been used for purposes outside of its original mandate, always with a net reduction in our freedom - and never with an increase in our safety, net-net.

When was the last time you had to pull out your driver license for something actually related to operating a motor vehicle? Yet how many times have you been asked to see your license for other, non-driving-related purposes?

Until recently (when I got tagged for speeding - my bad) I had not presented a driver license for an actual driving-related purpose for more than 20 years. Yet I cannot count the number of times I am asked for it for other - illegitimate under its original mandate - purposes.

 

[Freebird]

Karl,

You're preachin' to the choir Bubba. I never said it would work, I just think it would be a start. As it is, the only thing required to operate a boat is the cash to purchase it, be it a 150' megayacht or a 100mph bass boat. Hell, I don't have to tell you about some of these guys, I'm sure you and all the rest of us run across them every time we leave the dock.

Your point is well taken. I'll never forget the time when I went to the Tennessee Highway Patrol to obtain a special chauffer's license to drive a tractor-trailer truck. The written test was the same as for a passenger vehicle, and I took the driving test in my '72 Chevy Blazer! This "test" consisted of pulling out of the THP parking lot, turning left, traveling 200 feet, and turning right into another parking lot, making a U-turn, and going back to the THP parking lot. I questioned the officer about the "test" and told him that quite frankly, I was a little nervous knowing these guys running up and down the highway with 80k lb trucks got their license by driving in a circle with their pick-up trucks!

Things have changed now. You have to go to a designated DOT course with the type of vehicle for which you are applying for a license to operate. You then have to demonstrate that you are capable of making the required safety inspection prior to operating the vehicle. You then proceed to demonstrate your ability to back and park the vehicle within a confined area along with various other low speed manuvers. Then and only then, assuming you were able to accomplish all the low speed stuff, you left the lot and headed for the highway. The instructor would make notes as to how often you checked your mirrors on both sides of the truck, how you shifted gears (upshifts and downshifts), and how you braked approaching stopped traffic. They also would instruct you that they would signal you when they wanted you to perform an emergency stop and pull to the side of the road. In short, you had to prove you knew what the hell you were doing in that big truck in order to pass the test and obtain a license. Why wouldn't that work with boats, especially big ones that can do major damage and bodily harm if operated incorrectly?

I know and make the argument on laws pertaining to gun control, for example. This is just a political pacifier designed to make Democrats look like they are doing something to save us all from the bad guys who are out to cause us harm. These laws don't work because crooks don't obey laws (duh). Speed limits on the highway are merely a suggestion (at least that's the way I view them ), and having every boat owner graduate from Captain school won't guarantee they will operate their boat in a manner consistent with their education. Quite frankly, it seems very obvious that some skippers just don't give a damn about rules and regulations, or about common courtesy to fellow boaters.

However, much as driver education in high school, I feel something should be done to at least make folks go through the motions of learning how to properly operate a boat for their safety as well as ours.