On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:27:36 -0700 (PDT), back to the boats
<victor.jhyde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 27 Apr, 11:49, sa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:54:22 -0400, "Roger Long" <stri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> >"Capt. JG" <jg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>
>> >> The sailboat clearly was in the wrong. The only quibble is that
perhaps
>> >> the tow/barge could have acted sooner.
>>
>> >I am surprised that neither David Taylor, you, nor Bob spotted the
elephant
>> >in the room. The "sailboat" was proceeding against the tide.
>> >The New London buoy was evidently out of commission at the time but
the mid
>> >sound buoy shows:
>>
>> >YYYY MM DD hh mm WD WSPD GST WVHT DPD APD MWD BAR ATMP
WTMP
>> >DEWP VIS TIDE
>>
>> >2007 09 09 13 15 280 4.1 5.7 0.40 4.00 99.00 999 1018.3 22.6
21.5
>> >20.2 99.0 99.00
>>
>> >Possibly, a high performance boat could have made it through the
bridge
>> >against that current on a broad reach but winds were probably lighter
down
>> >in the wind shadow and he certainly would have had a problem when he
hit the
>> >wind shadow of the bridge just upstream. If this goes to court, I
think the
>> >operator will have to fight a strong presumption that he was actually
a
>> >powerboat at the time.
>>
>> >The article certainly should have clarified this out and done
something to
>> >help dispel the widely held misconception that guys who operate boats
with
>> >big sticks on them always have the right of way.
>>
>> The article states that the sailboat was under power at the time, and
the
>> wealthy, snobbish, asshole captain of the tug tried the radio
repeatedly and
>> blasted his horn, while waving his arms frantically. What a buffoon. He
>> apparently thought it was more im****tant to avoid the collision than to
insist
>> it was the other guys fault, and he shouldn't HAVE TO use his radio and
other
>> signals to try and clarify the situation. :')
>>
>> >Rule 9 (a) is surprisingly limited in regard to the common sense idea
that
>> >traffic moving with the current has right of way in a narrow channel.
It's
>> >always true on the Great Lake and Western Rivers but otherwise only on
>> >waters specified by the Secretary. Whether that bit of water is
"specified
>> >by the secretary" I don't know. Why 9 (a) doesn't apply to all
waters, and
>> >what is different about Eastern Rivers is a mystery.
>
>where a vessel has reduced manoeuvrability i.e towing or trawling
>they have right of way, other boats are duty bound to avoid them. The
>primary duty of any skipper is to preserve the life of himself and his
>crew If the other guy is a lot bigger and he hits you it is going to
>hurt the barge tow was alert to the problem and took what steps he
>could to avoid collision the sail boat was lucky that there was not a
>"Bow Bell and Marchioness" incident.
I wrote NONE of what you quoted above. Why did you include my header
at the top?
|
