3 Dead, 5 Injured

[Mike OReilly]

Mine, and then Tom's response, answers your question. There is no exact speed. It is determined by circumstance.

All boats must operate in a way as to avoid collision. This means showing proper lighting, and travelling at speeds where typical hazards can be avoided. The absence or presence of one aspect does not erase the requirement on the other.

If you don't think having a poorly lit boat on a small cottage lake, especially at the start of boating season, is normal, then clearly you've not spent much time on such waters.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Well, for starters, not so fast that I wouldn't have time to see, and avoid, a boat that size in my path.

I'd also consider the possibility of unlit hazards like deadheads or any man-made debris, etc.

...

No need to put a number on it. The fact that they hit another boat strongly suggests that they were going too fast for the prevailing circumstances.

Assuming the other boat is lit? What if it's not? We don't have headlights on boats - in fact the rules tend to discourage the use of lights that would interfere with navlights.

Not usually a lot of man-made debris in these lakes. Deadheads can happen, but if you've been out and about during the day, you'd know if the waters were clear or not. It was a calm, clear day, so no sudden deadfalls.

Boats hit other boats at slow speed too. Would you assign any blame to the other boat if it was unlit?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Mine, and then Tom's response, answers your question. There is no exact speed. It is determined by circumstance.

All boats must operate in a way as to avoid collision. This means showing proper lighting, and travelling at speeds where typical hazards can be avoided. The absence or presence of one aspect does not erase the requirement on the other.

If you don't think having a poorly lit boat on a small cottage lake, especially at the start of boating season, is normal, then clearly you've not spent much time on such waters.

It is highly disingenuous to state that there is no exact speed (limit), then in the same breath state that someone is over that limit.

So in your mind it's OK to drive around without the proper lights, but not OK to go fast.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

For those who are interested in a little more detail, I give you this article from the local newspaper.

Could see the lights of their phones? Doesn't sound like they were showing navlights.
If that boat was going 60-70 mph, I think both boats would have been disintegrated.
Not clear if he was indicating the boat was coming into the bay or heading out.

So in a society where everyone is carrying a high-quality video-camera in their pocket, this guy has been blasting dangerously through a no-wake zone, close to shore for four years and nobody has taken a video of it and reported him to the OPP?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Didya even read what I wrote???.

Yes but did not consider it worth the effort.. never been into tennis..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It is highly disingenuous to state that there is no exact speed (limit), then in the same breath state that someone is over that limit.

So in your mind it's OK to drive around without the proper lights, but not OK to go fast.

There is a speed limit. It's been reported that the event happened in the 10 km/hr limit area. This is from news reports. I've been very careful to stress we don't have official news, so this is all we have so far.

Please don't pretend to read my mind. Read my words. Your second sentence is simply wrong. I've never said either of those things.

It is you who seems to be implying that it is OK to drive at speeds that could result in this kind of horrific event, apparently blaming the lack of legal lighting.

[TrentePieds]

Hello Mike - let me take this opportunity to point out, and to congratulate you on, your signature line in your posts: Why go fast, when you can go slow.

[JPA Cate]

Yes, the problem is that there IS already a speed limit on the portion of the lake involved--and some of the time, people don't obey it, and this time, the speed boat was going fast enough to climb up on the tinny, but not so fast it continued all the way over it.

Most people prefer to not get others in trouble. How many times have we all heard something that amounts to "live and let live"? Well that policy just turned in to "live and let die." And that one has a tragic overtone.

Since this was on an inland lake, whichever laws Canada has relative to enforcement of their inland rules are what will be applied. It won't be like maritime law where responsibility is apportioned to both vessels involved. Police are in a difficult position, where they can only act after the event has occurred. So, who could have prevented this event? Maybe the concerned folks who needed something done and didn't speak up in a timely fashion? How could they do it? Go beg the driver to go slow on Opening Day in a Go Fast boat??? Would it have worked????

Had the driver of the speedboat known that strict speed limits were in force on the 10 k stretch (had they been), maybe he would not have driven so fast there, and maybe not. He wouldn't be the only one in the world to choose to not obey speed laws. It is the deaths that may make him a criminal.

Maybe the young people felt pretty safe out there, bobbing around close to shore. If they were tied between the docks, they may not have thought they needed to display a light. They may even have "borrowed" the boat. We here may never get to know all that happened, or why it happened the way it did.

But like somebody said, tonight, and for many nights to come, there are six parents right now, whose kids' candles have been snuffed out forever more.

Ann

[TrentePieds]

I think I've used the word "heedless" once or twice in this thread, and it's heedlessness that's at the core of the problem.

As you say, Ann, the police cannot take action IN ANTICIPATION of an incident such as this. That way lies the police state. And the neighbours cannot take action against an unpleasant man in ANTICIPATION of an incident such as this, however predictable it may be. That way lies vigilantism.

Only education and the propagation of socially sound mores can be a preventive, but there are those, as we know and as we see, who will not be educated.

None so blind as he who will not see!

TP

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Why should you expect poorly-lit or unlit vessels on a lake?

Because most people who boat on lakes, especially in small boats have no idea about COLREGS or anything else related to what might happen to them when some other yahoo comes flying by at 45 knots!


When we cruised to Mexico, we were attending a big beach party with a band and lots of beer at Isla Partida one evening. It broke up a few hours after dark. When people left in their dinghies, some of them left flat out on a plane into the full anchorage with no moon.
This was back in the day before cheap solar panels, MTTP controllers and LEDS. Therefore, most boats didn't even have anchor lights, but that didn't stop the idiots.
We all yelled at them to slow down, and their response?
'IT'S OK ! WE ARE IN MEXICO!" NO COPS OR COASTGUARD !!


Stupid can't be controlled.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

...Boats hit other boats at slow speed too. Would you assign any blame to the other boat if it was unlit?

Boats are not supposed to hit other boats. If they do, someone made a mistake, and probably broke the law. Not having proper lights certainly qualifies as both. But it doesn't mean a boat which hits them is blameless.

I don't travel at a speed where I wouldn't be able to avoid another stopped or slow-moving boat. Here in Maine we have lobster buoys to avoid. If I can see them well enough at night to avoid them, I've been known to run on plane. If I can see them I could see an unlit boat. Otherwise, just like in fog, you slow down to a safe speed, at which you'd be able to maneuver to avoid a collision.

Just because the lake was clear of debris earlier in the day, doesn't mean someone's floating dock or even boat couldn't have drifted out into the lake. Or a boat whose nav lights failed.

I just don't accept the argument that it's perfectly alright to hit - and kill - other people simply because their lights weren't on. The fact that anyone can even make that argument says a lot about the kind of world we live in.

[rslifkin]

Thinking about my earlier comments on speed at night, there's another factor beyond better ability to see and hear things at low speed. There's always a chance of something (like partially submerged debris) that can't be seen. At lower speeds the damage from a hit like that will be much less severe. Hitting a submerged log on plane is going to be much more ugly.

[Jim Cate]

Hitting a submerged log on plane is going to be much more ugly.

Too bad that isn't what happened! Be one less speedboat and several more youngsters floating around in their innocence (hypothetical).

Jim

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

... Digging into your "too fast" comment - what's an acceptable speed in your mind, in open water, no charted obstructions, where there is no visibility-obscuring phenomena and other vessels should be lit?

I'd suggest going slow enough, to be able to stop the boat, in half the distance [or some other reasonable fraction], that you can clearly see, an unlit object.

Remember: A dark target [unlit boat], viewed against a dark background [unlit lake, on moonless night], is an inherently difficult hazard to detect.

[Mike OReilly]

In reading a few local news reports it has been stated that “first responders found most of the crash victims wedged together on the boats next to a concrete dock near a few cottages.” This suggests — but does not prove – that the event happened close to shore, within the 30 meter zone that has an explicit 10km/hr speed limit.

Another story states that the victims were all from the tinny, and had been seated at the aft section. From the images, this is where the speed boat is shown on top of the tinny.

The stories also suggest none of the victims were wearing lifejackets.