Sailing boat overrun by motoryacht, deadly accident

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

.

I got on the VHF and sarcastically thanked him. The speaker crackled with..."What the matter, you don't know the rules of the road?" I thought so, you did hear me. I answered back with..."What rule is that...how close you can come to me?"

I would have thought the obvious answer would have had something to do with you being on the water....not the road.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Well, you are pointing out what I see as a problem with the rules:

Whether there is a risk of collision or not the rule 18 says the powerboat must keep out of the way of the sailing vessel (that's simple, OK?). No distance or time limits are applied.

But the Rule 17 says that if one vessel must "Keep out of the way" then the other must hold course and speed. (Oh, UGH)

So, technically speaking a sailing vessel could be required to hold course and speed even when he can't even see the power vessel which is now required to keep out of his way.
...

Rules 17 and 18 are in section II so rule 11 applies:

Rule 11 - Application

Rules 11 - 18 apply to vessels in sight of one another.

Originally Posted by wingssail

Lodesman, I have only the USCG publication to go by. If there are case law examples which modify the actual Colregs, or privately published guides or interpretations which impose limitations on Colregs which are not printed in Colregs itself, then how would a normal boater who buys a Colregs book, where they are not mentioned, know this?

I suppose a jurisdiction could require operator's licenses and training in which such things are covered, but we in the US don't have that for private operators. Meanwhile I think we are doing pretty good if we even have a copy of Colregs itself and try to know it and understand it.

Personally, if the literal interpretation of the rule is impossible to follow or makes no sense, I disregard it and use common sense.

The interpretation of the rule isn't impossible, nor does it lack sense. Virtually all rules require some interpretation. If you're driving and the light turns red a 1/4 mile ahead - you don't immediately stop, do you? No, you advance to the intersection, or the last car in line that are waiting at the light, and then stop. That isn't written in the law book, but you apply that common knowledge. Same with Colregs - you can pick up that common knowledge through learning; you can learn from experienced people, or pick up a guide book, just like new drivers do.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Jammer

The turn of phrase I used was "identify a potential hazard." Which is feasible at 1 nm.

Sure, if you're paying attention, you can see a white dot at 10 nm.

You can see it's another boat heading in your general direction at speed, at 5 nm.

You can be concerned at 3 nm, but I don't think it's feasible to identify a potential hazard with enough accuracy to do anything, from a typical sailboat, with typical sailboat capabilities.

Somehow I manage. You can take a compass bearing can't you?
From when you first see that dot on the horizon, you can check to see if the bearing is changing - and thereby "identify a potential hazard."

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wyb2

You can learn a lot about a person by watching which hills they choose to die on. In this case one crew appears completely negligent, while the other appears to have made some mistakes. But the thing you need to convince us all of is that there’s plenty of blame on both sides. Have you thought about why that’s so important to you?

Have you thought about why it’s important to you that when a pedestrian gets hit by a car, it must be the pedestrians fault?

There's a certain type of person that can't accept that other people are entitled to opinions that differ from theirs. The smug arrogance is really quite annoying. Ask yourself why it's important to you, to feel so superior?

How about you describe the actions that were "completely negligent" and compare those to the actions that were "some mistakes" and tell us where you think they differ?

The point wasn't about how pedestrians get "mowed down", it's how it's possible for pedestrians to avoid being mowed down, even when the speed differential is that much greater than the supposed 6:1 of the subject collision. Do you purport that it is impossible for pedestrians to avoid colliding with cars?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Are you delusional? If you believe he made a 180 in extremis and got hit broadside, then you have no concept of the speed differential. The sailboat may have, at some time, passed in front of the powerboat, then turned around and doubled back, but by then would be crossing as the give way vessel.

I simply restated what was in the reports we've all seen to date. And if you've ever helmed a sailboat, you know that turning involves swinging the stern around; they don't turn from the bow like a car. So an emergency 180 doesn't work the same.

btw, the 'nice' thing to do when you're wrong, is to acknowledge it and move on, not start flinging out tortured and unsupported hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The point wasn't about how pedestrians get "mowed down", it's how it's possible for pedestrians to avoid being mowed down, even when the speed differential is that much greater than the supposed 6:1 of the subject collision. Do you purport that it is impossible for pedestrians to avoid colliding with cars?

Sometimes - when the vehicle driver is inattentive, or impaired, or malicious... yes it's sometimes very hard or impossible to avoid being hit. Same thing with speeding boats vs slower and less maneuverable craft. In both situations, just about all the cards are held by the faster participant.

Colregs, like traffic laws, are the steps to a dance. If the partner with the most control can't/won't dance, then you have a problem.

Have you noticed that you're pretty much alone on your particular hill?

[wyb2]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

There's a certain type of person that can't accept that other people are entitled to opinions that differ from theirs. The smug arrogance is really quite annoying. Ask yourself why it's important to you, to feel so superior?

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are entitled to argue it endlessly on the internet. Everyone is. Even the annoyingly smug arrogant ones.

It's important to me (in relative terms) because a lot of threads on CF get taken over by a small number of users endlessly arguing contrarian points. I think it's helpful to other readers (the ones that probably haven't chimed in at all) for someone to point out when those contrarian points veer into being a little weird.

In your defense, you make your contrarian point using full sentences and punctuation, unlike some I've seen around.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

How about you describe the actions that were "completely negligent" and compare those to the actions that were "some mistakes" and tell us where you think they differ?

30 knts, no evasive action.
6 knts, late evasive action.

Different.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The point wasn't about how pedestrians get "mowed down"...

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Bull crap! They get mowed down, because they step into traffic without looking.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

...it's how it's possible for pedestrians to avoid being mowed down, even when the speed differential is that much greater than the supposed 6:1 of the subject collision. Do you purport that it is impossible for pedestrians to avoid colliding with cars?

No, not impossible. Just like it isn't impossible for a slower boat to get out of the way of a faster one. But despite it being possible (and generally quite easy), pedestrians still sometimes get hit, and slower boats sometimes get hit. When that happens, sometimes it's the pedestrian's (slower boat's) fault, sometimes it's the car's (faster boat's) fault.

Most people can run about 15 mph (13 knts) in short bursts, about double the max on-demand speed of a sailboat. 5x-6x that is 75-90 mph. So the true analogy is a person dodging 75-90 mph cars going any which way in a vast, unmarked, featureless parking lot. Or if you prefer, a senior citizen, or maybe a 25 yr old on crutches, dodging cars going 35-40 mph in that same vast parking lot. Could it be done? Sure. But if a car in this weird, dystopian situation mows someone down without making any clear attempt to turn or slow down, who's almost certainly at fault? The car.

[Cwens]

As I read this thread I am reminded of a quote attributed to economist Milton Friedman:

Sloppy writing reflects sloppy thinking

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I simply restated what was in the reports we've all seen to date. And if you've ever helmed a sailboat, you know that turning involves swinging the stern around; they don't turn from the bow like a car. So an emergency 180 doesn't work the same.

Poorly reported, and one-sided. If you want to take that at face-value, it's up to you. If you think about it though, how do you imagine a slow-moving sailboat taking an emergency evasive manoeuvre, that results in it being spun completely around, before it is hit?

btw, the 'nice' thing to do when you're wrong, is to acknowledge it and move on, not start flinging out tortured and unsupported hypotheticals.

I don't think either of us have all the facts. It's a little premature for you to declare who is wrong. There is a poorly-reported, alleged account by one side of the case. Then there is the obvious photographic evidence - impact is on the starboard side of the sailboat. And there's third-party statements that it was motoring with one sail unfurled - take those for what you will.

Sometimes - when the vehicle driver is inattentive, or impaired, or malicious... yes it's sometimes very hard or impossible to avoid being hit. Same thing with speeding boats vs slower and less maneuverable craft. In both situations, just about all the cards are held by the faster participant.

Colregs, like traffic laws, are the steps to a dance. If the partner with the most control can't/won't dance, then you have a problem.

Again, you have to have a situation where the pedestrian isn't paying attention, or the car driver is deliberately aiming at the pedestrian. I think we can assume the powerboater did not deliberately aim to plow into the sailboat.

Have you noticed that you're pretty much alone on your particular hill?

Which hill is this? My hill (point of view) is that both boaters were at fault. Apparently your "hill" is that only the powerboater is at fault, and the sailboater can be excused from maintaining a lookout or following the colregs, because he had a sail up and was going slower. Just because all the sheep follow the majority into the abattoir, doesn't mean they're right.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wyb2

Everyone is. Even the annoyingly smug arrogant ones.

Agreed. You are entitled to an opinion. But you don't seem to want to offer an opinion - you just seem to want to take shots at me personally. Argue the point, not the poster.

It's important to me (in relative terms) because a lot of threads on CF get taken over by a small number of users endlessly arguing contrarian points. I think it's helpful to other readers (the ones that probably haven't chimed in at all) for someone to point out when those contrarian points veer into being a little weird.

If everyone just agreed with the first point made, then sat around slapping themselves on the back, congratulating each other for being so clever, it'd be a pretty boring forum, don't you think?

A good discussion benefits from differing viewpoints. Debate doesn't need to be argumentative, nor insulting. It should stimulate original thought, point and counterpoint.

Or you can just stick to ad hominem attacks, and shut down any chance of expanding your mind.



30 knts, no evasive action.
6 knts, late evasive action.

Different.

Wow. Such insight. Such logical reasoning.

So do you subscribe to the idiotic notion that there was nothing the sailboat could have done differently, that could have prevented this tragedy?

But if a car in this weird, dystopian situation mows someone down without making any clear attempt to turn or slow down, who's almost certainly at fault? The car.

Answered previously. Unless you figure the Dane wanted to scratch his expensive boat, by deliberately steering to the hit the sailboat?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I don't think either of us have all the facts.

My hill (point of view) is that both boaters were at fault. Apparently your "hill" is that only the powerboater is at fault, and the sailboater can be excused from maintaining a lookout or following the colregs, because he had a sail up and was going slower.

Your "hill" is that colregs are so infallible that if there's any collision, even the victim must have disregarded them. Which, if we don't have all the fact, is not proven or even assumable.

A sailboat (or other slower craft) , in ideal conditions, can still be endangered by a negligent or inattentively driven fast boat. The comments in this very thread make it plain that this happens too often, and that even the best early detection and avoidance by the sailboat crew still result in a dangerously close crossing.

That's the important lesson here. Not "colregs über alles".

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your "hill" is that colregs are so infallible that if there's any collision, even the victim must have disregarded them. Which, if we don't have all the fact, is not proven or even assumable.



A sailboat skipper, in ideal conditions, can still be endangered by a negligent or inattententive fast boat skipper. The reports in this very thread make it plain that this happens too often, and that even the best early detection and avoidance by the sailboat crew still result in a dangerously close crossing.



That's the important lesson here. Not "colregs über alles".

The way the COLREGS are written, if you end up in a collision, you're at least slightly at fault. Basically, if you ever let things get to the point where you can't avoid the collision without any action from the other guy, then you have not followed the rules.

[wyb2]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If everyone just agreed with the first point made, then sat around slapping themselves on the back, congratulating each other for being so clever, it'd be a pretty boring forum, don't you think?

Actually yes, completely agree.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

A good discussion benefits from differing viewpoints. Debate doesn't need to be argumentative, nor insulting. It should stimulate original thought, point and counterpoint.

Or you can just stick to ad hominem attacks, and shut down any chance of expanding your mind.

I wasn't really trying to attack, I was just asking (smugly, as you correctly pointed out) why you seemed to be arguing the point with such fervor.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Wow. Such insight. Such logical reasoning.

So do you subscribe to the idiotic notion that there was nothing the sailboat could have done differently, that could have prevented this tragedy?

And it begins again. You asked me how they were different, so I listed the clear differences, and it gets an eye-roll. You called me out for being a smug jerk, but then quickly turn back to being somewhat abrasive (the eye-roll, "idiotic", earlier you called someone delusional). That's kind of why I started picking on your posts to begin with.

Maybe you didn't 'start it', so to speak, and I'm picking unfairly. I guess this has probably run it's course.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

The way the COLREGS are written, if you end up in a collision, you're at least slightly at fault. Basically, if you ever let things get to the point where you can't avoid the collision without any action from the other guy, then you have not followed the rules.

Rules like colregs set up a process, a series of prescriptions that help normal, attentive boaters avoid collisions. Should the sailboat crew have been running radar, watching AIS, have lookouts posted at the 4 compass points? Maybe they would have reacted earlier. But that's not exactly normal, on a sunny day in open water. All things considered, their faults are likely to be vanishingly small in the face of the errors made by the fast boat.

The inquest/trials will hopefully clarify.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Rules like colregs set up a process, a series of prescriptions that help normal, attentive boaters avoid collisions. Should the sailboat crew have been running radar, watching AIS, have lookouts posted at the 4 compass points? Maybe they would have reacted earlier. But that's not exactly normal, on a sunny day in open water. All things considered, their faults are likely to be vanishingly small in the face of the errors made by the fast boat.

The inquest/trials will hopefully clarify.

I agree, there's a good chance they'll carry far less fault than the powerboat in this case. But it's important to remember that it's basically impossible to have a boat collision where one party can truly say "nope, that wasn't my fault at all and I couldn't have done anything about it." There's always some part of a rule they could be deemed as having violated.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

it's important to remember that it's basically impossible to have a boat collision where one party can truly say "nope, that wasn't my fault at all and I couldn't have done anything about it."

Well, the sailors could have stayed home. Or changed their schedule for the day...

Assume that the reports are correct - that the sailboat was travelling starboard to port relative to the motorboat (doesn't matter whether they were sailing or motoring), and so their first required action is to stand on. So that eats some time. Then it becomes apparent that the motorboat is still on a collision course... what does one do, in the very limited time remaining? Wave? Radio? Horn? Change course?

I think it's very possible that a competent and sober skipper could still be caught out in this unlikely and tragic situation. The colregs don't require every skipper to be as skilled as Dennis bloody Conner doing the Americas Cup.

So, yeah, in the rare case of a sailboat being run down by an unattended motorboat at speed, I think it's distinctly possible that one could reasonably meet their colregs obligations and still get hit.