Jump to content

Would both would be at fault?

Rate this topic


foxfai

Recommended Posts

30 mins ago, ken r said:

Boat was stand on vessel.

Though I've sailed since I was a kid, I was not familiar with this phrase as it's not used by sailors, and googled it. I found this: Stand-on vessel: The vessel that must maintain its course and speed unless it becomes apparent that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action.  So at what point was the boater supposed to yield to the plane that was obviously not going to?  It seems he bears some responsibility as the rule is stated. 

 

I've found powerboaters in general to be pretty ignorant of the rules of the road. I've had them nearly run me down while obviously under sail in my kayak, never mind paddling. One ass hat said: "that's not a sail" of my rig with main and jib! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  If i had to guess and im probly wrong. the plane had the right aways since his visuals is impaired at this moment.  Just guessing as I have no clue.    Boat had perfect visuals and acknowledment of the plane actions.  

 

Boat looks like it cross paths   vs staying on starboard  side of the plane. The plane looks to be running parrelll to shore line. 

 

I doubt the plane could see the boat with the ass of the plan down and front angle up like that.  Same reason why they make squated trucks illegal  . 

 

 

Edited by 757saltwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 757saltwater said:

  If i had to guess and im probly wrong. the plane had the right aways since his visuals is impaired at this moment.  Just guessing as I have no clue.    Boat had perfect visuals and acknowledment of the plane actions.  

 

Boat looks like it cross paths   vs staying on starboard  side of the plane. The plane looks to be running parrelll to shore line. 

 

I doubt the plane could see the boat with the ass of the plan down and front angle up like that.  Same reason why they make squated trucks illegal  . 

 

 

Yep, wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people talk about situations like this, they tend to focus on the technical aspects of who had right of way, and forget the General Prudential Rule, which is also codified in the Rules of the Road.

 

The General Prudential Rule reads as follows:

 

§13-244-3 General prudential rule. In obeying and construing the rules in this chapter, due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

 

In other words, if you see that a collision is imminent, and you don't do everything in your power to prevent it, you share the blame, regardless of who might have had the right of way.

 

Reminds me of a friend who was into kayaking, and told me about his plans to kayak from Captree (on Long Island's Great South Bay) to someone's home farther east in the bay over the weekend.  I observed that he'd have to cross West Channel, a busy waterway that, along with heavy weekend private boat traffic, was also used by regularly scheduled ferries carrying passengers from Bay Shore to Fire Island.  His response was, "as a Kayak, wouldn't we have the right of way," to which I responded "Maybe, and that's an argument that your executor could make at the wrongful death trial."  He got the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CWitek said:

When people talk about situations like this, they tend to focus on the technical aspects of who had right of way, and forget the General Prudential Rule, which is also codified in the Rules of the Road.

 

The General Prudential Rule reads as follows:

 

§13-244-3 General prudential rule. In obeying and construing the rules in this chapter, due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

 

In other words, if you see that a collision is imminent, and you don't do everything in your power to prevent it, you share the blame, regardless of who might have had the right of way.

 

Reminds me of a friend who was into kayaking, and told me about his plans to kayak from Captree (on Long Island's Great South Bay) to someone's home farther east in the bay over the weekend.  I observed that he'd have to cross West Channel, a busy waterway that, along with heavy weekend private boat traffic, was also used by regularly scheduled ferries carrying passengers from Bay Shore to Fire Island.  His response was, "as a Kayak, wouldn't we have the right of way," to which I responded "Maybe, and that's an argument that your executor could make at the wrongful death trial."  He got the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of physics supersede the rules of the road. Sometimes also expressed as "there are cemeteries full of people who had the right of way."

 

There was no possibility the pilot could have seen that boat. Maybe he shouldn't have been there at all, but I wouldn't drive in front of a seaplane without a gun to my head.

Massachusetts EPO:

1-800-632-8075

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 757saltwater said:

  If i had to guess and im probly wrong. the plane had the right aways since his visuals is impaired at this moment.  Just guessing as I have no clue.    Boat had perfect visuals and acknowledment of the plane actions.  

 

Boat looks like it cross paths   vs staying on starboard  side of the plane. The plane looks to be running parrelll to shore line. 

 

I doubt the plane could see the boat with the ass of the plan down and front angle up like that.  Same reason why they make squated trucks illegal  . 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, CWitek said:

When people talk about situations like this, they tend to focus on the technical aspects of who had right of way, and forget the General Prudential Rule, which is also codified in the Rules of the Road.

 

The General Prudential Rule reads as follows:

 

§13-244-3 General prudential rule. In obeying and construing the rules in this chapter, due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

 

In other words, if you see that a collision is imminent, and you don't do everything in your power to prevent it, you share the blame, regardless of who might have had the right of way.

 

Reminds me of a friend who was into kayaking, and told me about his plans to kayak from Captree (on Long Island's Great South Bay) to someone's home farther east in the bay over the weekend.  I observed that he'd have to cross West Channel, a busy waterway that, along with heavy weekend private boat traffic, was also used by regularly scheduled ferries carrying passengers from Bay Shore to Fire Island.  His response was, "as a Kayak, wouldn't we have the right of way," to which I responded "Maybe, and that's an argument that your executor could make at the wrongful death trial."  He got the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking that net net the boat was in the wrong.

 

Not so much due to visual aspects, although that could be a factor, but rather due to the relative inability of the plane to maneuver.   Like power to sailboats.

 

Then, of course, common sense which is what Cwitek pointed out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...