Napa River Boat Collision

[Art]

NEVER go faster than you are willing to hit something. Good rule of thumb.

Seriously: With all due respect... is there a speed at which you are willing to hit something with your boat... other than 0 mph?

 

[78puget-trawler]

Probably a split blame but running into a stationary object at high speed would seem to place the majority of blame on him, not an anchored boat.

 

[Nightsky]

Vessels at anchor are not considered to be NUC, unless they also display NUC lights or day shape. Vessels at anchor are also required to maintain a watch. From the info provided by FW, the anchored vessel was about 100' into the channel (assuming between red and green bouys). IMHO, both parties at fault. If it ever gets to it, a court or tribunal will decide how to apportion fault.

 

[78puget-trawler]

Agree, but the speedie guy will take the majority of blame.

 

[Art]

With all the flotsam from recent rains, it's a wonder why boaters go fast with limited visibility. ... Another vote for FD boats which cannot go so fast.

Sorry Mark - That "vote" just does not hold water, so to say. LOL

In areas having much flotsam the smart fast boat owners simply slow to appropriate speeds for dealing with such. Then when things clear up... fast boats can simply go fast again! - however no matter flotsam or not... FD boats still must stay slow due to the "vote" [reason] you mention, i.e. "... FD boats which cannot go fast".

In my opinion that equals: Another vote for P boats which can go fast!!

 

[FlyWright]

With all the flotsam from recent rains, it's a wonder why boaters go fast with limited visibility. ... Another vote for FD boats which cannot go so fast.

There were no restrictions to visibility. And I was a certified wx observer during my ATC years so I know of what I speak.

I don't know of a boat that won't go slow enough in similar conditions. At least others have the choice of going fast when conditions allow. Sometime I wish I could, too.

 

[BruceK]

Why are we required to display lights at night? I think it`s because otherwise we probably won`t be seen.
Other vessels need to know you are there. Making yourself near invisible invites trouble and most if not all the responsibility.
It`s an objective test,it`s no answer the battery for the torch you took along had less charge than you thought. Where`s the spare? Or that you had a long unexpected call and your cellphone died.

 

[markpierce]

...
In my opinion that equals: Another vote for P boats which can go fast!!

In five seconds of inattention at high speed, good luck!

 

[Art]

Why are we required to display lights at night? I think it`s because otherwise we probably won`t be seen.
Other vessels need to know you are there. Making yourself near invisible invites trouble and most if not all the responsibility.
It`s an objective test,it`s no answer the battery for the torch you took along had less charge than you thought. Where`s the spare? Or that you had a long unexpected call and your cellphone died.

IMO - Anchoring with no lights on during night is plain stupid. Going so fast at night that you do not have time to divert course once realizing a boat with no lights is in your path is plain dumb. When you put stupid and dumb together that = virtually brain dead.

Just lucky in this instance that temporally, virtually brain dead actions did not amount to flat dead people.

 

[markpierce]

There were no restrictions to visibility....

At night?

Last time I boated at night was 55 years ago. That was in inland waters.

 

[FlyWright]

At night?

Last time I boated at night was 55 years ago. That was in inland waters.

Night time...or dark...is not a restriction to visibility. It's a condition that allows normal ops under proper procedures.

I used to operate jets for hundreds of hours at 460 Kts at night...no problem. I also used to fly low approaches at airports throughout the west at 50 ft or less over the entire length of the runway. I probably have 100's of hours doing that at night at places like LAX, SFO, SLC and SEA. It's a hoot to operate professionally at the edge at night.

Proper precautions can mitigate the risks of nighttime operations. The key is to know what's needed for the current conditions. IMO, that's what separates the pros from the wannabes.

 

[Seevee]

There should be NO DOUBT about an unlighted boat anchored in a channel being totally at fault. Even anchored with a light in a channel is illegal.

If one is operating at a speed too fast to hit anything, then they might as well stay at home. That's just not possible, especially with docking in a wind.

And there's nothing wrong with operation at 25 to 30 knots at night as long as it is reasonable prudent. Sure, he probably should have seen the boat, but just because he didn't, certainly doesn't make him at fault at all. It's just like a car came out of the alley and hit you and you didn't see him.

One can operate safely at night at 25 to 30 knots. There are plenty of aids that can help with a safe passage, including high power lights, good charting, radar, an observer, knowing the area, moon light and background lights. And there are times when it isn't prudent.

If, in fact this was a "narrow" channel as described and the anchored boat was 100 feet into it, is extremely negligent.

As for insurance, has nothing to do with whose at fault or whose going to pay, nor is not having it show any negligence at all. It's only a risk/benefit decision to have it.

And one more thing that's quite disturbing..... Why did it take the USCG or FD 3 hours to get there? Is this in the boonies somewhere? Were they asleep?

 

[BandB]

In five seconds of inattention at high speed, good luck!

So, is it reasonable for me to assume based on that statement, that you never drive your car over 6 or 7 knots either?

 

[FlyWright]

Why did it take the USCG or FD 3 hours to get there? Is this in the boonies somewhere? Were they asleep?

No, it's only 5 miles from our (mine and USCG Vallejo) marina. I was advised that the USCG assets were not immediately available. They told me that CalFire was planning to respond. Then there were the inevitable changes and ultimately, there was an obvious breakdown in communication across organizational lines. For a short period, it seemed like Thing 1 didn't know the intentions of Thing 2.

To their credit, each organization kept me informed of the changes and at one point, I was able to provide one with new info from the other.

All in all, they had a plan of what was going to take place. Like most successful plans, it was fluid and flexible. Works for me!!

 

[78puget-trawler]

There should be NO DOUBT about an unlighted boat anchored in a channel being totally at fault. Even anchored with a light in a channel is illegal.

If one is operating at a speed too fast to hit anything, then they might as well stay at home. That's just not possible, especially with docking in a wind.

And there's nothing wrong with operation at 25 to 30 knots at night as long as it is reasonable prudent. Sure, he probably should have seen the boat, but just because he didn't, certainly doesn't make him at fault at all. It's just like a car came out of the alley and hit you and you didn't see him.

One can operate safely at night at 25 to 30 knots. There are plenty of aids that can help with a safe passage, including high power lights, good charting, radar, an observer, knowing the area, moon light and background lights. And there are times when it isn't prudent.

If, in fact this was a "narrow" channel as described and the anchored boat was 100 feet into it, is extremely negligent.

As for insurance, has nothing to do with whose at fault or whose going to pay, nor is not having it show any negligence at all. It's only a risk/benefit decision to have it.

And one more thing that's quite disturbing..... Why did it take the USCG or FD 3 hours to get there? Is this in the boonies somewhere? Were they asleep?

When this gets adjudicated by whatever means, blame will be split, no way is the speeding boat that crashed into an anchored boat at night not going to get some blame, no way. These cases are almost always split, but running into an anchored boat at high speed wont look good, regardless the other issues.

 

[Seevee]

When this gets adjudicated by whatever means, blame will be split, no way is the speeding boat that crashed into an anchored boat at night not going to get some blame, no way. These cases are almost always split, but running into an anchored boat at high speed wont look good, regardless the other issues.

I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know, but could strongly argue against the one who was CLEARLY operating illegal... the vessel without lights AND anchored in a waterway. Both illegal. I'm betting it will not be split.

 

[Comodave]

Comparing operating a boat at speed at night to operating a car at speed at night are apples and oranges. Cars operate on roads not rivers, etc. you have headlights on cars, reflectors on other cars and a car is a much more controlled environment.

As to the liability, it will end up being split between both boats. It appear that both were either illegal and or neglegant to some extent. Boating collisions are almost always split liability even if you are doing "everything" right because if you were doing everything right the collision would not have occured.

 

[Seevee]

Comparing operating a boat at speed at night to operating a car at speed at night are apples and oranges. Cars operate on roads not rivers, etc. you have headlights on cars, reflectors on other cars and a car is a much more controlled environment.

As to the liability, it will end up being split between both boats. It appear that both were either illegal and or neglegant to some extent. Boating collisions are almost always split liability even if you are doing "everything" right because if you were doing everything right the collision would not have occured.

I could argue the car/boat thing, and would take a boat for safety any time. Boats have lights (all kinds of them that cars don't have), operate MUCH slower, don't have rush hours, 4 lanes of traffic. Don't have to operate in a lane 12 ft wide, and can veer off the "road" easily usually without issue. Just pointing out that one "can" control the boat and be safe within the environment. Boats have it's share of idiots, but I'd bet much less percentage than cars.

We are just more used to cars because most of us drive them everyday.

And FWIW, boat deaths are less per boat than car deaths per car... but stats lie....

 

[Group9]

Well, at least I am getting a glimpse into the mentality of people who operate boats at high speed at night and think hitting something is okay, as long as they can articulate why it's not their fault.

 

[Seevee]

Well, at least I am getting a glimpse into the mentality of people who operate boats at high speed at night and think hitting something is okay, as long as they can articulate why it's not their fault.

I can't imagine ANY BOATER that operates at night and thinks hitting something is okay.

I also can't imagine why any boater would not use lights when they are required, especially anchoring in channel.

 

[psneeld]

Just like boaters that operate slow at night, not all the fast ones have the same ability, electronics, etc.

Responsibility is operating within ones limitations, not those of others, and the prevailing conditions.

Just like going out in rough conditions, some shouldn't do it, but the right Skippers in the right boats can do it safely.

I can't imagine why someone would think we should all be of the same mentality.

And like every other controversy of why accidents happen, doing something can be a causal factor or not. Speed doesn't cause the accident in by itself or at all....he could have been going slow and hit the boat.

Had the guy had one beer, many would probably be more concerned about the alcohol than the speed.

Understanding accidents isn't like reading a newspaper article and thinking you have it all figured out.

 

[TONTOROSS]

When anchored, best to have some lights on beyond the required anchor light so to make one more visible. Suggest some subdued interior lighting. For me, low-intensity lighting in the pilothouse works.

Now, that's a thought. With LED'S and such, is it not a wise thing to possibly have rope lights etc on the bow & stern? Here's where I'm going with this -- I have red or white side deck lights. How confusing would it be to someone approaching my boat at night while I'm anchored if I turn them on?

 

[psneeld]

White would probably be OK, red may or not be.

 

[BandB]

White would probably be OK, red may or not be.

There was a time that lighting an anchored boat was a challenge for small boats in at least two ways. First, they were often operating only on batteries with no generator and no inverter. Now there are options available including LED that make it easier. A small boat could easily add additional lights that would make it clear there was a boat there. Anchor lights can blend in and get lost with shore lights.

The other issue small boats encounter in some areas is that their lights attract a lot of bugs. That's a price for safety, however.

I'd suggest everyone here reassess their own lighting when anchored. Is it adequate? Could it be make more than adequate with just a little bit of additional lighting. Also, if you leave a dinghy in the water, don't overlook it's needs. It may well be to one's benefit to go beyond the requirements.

 

[Group9]

I can't imagine ANY BOATER that operates at night and thinks hitting something is okay.

I also can't imagine why any boater would not use lights when they are required, especially anchoring in channel.

For myself, I have no trouble imagining things I have seen in real life. I've seen more boats operating/anchoring at night without lights than I can count. I can easily picture it in my head, and I operate my own vessel, being able to do that.

Hoping something bad doesn't happen is not really a plan.

 

[FlyWright]

That's part of the reason I love my LED spreader lights across the back. They not only illuminate the waters behind the boat for fishing, they also cast light onto the cockpit for general subdued lighting and make my boat very hard not to see at night. Here's one light...the other is hiding behind the American flag.

 

[dhays]

Well, at least I am getting a glimpse into the mentality of people who operate boats at high speed at night and think hitting something is okay, as long as they can articulate why it's not their fault.

That is a pretty big conclusion to draw from comments presented.

 

[Group9]

That is a pretty big conclusion to draw from comments presented.

Really? Tell me how I called that wrong.

 

[dhays]

I did not read any comments where someone said hitting something was OK.

 

[FlyWright]

I did not read any comments where someone said hitting something was OK.

Me neither.