3 Dead, 5 Injured

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

See, I was thinking the opposite. I think if the speedboat had been going that fast, it would have gone right over the other boat or flipped over.
But I'm not an accident reconstructionist. The OPP are apparently doing that work - I don't know if they have a special marine accident group or if it's their highway accident boffins they're calling in.

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?

Visibility obscuring = after sunset.. as far as I've seen most fishing boats are lit in one way or another as the light attracts fish.. as for the boat hit, all it needed was a white light as it seems to have been anchored.
Have crossed water in darkness in many places by dinghy and had boats scream past, bows up doing 20+kts throwing a wash.
Daytime is bad enough but in places like the SXM lagoon after dark it's crazy especially as the speedboats are often not 100% focused on what's ahead.. Sexy lady by the side ones trying to impress most usual..

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Visibility obscuring = after sunset.. as far as I've seen most fishing boats are lit in one way or another as the light attracts fish.. as for the boat hit, all it needed was a white light as it seems to have been anchored.

It wasn't a "fishing boat" regardless of how it's reported by the media. It's an open boat. No indication at all that they were fishing. Apparently playing music, which doesn't attract fish normally.
No indication it was anchored either. Either way it needed all-around white light. Did it have it?
I know this is hard for most people to understand, but darkness does not reduce the range of visibility. It reduces what can be seen, but that's why we are required to have lights. That vessel should have been visible from 2NM minimum, if the visibility was not otherwise obscured by some phenomenon - fog, rain, dust, etc. There was no indication of that.
So what would you think is a safe speed under those conditions?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It wasn't a "fishing boat" regardless of how it's reported by the media. It's an open boat. No indication at all that they were fishing. Apparently playing music, which doesn't attract fish normally.
No indication it was anchored either. Either way it needed all-around white light. Did it have it?
I know this is hard for most people to understand, but darkness does not reduce the range of visibility. It reduces what can be seen, but that's why we are required to have lights. That vessel should have been visible from 2NM minimum, if the visibility was not otherwise obscured by some phenomenon - fog, rain, dust, etc. There was no indication of that.
So what would you think is a safe speed under those conditions?

If a sailboats masthead all round is visible for two miles how far do you think a light maybe 6ft above the water is visible for.. have passed plenty of open boats off N Spain/Portugal fishing around 5nm offshore and was lucky if I spotted them at maybe 1000yds,often less.
Easy to pound from an armchair but, real life can be very different.. it may be difficult for some to understand.
Now enough with the nagging already..

[rslifkin]

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?

Generally I tend not to exceed hull speed in the dark. Partly for limited visibility, partly for less noise to hear other boats. So in the dinghy that's about 4 kts, in the big boat it's our usual 6.5-7 it slow cruise.

[Smokeys Kitchen]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Agreed.. also the fact that the speedboat has mounted the fishing boat to the extent it has indicates at least 20kts.
To fast for safe navigation in the dark.

This. Boatman has hit the nail on the head. Way over speed for safe navigation under the existing lighting.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by boatman61

If a sailboats masthead all round is visible for two miles how far do you think a light maybe 6ft above the water is visible for.. have passed plenty of open boats off N Spain/Portugal fishing around 5nm offshore and was lucky if I spotted them at maybe 1000yds,often less.
Easy to pound from an armchair but, real life can be very different.. it may be difficult for some to understand.

There's a difference between luminosity and visible horizon. The minimal range of visibility as stated in the Rules is based on luminosity or brightness of the light. They can be brighter and therefore visible at a longer range.
Height above sea (or lake)-level determines the visible horizon in normal atmospheric conditions. A light 6ft above the water is visible to about 3 NM from the sea surface. Put the observer's height of eye at 6ft and the range of visibility is about 6NM, assuming it's bright enough to shine that far.

In the respective boats even if we could assume heights of 2 ft for eye and lights, it still means a visible horizon of over 3NM, more than adequate to see the lights at the luminous range of 2NM.

This of course assumes no waves or swell, but this was a lake on a nice, calm day.

30 years in the Navy - pretty sure I know what lights look like in real life.

You still haven't given us what you would consider to be a safe speed for navigating in the dark.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Generally I tend not to exceed hull speed in the dark. Partly for limited visibility, partly for less noise to hear other boats. So in the dinghy that's about 4 kts, in the big boat it's our usual 6.5-7 it slow cruise.

While I would understand this in confined bays, around anchored boats or approaching shore, would you really limit yourself to 4 kts in open water?
Sitting beside a running outboard, you expect to hear what? Another outboard farther away?
Do other boaters not use lights in your lake?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Smokeys Kitchen

This. Boatman has hit the nail on the head. Way over speed for safe navigation under the existing lighting.

Same question. What is a safe speed for safe navigation at night, open water, clear visibility?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

There's a difference between luminosity and visible horizon. The minimal range of visibility as stated in the Rules is based on luminosity or brightness of the light. They can be brighter and therefore visible at a longer range.
Height above sea (or lake)-level determines the visible horizon in normal atmospheric conditions. A light 6ft above the water is visible to about 3 NM from the sea surface. Put the observer's height of eye at 6ft and the range of visibility is about 6NM, assuming it's bright enough to shine that far.

In the respective boats even if we could assume heights of 2 ft for eye and lights, it still means a visible horizon of over 3NM, more than adequate to see the lights at the luminous range of 2NM.

This of course assumes no waves or swell, but this was a lake on a nice, calm day.

30 years in the Navy - pretty sure I know what lights look like in real life.

You still haven't given us what you would consider to be a safe speed for navigating in the dark.

Pretty good on the 3nm range considering most leisure craft navlights are rated to 2nm last time I looked.
Safe speed navigating inland waterways in the dark I would put at 5kts.. but seeing as these incidents happen in broad daylight as well I doubt anyone really cares.

"For vessels that are 7 meters in length or shorter, the navigation lights must be visible from a range of one nautical mile and for the ones that are longer than 12 meters the required visibility range is 2 nautical miles. "

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Same question. What is a safe speed for safe navigation at night, open water, clear visibility?

One which allows the boat to safely navigate hazards that a reasonable boat owner should expect to face in these situations.

A slow-moving open boat that is poorly (and not-legally) lit, on a small "cottage country" lake, on the first long weekend of boating season, is certainly a hazard any responsible boater should expect to face.

Assuming the speed boat hit this other vessel (and that's only an assumption at this point), then clearly they failed in their primary obligation under the COLREGS. The other boat may also be culpable if it failed to display proper navigation lights (again, and assumption ... we don't know), but that doesn't erase the responsibility of the other boater.

This hypothetical (because we don't know the fact yet) doesn't absolve the speed boat. It may factor into what charges are laid (if any), and ultimately the judicial sentence (again, if any). But failure to show proper lighting does not excuse a boater travelling at such speed as they could not avoid this kind of hazard.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Pretty good on the 3nm range considering most leisure craft navlights are rated to 2nm last time I looked.

Didya even read what I wrote???

Safe speed navigating inland waterways in the dark I would put at 5kts.. but seeing as these incidents happen in broad daylight as well I doubt anyone really cares.

Bobs Lake is 12 miles long. Hope you wouldn't have to go any distance pottering along at that speed. Just curious, how much slower do you drive at night on a highway?

"For vessels that are 7 meters in length or shorter, the navigation lights must be visible from a range of one nautical mile and for the ones that are longer than 12 meters the required visibility range is 2 nautical miles. "

That rule doesn't apply in Canada. Can reasonably assume in this case that masthead and stern (or all-round white) are 2-nm and sidelights 1-nm.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

...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?

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.

I know some hate it when we get into a rules discussion, but Rule 6 requires that: Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be
among those taken into account:
(i) The state of visibility;
(ii) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) The maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
(v) The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
(vi) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

I suspect there will be similar language in the applicable lake boating regulations.

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.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

While I would understand this in confined bays, around anchored boats or approaching shore, would you really limit yourself to 4 kts in open water?
Sitting beside a running outboard, you expect to hear what? Another outboard farther away?
Do other boaters not use lights in your lake?

The noise from the outboard and water flow around the dinghy is dramatically less at 4 kts than 10+. Enough to hear an average powerboat vs not hearing them. But realistically, it's pretty rare that we dinghy long distances in the dark, especially in open water. That's usually saved for daylight.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

One which allows the boat to safely navigate hazards that a reasonable boat owner should expect to face in these situations.

Thanks for the lawyer-speak. What does that mean speed-wise?

A slow-moving open boat that is poorly (and not-legally) lit, on a small "cottage country" lake, on the first long weekend of boating season, is certainly a hazard any responsible boater should expect to face.

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

Assuming the speed boat hit this other vessel (and that's only an assumption at this point), then clearly they failed in their primary obligation under the COLREGS. The other boat may also be culpable if it failed to display proper navigation lights (again, and assumption ... we don't know), but that doesn't erase the responsibility of the other boater.

I think based on the only evidence we have - picture of boat on boat - that it's a foregone conclusion that the speed boat hit the other.
If the other boat was unlit, and didn't take any action to avoid the collision, or sound a warning signal, then how did the speedboat fail?

This hypothetical (because we don't know the fact yet) doesn't absolve the speed boat. It may factor into what charges are laid (if any), and ultimately the judicial sentence (again, if any). But failure to show proper lighting does not excuse a boater travelling at such speed as they could not avoid this kind of hazard.

Such speed? What speed was he travelling at?
None of us actually know that, certainly not with any degree of certainty.

If the other vessel was unlit, would any of you place any degree of blame on them?

[TrentePieds]

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

It also speaks, implicitly, to the level of esteem in which honourable men residing on the shore of Bob's Lake held the owner/operator of the speedboat.

Charges must necessarily be contemplated. Therefore authorities will say no more about the details of the incident until charges have been laid lest a subsequent conviction upon those charges be jeopardized.

https://www.frontenacnews.ca/south-f...as-foreseeable

TP