3 Dead, 5 Injured

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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.

It's been reported that the entire area, or in some articles, the entire lake has that speed limit. I've explained where the speed limit is, and it is unlikely that this occurred in the area covered by the speed limit. You can read the law yourself: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/....html#h-743015
You'll need to go to Schedule 6

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.

When you once again, snidely (and erroneously) took a shot at my experience level, you implied that it should be expected that cottage lakes should be rife with unlit or poorly lit vessels, implying acceptance of such.

And you can't say that you haven't been saying that the accused was speeding excessively. My point, which you clearly missed, is that you can't say someone has been speeding (ie. exceeding the speed limit) unless you can state what that speed limit should be.

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.

No I'm not! I'm saying that we don't know how fast he was going. We don't know most of the facts of this case. I'm saying that the lynch mob should cool their jets and look at the facts objectively as they come to light. If it turns out that the guy is 100% to blame, then I'd be happy to slip the noose around his neck myself. Nevertheless, he deserves his day in court.

Objectively, it looks like the hit boat wasn't displaying its navlights - this is a factor. This isn't the 70s anymore Mike. These aren't crappy little A-frames on these lakes - these are million dollar cottages. Most of the boats out there are $80,000 ski boats. The boat that got hit is a $30,000 sport-fishing boat. These aren't just left on the dock all winter. They're professionally winterized and recommissioned in the spring. The lights would have been operable.

Questions that need answering: did the operators of both boats have PCOCs?
Where there PFDs on board for all the occupants? The boat was overloaded.
Were they both displaying navlights?
Where did the collision actually occur?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think it's a little early to definitively say it happened in the speed limit area. That area is extremely small. It is literally the 100m stretch on either side of a bridge. There is a standing limit with 30m of shore, but as many boat docks and swim platforms (mostly unlit) extend out into that area, I would think it highly unlikely a fast boat without radar would be that close to the shore. Then again, maybe the guy was truly suicidally stupid.

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????

I don't believe this for an instant. If this guy was regularly speeding through the actual speed limit area (which is under a very narrow bridge btw) then I can't imagine a video of this flagrant violation turned in to the police wouldn't elicit a response. The OPP regularly patrol lakes, handing out tickets and impounding boats for the usual offences (usually open alcohol, not enough PFDs, no PCOC, etc.). Even before that, a neighbour could have gone over and made the "hey buddy..." plea. Did it happen? When one of the news articles states this was an inevitable outcome, I would like to think someone should have made the effort. Did they?

If they were tied between the docks, they may not have thought they needed to display a light.

If they were between the docks, the other boat would have hit a dock first. Unless he was heading towards the shore. Don't think that was likely.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

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 people left in their dinghies, some of them left flat out on a plane into the full anchorage with no moon.

Stupid can't be controlled.

In Canada, operators of boats have to have a Pleasure Craft Operator's Card (PCOC). It's not particularly onerous to get, but does ensure that the operators at least know the rules exist. Theoretically they should have at least a working knowledge of the most applicable rules to pass the test.

In my experience most people will boat at a reasonably good clip even at night. Maybe not flat out, but generally avoid plowing water if they can. Not a wise idea when weaving around unlit moored vessels, or in a debris field, but honestly I don't see the issue in open water. If you know the waters, you'll know if there are logs or kelp or other stuff worry about. You should be able to expect other users will be lit properly. Most of us still drive near the same speed at night, as during the day. Much more likely for an animal to pop out of nowhere on the road, than for a surprise pop-up in the middle of a lake.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

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.

Valid points. But when it's pitch black, or foggy you don't come to a complete stop, do you? At some point you have to trust your instruments ( be that radar, charts or navlights).

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.

We don't know how fast he was going - we can make guesses, but that's all we have right now. We have no idea of how dark it was, and where in the bay this occurred. We don't know the mechanism of injury - if it was the force of the collision, or drowning because drunk people not wearing PFDs were thrown into the water from an overloaded boat. I'm not suggesting the guy in the speedboat is blameless. But I am suggesting that some of the blame might also belong to other boat. If someone jumps in front of a bus, I don't blame the bus driver just because the other person is dead.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

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.

That is a reasonable goal, but as you also seem to suggest, in some circumstances, that can be virtually impossible to achieve. If there is no, or little moonlight, a lake like that is going to be so dark, that you won't see anything until it is lit by your own navlights. Trundling along at idle may be the surest bet not to hit anything, but it's hardly practical if you have 3 miles of lake to cross.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think anyone has suggested the tinny was tied up at the dock when it was hit. The first responders (ie the professionals) arrived sometime after the locals had gotten out to the site. It has not been stated explicitly, but I think it is reasonable to infer that they (locals) moved the crashed boats to the dock to effect the rescue.

The police have not said one way or the other whether the occupants were wearing lifejackets or not.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

And you can't say that you haven't been saying that the accused was speeding excessively. My point, which you clearly missed, is that you can't say someone has been speeding (ie. exceeding the speed limit) unless you can state what that speed limit should be.

Quote where I've said the person was speeding. Quote it. I haven't said that. I've referenced eyewitness reports that suggest this was the case. And given the physical evidence, it certainly suggests this is the case, but we don't know -- something I've repeatedly stated.

You don't seem to understand that speed limits are irrelevant. ALL boats must operate at ALL times in a safe and responsible way. That means in a way that allows them to avoid all reasonably-expected hazards. Given the fact of this collision, we can definitely say the boat that hit the other was failing to operate in this way.

You appear to be suggesting that an improperly-lit boat somehow absolves the other of any responsibility. It does not. Not in law, nor in practice.

The outcome of this event may well be charges laid against both boat operators. And the facts around lighting will likely factor into the kinds of charges laid, and any sentence issued at the end. But it doesn't erase the primary responsibility to operate a boat responsibly at all times.

[senormechanico]

Some of the comments about partial blame seem nonsensical.
For example, if the speedboat had hit an unlit log in the dark, would the log be partially to blame?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Some of the comments about partial blame seem nonsensical.
For example, if the speedboat had hit an unlit log in the dark, would the log be partially to blame?

In most common-law countries, entities without agency (such as inanimate objects), or people who cannot make reasonable choices due to a disability (mental or physical), are deemed to be ineligible for legal blame. The unlit log in your example would be a mitigating factor, but it would not face legal liability. Of course, if someone were found to be responsible for the log's placement, that could result in "blame".

In the event before us, there appears to be at least two individuals with the capacity to accept some, or all, of the legal responsibility. IOW, the two boat operators.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Quote where I've said the person was speeding. Quote it. I haven't said that.

Really? -

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Regardless, it appears that recklessness, including illegal speed, was the primary cause. The whole area is clearly posted at 10 km/hr.

You appear to be suggesting that an improperly-lit boat somehow absolves the other of any responsibility. It does not. Not in law, nor in practice.

Quote where I've said that. QUOTE IT!

[Mike OReilly]

It "APPEARS..." Do you understand the word? Do I need to define it?

It DOES appear that the person was operating at a reckless speed. All the news reports referenced indicate the event happened in the speed-limited area. So yes, it "APPEARS."


But as I keep saying, we don't know for sure.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Valid points. But when it's pitch black, or foggy you don't come to a complete stop, do you? At some point you have to trust your instruments ( be that radar, charts or navlights).

We don't know how fast he was going...

Not precisely, no. But we do know the operator was going too fast to stop or even turn in time to avoid the collision. And fast enough to land on another boat.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

That is a reasonable goal, but as you also seem to suggest, in some circumstances, that can be virtually impossible to achieve. If there is no, or little moonlight, a lake like that is going to be so dark, that you won't see anything until it is lit by your own navlights. Trundling along at idle may be the surest bet not to hit anything, but it's hardly practical if you have 3 miles of lake to cross.

I call BS on that. This is the biggest misconception I see in go-fast operators. Just because the throttle can go all the way fowarward, doesn't mean it has to. It is very possible, and sometimes much safer, to slow down and get home a little later than you planned.

Is it really impractical to cross three miles of lake safely? That's only a half-hour at six knots.

And yes, sometimes you have nearly zero visibility in fog. In that case, the prudent operator slows down, posts and extra watch or two, turns on the fog signals and lights, and keeps an eye on the instruments. Usually that's enough to avoid hitting anything, but if there is something you can't see or hear until it's too late, at least you're going slowly enough to cause less damage when you do collide. Or, as in this case, allow three young people to live.

Being a half-hour late seems like a very small inconvenience in comparison to three lost lifetimes.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Not precisely, no. But we do know the operator was going too fast to stop or even turn in time to avoid the collision. And fast enough to land on another boat.

Thanks. It seems almost silly to have to state this, but that's where we are.

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I call BS on that. This is the biggest misconception I see in go-fast operators. Just because the throttle can go all the way fowarward, doesn't mean it has to. It is very possible, and sometimes much safer, to slow down and get home a little later than you planned.

Yup... I feel a Stones song coming on: "You can't always get what you want...". The notion that it's just too much of a bother to go slower is utterly ridiculous. How long it takes you to cross a lake is irrelevant.

As some of us keep saying, speed is determined by circumstances. Outside of specified speed-limited areas (of which this event may have occurred in), boaters are obligated to operate at a safe speed -- always. This means matching speed to the conditions and the hazards that are reasonably likely to be in the area.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Not precisely, no. But we do know the operator was going too fast to stop or even turn in time to avoid the collision. And fast enough to land on another boat.

You don't have to be going that fast to land on another boat. There are all sorts of docking fail videos that prove that.
Clearly he was going too fast to avoid the collision. Would he have been able to avoid if the other vessel was properly lit?

I call BS on that. This is the biggest misconception I see in go-fast operators. Just because the throttle can go all the way fowarward, doesn't mean it has to. It is very possible, and sometimes much safer, to slow down and get home a little later than you planned.

Again we don't know that the throttle was all the way to the stops. But if we want to call BS, then I point to anyone saying they only go 4 kts just because it's dark out.

Is it really impractical to cross three miles of lake safely? That's only a half-hour at six knots.

Is it cold? Is it raining? Six knots isn't slow enough to necessarily avoid anything inconspicuous. You're travelling 10 ft/sec. 2-3 seconds reaction time means you have to spot it from 30 ft just from the cast of your navlights. At six kts you're not on plane, so you're plowing a bunch of water with your bow pointing up, further reducing your vis ahead.

at least you're going slowly enough to cause less damage when you do collide.

You would hope that if everyone was doing their part, there wouldn't be any collisions. That includes wearing lifejackets.

[senormechanico]

This discussion reminds me of this low visibility crash which was blamed on "Self Driving Car".
What kind of idiot would depend on such a sketchy new tech in those conditions?



https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=7z8uq6