Wake sends beachgoers to hospital, captain under investigation

[john61ct]

https://youtu.be/e9PZ7QVPAnk

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/0...investigation/

[denverd0n]

Dangerous tidal wave!?! A wake -- no matter how big it might be -- is absolutely NOT a "tidal wave." So I don't even have to read the article to know that the author is prone to ridiculous exaggeration!

[john61ct]

Translated from the Dutch by someone (something) making minimum wage

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Dangerous tidal wave!?! A wake -- no matter how big it might be -- is absolutely NOT a "tidal wave." So I don't even have to read the article to know that the author is prone to ridiculous exaggeration!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_wave


see the second or third definition

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_wave


see the second or third definition

Which is why Wikipedia is frowned on as a reference source.


That's not what reputable sources define as a "tsunami".



And that's not what "tidal" means.

[Montanan]

First impression it seems odd that the shipping channel would be routed so close to the shoreline which close proximity tends to induce such adverse hydrological effects and second the ship was far exceeding a no wake speed and navigating irresponsibly.

The liability is clear as to damages or injuries caused by a collision or allision with your wake. A vessel's wake is considered a extension of a vessels hull as to it impacting something or someone.

The title of the video and the article use incorrect terms, the word wake would have been accurate instead of tidal wave.

Solutions are to slow the vessel speeds and / or move the shipping lane further out from shore. Pretty scary situation, kind of like an unexpected rip current and a rogue wave combined at once. Lucky no one drowned.

[Palarran]

It's a pretty incredible wake nonetheless. I'm not sure how in the heck this hasn't happened many times before this.

[Franziska]

What's even more astonishing is, that it's a dredger who caused this.
These guys are usually very aware of the local circumstances as they spend a lot of time in the same area.
Reckless driving it would be called on shore I guess.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

see the second or third definition

NONE of those definitions -- certainly not either the second or third -- would apply to a boat's wake. There is just no way that a boat's wake can be properly described as a "tidal wave." Now, perhaps it was just a really bad translation, but then one must wonder how much of the rest of the story is completely wrong as a result of the same bad translation.

[john61ct]

Layman's understanding plus hyperbole.

In a nutshell, meant to infer

~~ a really big wave that can cause casualties ~~

which most lay people do not imagine can be caused by a passing boat.

[Paradoxus]

Originally Posted by Montanan

First impression it seems odd that the shipping channel would be routed so close to the shoreline which close proximity tends to induce such adverse hydrological effects and second the ship was far exceeding a no wake speed and navigating irresponsibly.



The liability is clear as to damages or injuries caused by a collision or allision with your wake. A vessel's wake is considered a extension of a vessels hull as to it impacting something or someone.



The title of the video and the article use incorrect terms, the word wake would have been accurate instead of tidal wave.



Solutions are to slow the vessel speeds and / or move the shipping lane further out from shore. Pretty scary situation, kind of like an unexpected rip current and a rogue wave combined at once. Lucky no one drowned.

I know the spot, been there as a child and been back a few times since. The Schelde estuary is notorious for tidal currents and dynamic shoaling, which explains why the channel moved so close to the beach. You can’t move the shipping lane further ofshore for same reason.