European Impressions of Cruising the US

[contrail]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

In inland waters of the US and Canada steaming cones are not required on boats less than 12m (40ft) ... so depending on where you are, it may not be necessary.

Should have clarified...always "beyond the jetties", i.e. Colregs.

[Mike OReilly]

To the lawyers in the hypothetical case of an anchored boat being hit by a boat in motion: Surely the lack of day shape on the anchored boat would, at most, transfer some of the blame to the anchored boat. Seems to me it would not erase the legal liability or legal culpability from the moving boat.

Since the bottom line demand in the Colregs is that it is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of circumstance, to avoid collisions surely the moving vessel in this case will easily be shown to be the one at principle legal — and actual — fault.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Tak ska' du ha', Carsten.

Can we have a similarly incisive write-up on the Salish Sea, please? It isn't really much of a detour if you are off to the South Pacific anyway, is it ;-)?

TP

It’s a 6,000nm detour. Though as a Seattle boy I do recommend it.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

anchoring balls? There are far too many of them as it is. My experience in annapolis I found 100 moorings all designed for 55ft boats and not a single boat. They spoiled the anchorage.



Washington DC also was recently degraded by the addition of mooring balls. The same problem in Boston harbor. . . .

The mooring balls mentioned in the post you quoted are not mooring balls to tie the boat to in lieu of anchoring but the day shape the COLREGS require to be hoisted when anchored in almost all locations.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Common practice" which contradicts the law can really bite you in the posterior. There is no such thing, legally, as the "letter of the law". There is only "THE law".

The obligation to show day shapes is not an empty formality. Clearly indicating nav status is important for other vessels to make maneuvering decisions.

"But your honor, I know the letter of the law requires nav lights, but there was a full moon out! “. You can expect similar traction with regard to the same argument with regard to your anchor ball.

Accidents with anchored boats are rare, of course, so probably it can't happen to you and you don't need to worry about it. Right? ?????

I don't know if they are that rare or if I am unlucky but I was once rammed by a 55T motorboat full speed astern (out of control) while on anchor.

I don't remember if I had the ball up or not (normally I have but not always) but my insurance company did not ask about that.

I agree with you, even if mine did not ask it could very well have asked and it could have been a problem. I try not to forget to put the black ball up everytime.

In case of an accident, even if things look pretty forward in what regards talking with the one that hit you, the first thing to do is to report the accident to the maritime authority and get witnesses, if possible signing that report too.

The insurance company may have other views than the owner or in my case the owner of the boat (not present) a different view than the skipper that caused the incident.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

To the lawyers in the hypothetical case of an anchored boat being hit by a boat in motion: Surely the lack of day shape on the anchored boat would, at most, transfer some of the blame to the anchored boat. Seems to me it would not erase the legal liability or legal culpability from the moving boat.

Since the bottom line demand in the Colregs is that it is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of circumstance, to avoid collisions surely the moving vessel in this case will easily be shown to be the one at principle legal — and actual — fault.

Yes, of course this is true. But not showing your nav status adds a clear element of fault on your part which will be very unpleasant. I think the insurance implications are probably the most serious practical risks. Guy who hits you is uninsured, say, and you've handed your own insurance company a perfect justification to not pay.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

To the lawyers in the hypothetical case of an anchored boat being hit by a boat in motion: Surely the lack of day shape on the anchored boat would, at most, transfer some of the blame to the anchored boat. Seems to me it would not erase the legal liability or legal culpability from the moving boat.

Since the bottom line demand in the Colregs is that it is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of circumstance, to avoid collisions surely the moving vessel in this case will easily be shown to be the one at principle legal — and actual — fault.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, of course this is true. But not showing your nav status adds a clear element of fault on your part which will be very unpleasant. I think the insurance implications are probably the most serious practical risks. Guy who hits you is uninsured, say, and you've handed your own insurance company a perfect justification to not pay.

Agreed. Giving insurance companies an excuse not to pay out is likely the greater risk. I do wonder how often this happens though, b/c as I say, I’ve never noticed any recreational boater flying these shapes.

… but this discussion now has me looking at getting some.

[sailorboy1]

I was looking through my insurance policy the other day and found nothing that seemed a loop hole for them not paying out because of not following a rule. I also found nothing that would apply to things like rigging just because of age.

Do you people have car insurance that doesn't pay based on not ruling the rules??? Or because your wheels are old???

In my younger days my Mom owned an insurance adjustment agency and I worked with her and currently my son is an insurance adjuster. I never seen such a thing for cars. Are boaters really paying for policies that allow such things?

[cyan]

Originally Posted by astokel

It is truly sad that I no longer feel welcome in America. Yes, I am sure if I did visit, that citizens would offer free dockage and a warm welcome as usual, but recent developments have left me, as many others, feeling alienated from our closest neighbour.

Sad.

It is indeed sad that you somehow feel unwelcome in America without actually coming here. Cryptically, you also mention that you DO expect a normal warm welcome from US citizens as usual. I'm sure this IS the case, in my area at least. The OP documented similar warm receptions along the ICW, which are probably much warmer in the smaller towns than in cities, BTW.

Hopefully your unwelcome feeling was merely formed by recent colorful news reports of colorful public figures. The truth is that America happily welcomes FAR more people every year than any other country in the world as permanent residents, in addition to visitors. (look it up) Frankly, I think we like it that way overall.

Ignore the bluster. Come on down and have a beer. We brew the real stuff these days.

[contrail]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I was looking through my insurance policy the other day and found nothing that seemed a loop hole for them not paying out because of not following a rule. I also found nothing that would apply to things like rigging just because of age.

Do you people have car insurance that doesn't pay based on not ruling the rules??? Or because your wheels are old???

In my younger days my Mom owned an insurance adjustment agency and I worked with her and currently my son is an insurance adjuster. I never seen such a thing for cars. Are boaters really paying for policies that allow such things?

Most marine insurance policies (maybe all?) say something, somewhere, along the lines of "if the vessel is being used in violation of the law, the insurance is void at the inception." We normally think it relates to drugs or smuggling or something like that, but it also applies to being in compliance with the law, which includes all sorts of things, even including out of date fire extinguishers, etc. Having said that most underwriters will also say that they do not deny payment if the violation has no effect on the loss. But being hit whilst displaying the wrong shapes and lights, or none at all, clearly has a cause and an effect. Look carefully.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "...It’s a 6,000nm detour"

Whadaya think the wink was all about ;-0)?

TP

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by contrail

Most marine insurance policies (maybe all?) say something, somewhere, along the lines of "if the vessel is being used in violation of the law, the insurance is void at the inception." We normally think it relates to drugs or smuggling or something like that, but it also applies to being in compliance with the law, which includes all sorts of things, even including out of date fire extinguishers, etc. Having said that most underwriters will also say that they do not deny payment if the violation has no effect on the loss. But being hit whilst displaying the wrong shapes and lights, or none at all, clearly has a cause and an effect. Look carefully.

As I said I couldn't find it and don't feel it is as common as made out to be.

[JPA Cate]

Actually, fold-flat anchor balls were available from WM when we left the US in March of '89. I don't know when they first started carrying them.

Ann

[TrentePieds]

You know, I have some 1/4" "aircraft ply" lying aboot. How long would it take to make one - and a cone and a diamond to go with it :-)?

For all I'd ever have to use them, they'd last longer than I will :-)

TP

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

As I said I couldn't find it and don't feel it is as common as made out to be.

Some in-depth Internet research (ha ) reveals the truth is somewhere in-between. Seems to come down to intent, at least with the legal documents I found on the subject.

Insurance policies do cover people while they are technically doing illegal things, like driving while drunk, or like not showing the proper day shapes. But they likely wouldn’t cover damages caused if you were using your boat to transport drugs.

All the documents I read noted that even though the policies would likely cover the damage from policy holders not following the law, this would also greatly increase the cost of these folk’s insurance. They would now be considered much riskier clients.