Video of Pleasure Boater colliding with Washington State Ferry

ziggy said:
The rules only work if both parties know understand and follow them. I'm sure many of us have "given way", when by rule we were the stand on vessel. Like driving a car, sometimes it's better to be safe than right! Always assume the other guy may either not know, or follow the rules.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
Perhaps a case of .. "I'm the bigger boat so get out of my way"... right wrong or indifferent :eek:
 
If ferry captains have to operate their boats like all other vessels don't have a person on the wheel/watch theres going to be delays. I have a hard time splitting the blame between the two operators from what is shown on the video. Theres one guy on that small craft and bunch of people on the ferry. Its commons sense and courteous to give way the the ferry. I just role my eyes at small craft operators that would challenge that using navigational law.

Man oh man i could not see damage on that boat. Amazing.
 
Peahead said:
I am a bit surprised you think the ferry captain was not aware of that pleasure craft (not paying attention)? It looks to me he was well aware of the pleasure craft (5 blasts of horn done twice) but rather I think anger and stubbornness may have got the best of him.....and that will likely get him in some trouble I think. Ferry captain seemed to refuse to take evasive action to avoid collision. Kinda reminds me of the incident with BC Ferry that "quok'ed " the boat floating in the middle of the ferry lanes in Horseshoe Bay many years ago. You can't hit someone just because they shouldn't be there! It is possible that a pleasure craft could make a brutal move like that if the operator had had a medical condition and was passed out at the helm for example. Despite the pleasure guy being a idiot in this particular case, I feel the ferry captain should have attempted to avoid collision by reversing much sooner than he did (which was in fact too late)- and not maybe expecting the pleasure craft to make a turn in time. Its required to attempt to avoid a collision no matter who has right away and it seems the ferry did not make that attempt other than the warning/danger blasts. The pleasure craft appeared on the video to definitely be on ferry's right however according to the website the video was posted on (gcaptain), the editor comments that the pleasure craft had been coming from a give way overtaking position ( which doesn't seem to show on the video). Also a pleasure craft should give way to larger commercial craft running their channel routes/lanes. Being on the toilet with nobody at the helm and vessel on autopilot going 8-10 knots across a ferry/shipping lane is just plane wrong. I feel both should be slapped for this one but the true idiot is the pleasure craft I feel.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit surprised you assume to know what I think about that collision from the two benign sentences I posted!
Also surprised you would so vehemently present so much judgement on a situation you know so little about.
Great video, and it certainly provided a great snap shot of a small but entertaining angle of a collision that seemed to have a happy ending in that I couldn't see anyone who was hurt, and the pleasure craft 'seemed' amazingly undamaged.
The video also prompted me to ask myself a hundred questions about the incident of which many need answering before I sit on my high horse and start throwing speculative opinion around.
I do however stand by the only statements I could think of at the time. More than one person wasn't paying attention. (Even if peaheads ludicrous and wild accusation that the accident took place over the captain's anger or stubbornness is true, there's a bridge team up there that should have seen this coming AT LEAST a handful of minutes earlier than the video started. And what was behind the ferry, or on its port side, or coming from head on, or, or.....It doesn't take TSB six months or more to complete an accident investigation for no reason)

I'll also add a precursor to my second sentence that may make it more palatable for your liking.

10% wrong or 90% wrong, I bet the ferry captain was embarrassed!-
 
I'm with Birdsnest on this one. I know it's only a short clip but it looks like the guy just slowly motors off into the sunset. Is it still called hit and run if it's boats?

Does he throttle up a bit there after he bounces off? Seems odd to me that the boat tries to cut across a second time? Or would that be the auto pilot?
 
Last edited:
That's the auto pilot doing its thing I believe.
 
There is no reason auto pilot on marine vessels couldn't use radar over lay and be programed not to hit the big BIG blob on the Radar in front of you. IMO.
 
agentaqua said:
or.. even looking out the window would help!
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more, AA. If the pleasure craft captain was away from the helm, (washing dishes, pooping or whatever) it doesn't matter whether he was in the stand on position or not. While he may or may not have been "right" , he is damn lucky he wasn't DEAD right.
 
as far as i am concerned the pleasure boater is 100% at fault, he is driving with undue care and attention, even with autopilot you need a watchman that is in a position to avert disaster. there are no ships that use autopilot without a watchman or 2 on the bridge. if the ferry was coming on his starboard side he still was not in a position to alter course, therefore undue care and attention
 
Tugcapitan said:
I'm a bit surprised you assume to know what I think about that collision from the two benign sentences I posted!
Also surprised you would so vehemently present so much judgement on a situation you know so little about.
Great video, and it certainly provided a great snap shot of a small but entertaining angle of a collision that seemed to have a happy ending in that I couldn't see anyone who was hurt, and the pleasure craft 'seemed' amazingly undamaged.
The video also prompted me to ask myself a hundred questions about the incident of which many need answering before I sit on my high horse and start throwing speculative opinion around.
I do however stand by the only statements I could think of at the time. More than one person wasn't paying attention. (Even if peaheads ludicrous and wild accusation that the accident took place over the captain's anger or stubbornness is true, there's a bridge team up there that should have seen this coming AT LEAST a handful of minutes earlier than the video started. And what was behind the ferry, or on its port side, or coming from head on, or, or.....It doesn't take TSB six months or more to complete an accident investigation for no reason)

I'll also add a precursor to my second sentence that may make it more palatable for your liking.

10% wrong or 90% wrong, I bet the ferry captain was embarrassed!-
Click to expand...

QUOTE]

Wow tugcapt sorry if my post came across negative. My saying I was surprised by your comment was not at all meant to criticize in any negative way - just felt was an interesting response that I was a bit surprised by, sorry - no ill will whatsoever. My comments as to where the captains mind might have been were of my opinion of what I felt might be the case based on what I saw and heard in the video. I suppose I could have said nothing and offered no opinion whatsoever as you are correct, I don't know exactly what happened leading up to the video. There wasn't enough info in that short video nor were the gcaptain website comments necessarily factual. I don't feel I made any assumptions just opinions based on what I read and saw - I thought that was ok on a forum but anyway I have always respected your opinions and still do...:)
 
Last edited:
I'm no pro out there but don't the ferry captains go through training for situations like this , for last minute disaster situations ....
quickly assessing the situation ..

boat heading in a straight line going to hit the ferry route maybe

boat with some speed with no change in speed moving aggressively in the ferry's line

no sign of life on the boat all tinted out windows ,i'm sure the ferry captain brought the binoculars out to look closer when the boat was at a distance maybe .

the ferry captain's reaction to this situation should be instinctual and happening much earlier than when the passengers noticed there was a problem

Mr poopy pants is 100% at fault in my eyes ( good thing he didn't hit a canoe with kids in it )


this is just from the clip i know there's angles and what not of the video just my little in put

few times going to Nanaimo and the ferry does not let up till the last minute saw a few times some boats were just drifting and day dreaming
change coarse a bit maybe mr ferry just incase :cool: hmmmm it's chicken time ...
 
coupe of slight observations:
1. the horn on the ferry has been sounded before the video starts.
2. the ferry is turning to her port side which could be considered evasive action.
 
terrin said:
This will probably be very common on the roads in a couple of years with driverless cars.
Click to expand...
There have been studies that are not seeing that. In fact they predict a 90% reduction in fatal crashes and that's a good thing.

http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/...s-driving-could-redefine-the-automotive-world
9. Accident rates drop.
Click to expand...
By midcentury, the penetration of AVs and other ADAS could ultimately cause vehicle crashes in the United States to fall from second to ninth place in terms of their lethality ranking among accident types. Today, car crashes have an enormous impact on the US economy. For every person killed in a motor-vehicle accident, 8 are hospitalized, and 100 are treated and released from emergency rooms. The overall annual cost of roadway crashes to the US economy was $212 billion in 2012. Taking that year as an example, advanced ADAS and AVs reducing accidents by up to 90 percent would have potentially saved about $190 billion.
Click to expand...
 
Birdsnest said:
There is no reason auto pilot on marine vessels couldn't use radar over lay and be programed not to hit the big BIG blob on the Radar in front of you. IMO.
Click to expand...

LOL.... you got that right. I would submit that you could do the same thing with a smartphone and a bluetooth relay to the ignition switch. There is plenty of computer power in even a cheap smartphone to calculate a collision course using the built in camera and trigger the relay to shut down the whole system until the operator of this pleasure boater could take control and reset.
 
Peahead said:
QUOTE]

Wow tugcapt sorry if my post came across negative. My saying I was surprised by your comment was not at all meant to criticize in any negative way - just felt was an interesting response that I was a bit surprised by, sorry - no ill will whatsoever. My comments as to where the captains mind might have been were of my opinion of what I felt might be the case based on what I saw and heard in the video. I suppose I could have said nothing and offered no opinion whatsoever as you are correct, I don't know exactly what happened leading up to the video. There wasn't enough info in that short video nor were the gcaptain website comments necessarily factual. I don't feel I made any assumptions just opinions based on what I read and saw - I thought that was ok on a forum but anyway I have always respected your opinions and still do...:)
Click to expand...
No harm no foul, I have a history of jumping all over this stuff. I'm working on it haha
Respect back at you.
 
No one has "right of way" actually. That has been changed legally, because, as Peahead said, obviously if a medical condition (or mechanical malfunction) on the burdened vessel caused it to be uncrontrollable, it doesn't mean that the ferry captain (in this case), has the "right" to run him/her down and injure/kill passengers on the burdened vessel.
Everyone has to take evasive action always to avoid collisions. That's the law. No one actually has "right of way"
Ultimately, both vessels should have taken evasive action to avoid that outcome.
I've seen larger vessels play chicken just because they're larger, and of course, quite rightly, should have "right of way". Clearly that's understandable, but it's surprising that the (professional) captain of the ferry isn't aware of the law, and thinks that he has "right of way" and he obviously did play chicken.
A collision was the outcome in this instance. Hopefully no one was injured.
 
eriks said:
No one has "right of way" actually. ..
Click to expand...
You're right eiks - in that navigating a boat is quite different than driving on a street - where there is a designated vehicle with "right of way" (e.g. yield lane).

HOWEVER - there are designations of "stand-on" and "give-way" vessels in certain, standard, well-defined situations. In every situation - there may be other considerations spelled-out in the collision regs - such as constrained by depth, narrow channels, restricted in the ability to maneuver, etc - that may well change what people assume is a "classic" example of vessels on port verses starboard bow give-way example - and inexperienced boaters may fail to understand these other restrictions/realities.

So - as other posters have correctly stated - whatever it takes to avoid collision works - and always assume that the other "give-way" vessel may be skippered by an inexperienced person unfamiliar w the collision regs - or may be having a snooze, ****, bj - or doing the dishes - and not paying attention. That's where being stubborn about maintaining oneself as the "stand-on" vessels falls apart.

Everyone should have a plan B worked-out in their mind - and implement it - before collision becomes unavoidable... (like the skipper of the ferry)
 
Just one last thing to add to my previous post, for anyone not entirely on top of their collision regs, had that situation been between two similar sized small fishing boats like any of ours, the smaller boat in this situation actually would have had old school "right of way", and the expectation would have been that the ferry would have altered course to avoid collision.
Any small or similar sized power boat approaching you from your right hand (Starboard) side theoretically has "right of way" over you. You should alter your course, not him, but if you don't, he must avoid colliding with you.
Never take it for granted though. That's why they changed the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top