My Way Crew Confirmed to be OK After Crash
08-14-2012 | 12:58 PM
#322
Registered
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,080
Likes: 81
From: Fort Worth, TX
The argument that the crusier is at fault for his wake would be the same as if there were a collision caused by a Rooster Tail creating poor visibility.
Tell me, if 2 jet Ski's collide behind a boat and say that they couldn't see each other because of your rooster tail, how is that going to go.
FYI, Rooster Tail was listed as part of the cause in the accident that killed 5 at Texoma. By the way, Texoma's go fast scene has decreased drastically since then.
Tell me, if 2 jet Ski's collide behind a boat and say that they couldn't see each other because of your rooster tail, how is that going to go.
FYI, Rooster Tail was listed as part of the cause in the accident that killed 5 at Texoma. By the way, Texoma's go fast scene has decreased drastically since then.
08-14-2012 | 12:59 PM
#323
Registered
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,235
Likes: 550
From: Cape Coral FL
So let me get this straight. Some rich guy that is probably self insured spun out his 2 million dollar boat a while back causing no harm to anyone. Now this weekend he hit a big cruiser wake and damaged his own boat, causing no harm to anyone or anyone else's property. He didn't crash his boat, he damaged it. I am pretty sure my insurance rates aren't going up to pay for his repairs and I am pretty sure that my tax dollars aren't going to pay for his repairs. Do we really need 33 pages of bickering about who was at fault? Really? No one seamed to care when I hit that rock in the Colorado river and damaged my boat.
Last edited by snapmorgan; 08-14-2012 at 01:05 PM.
08-14-2012 | 01:11 PM
#324
Registered
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 528
Likes: 3
From: Venice, Florida
08-14-2012 | 01:17 PM
#325
Registered
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,235
Likes: 550
From: Cape Coral FL
And just how is hitting a rock and hitting a wake so different? My only point is this has been blown WAY out of proportion. It is just not that big of a deal that this guy did some damage to his boat. There won't be a claim against the poker run's insurance and it will not effect runs in he future.
Last edited by snapmorgan; 08-14-2012 at 01:20 PM.
08-14-2012 | 01:30 PM
#326
Registered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: Central N.Y.
I don't believe it is blown out of proportion. People are trying to police themselves and are asking questions as to how this could happen, why and how to prevent it from happening again with a worse outcome where he (MY WAY) not only damages his property but that of others. Read here, LIVES are at stake too. Some here have called foul on this questioning. Apparently it takes at least 33 pages to reach a consensus. I think there is real concern amoungst OSO'ers.
08-14-2012 | 01:34 PM
#328
Registered
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 1
From: Monroe, LA
There are some intelligent opinions here, but some people continue to ignore the fact that the cruiser captain has a duty to keep his wake from endangering life, limb, or property:
"While vessels under 1600 GT are not specifically required to manage their speed in regards to wake, they are still required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property." (46 USC 2302).
Text from Section 2302:
§ 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation
(a) A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $ 5,000 in the case of a recreational vessel, or $ 25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
"While vessels under 1600 GT are not specifically required to manage their speed in regards to wake, they are still required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property." (46 USC 2302).
Text from Section 2302:
§ 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation
(a) A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $ 5,000 in the case of a recreational vessel, or $ 25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
Last edited by X-Rated30; 08-14-2012 at 01:39 PM. Reason: Added text from Section 2302
08-14-2012 | 01:46 PM
#330
Registered
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 596
Likes: 1
From: Okanagan Falls BC. Canada
There are some intelligent opinions here, but some people continue to ignore the fact that the cruiser captain has a duty to keep his wake from endangering life, limb, or property:
"While vessels under 1600 GT are not specifically required to manage their speed in regards to wake, they are still required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property." (46 USC 2302).
Text from Section 2302:
§ 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation
(a) A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $ 5,000 in the case of a recreational vessel, or $ 25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
"While vessels under 1600 GT are not specifically required to manage their speed in regards to wake, they are still required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property." (46 USC 2302).
Text from Section 2302:
§ 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe operation
(a) A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $ 5,000 in the case of a recreational vessel, or $ 25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
