I can assure you the people that have these class of boats can afford the insurance on them no matter what it costs. All it will do is keep normal people like me from being able to afford it on my moderately powered boat.

Not in any way an accurate statement.

You don't NEED insurance to own and operate a boat. Finance it yes.

It's tragic when these wrecks happen and the occupants are killed. But think about one of them spearing through a crowd of innocent boaters, toons and ski boats full of families, out of control over 100 mph. The general public won't get over that if and when it happens. IMO that's what will finally force things to change. Laws, insurance, license requirements....any or all the above.

If you get pulled over driving your sports car 100 mph on a public road, you're going straight to jail around here. You don't have to be drunk. Then points on your license you have to pay for annually if they don't suspend it.

I didn't know any of the folks who've been lost the last several years but I think of them often and remember the names. Almost creepy, but I felt sick every time it happened and it's stuck with me.

Well for starters, roads are generally pretty flat, sports cars have brakes and in most cases traffic flows together in the same direction........none of those things are considerations for boats.

I would say this is more akin to high performance boating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZtzrbe6Ixo

So at what point does everybody raise their hand and say they were drunk? I suspect never.

IMHO, alcohol effects different people differently and from day to day no matter the % their levels would indicate - does it change the fact that it's legally impaired no... but 1 more leisurely cocktail doesn't feel like it would impair in the company of friends...

Compound that with the size of a 44' boat that will easily run north of 160, 100 mph seems like a conservative cruise... its not like running 100 in a lil' 24 Skater in the chop.

After so many months since the accident(s) from 2016, we can only learn from the loss of some very good people and temper our own actions as we each see fit...Sadly its an Extremely difficult way to see the big picture....

Agree..

A friend in the insurance business equates coverage to gambling in Vegas - the "house" will always encourage you to keep playing/paying provided the odds are highly in their favor against payout... you pay or you pay. High premiums thins the herd numbers as to who will and who can play at a given level.

Quite simple....

You didn't mention it in your opening post.......In the Brad Smith Skater fatality I'm pretty sure they weren't drunk, nor was Mike Fiore in the shootout nor the two guys in the 36 Skater in the Northeast speed run. Experienced guys, no booze and the same result. At what point does everyone raise their hand and say "THESE 2500+ HP BOATS ARE FAST AND DANGEROUS?" I suspect never.

I had a racer friend observe that a 38 Skater (Or pick any other brand you want) with 1650's in it, is almost akin to an F1 car. In other words, it is the highest level of performance you can own on the water.

How many of us are qualified to drive an F1 car? How many of us that road race are qualified to drive an F1 car?

I make no suggestions here and I'm all about personal responsibility and individual rights, but I thought that observation was interesting..

And there we go with another excuse. Just because a boat runs north of 150 isn't why people die, And their GPS back up that statement.

If the excuses are bad boat wake, poor visibility from the sun, etc. I call bull****. As very seasoned boaters I doubt, which I did not them so could be wrong, but I doubt they would have handled the conditions the same as when they were high.

The hard lesson learned is keep the captain sober. Period.

so are you saying that alcohol does not play a part in this only horsepower does?

I agree with you that most of these boats are to fast and most people that own them are not professional drivers,but thats a different topic,but to suggest that alcohol does not add to this is just stupid.

Please do not misunderstand me. Anytime alcohol is involved in boat operation whether on a pontoon or a 160+ mph boat, it is a non starter.

No question - it is 100% on the driver (and not the vehicle) if he/she drinks to excess and operates any motor vehicle. Doesn't matter what speed the vehicle is capable of. It's just stupid and irresponsible.

My point was more that some of these boats are at the highest level of performance. In order to operate at that level, the driver should have similar skill level. I wonder how many really do? It's been said before, sometimes the checkbook outruns the skill set.

agree 100%

I read the same thread as you and I don't get the feeling that people are making excuses or putting forth the notion that it is ok to get liquored up and drive one of these beasts. They are simply saying that a combination of factors came together to contribute to this particular accident - alcohol being one of them. Take away any one of these factors and the deceased likely would have made it back to the dock like they did so many other times in these two people's long boating careers.

I take away more from this thread than just the one hard lesson of don't drink and drive. I already know and follow that rule. I also take away the lesson that I really do need to refrain from hot-dogging it when I am riding into the sun because you may not see that huge cruiser wake that you would normally see any other time of the day. I already knew that but knowing something isn't the same as changing your behavior enough to account for it. You don't have to be drunk to get hurt going too fast over a huge roller.

Great thread, All good points.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]566279[/ATTACH]

I certainly wouldn't promote drunk driving but "What would be your standpoint on the 3 other fatal catamaran crashes?" All three cases the individuals had thousands of hours of experience, no booze and still had the same result.

Your argument blames booze in this case (which I don't disagree as a contributing factor), in the 3 cases I mentioned "What becomes the blame then?" 2 of the 3 were on video and the crashes were shockingly similar in appearance. Is there something wrong with admitting the boats have simply gotten too fast? Nascar realized this with their sport and went the route of restrictor plates to slow them down and keep them under control.

In the 3 cases I mentioned as specifically non-alcohol related I don't think it was a case of a rich guy running a new toy but rather the equipment simply got away from the operator! Ran out of talent at the wrong time.....

No not at all. My point was more towards the 3 non alcohol related crashes. Brad Smith, Mike Fiore and Jim Melley/Garth Tagge all had plenty of experience but were pushing these boats to the limit with fatal results. 2 of the crashes were during somewhat controlled conditions so that "random cruiser wake" excuse isn't in play. No booze, no cruiser wake, not novices operating........what is left as the excuse?

They were drunk, one almost double drunk. If only the water cops had pulled them over as they left the bar. They would be alive, possibly working off a suspended drivers license and out some cash. I often think this community/lifestyle puts their heads in the sand when alcohol is a component of a incident.

all these high dollar boats are getting/are way to fast,,so no excuses,,but when you add alcohol to the mix all bets are off.

Your train jumped the tracks.

Very fast boats.
Choppy, nasty water.
Bright sunset in your eyes. (assuming you own a decent pair of sunglasses)
Alcohol.

Now which one do you remove from the list to probably reverse the end result of that tragic day?

There are dozens of other fatal crashes, some involving catamarans:
Kevin Sellars
Flash Gordon/Myra Gibson
Big Thunder
Joey Gratton

Often seen as common denominators:
-Ego
-Alcohol

Even though this article is written for automobiles; I firmly believe this applies to boats as well:
http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/why...a-car-accident

"incidents" happen because someone makes a mistake.

You could pick any one. There is not a SURE one that automatically reverses a tragedy.


We get your point but you are take a large presumption to assume that if your take the booze away that they 110% survive this or the accident does not happen at all. Sorry but that is just not a sure bet or factual statement.

Agreed. But I said 'probably'.

Even stone sober it was not a wise decision to be running over 100 mph in that area of the lake on that weekend at that time of day. Way too congested with normal lake traffic. There have been times at half that speed that we've had issues navigating the water safely there due to unpredictable actions of boaters (jet skis, pontoons, cruisers, etc.) that will do a sudden "left turn Clyde" on you without so much as a glance over their shoulders. As someone stated previously, it is only a matter of time before the injuries/fatalities involve innocent bystanders. Not sure how familiar with the lake they were and at this point it doesn't matter. Bad decision(s) equated to an accident and they paid the ultimate price. I love to see the big cats ripping up and down the lake but you have to pick and choose when it is somewhat safe for both you and your fellow boaters you share the water with to let it eat.

RIP.

I couldn't have said it better. Seems like some posters on this thread are suggesting that there should be laws or mandated limits on top speed capability / installed horsepower / boat design.

Bull****. We are all grown adults, and we are all fully capable of deciding what risk level we are comfortable with taking on. I don't need anybody telling me what is "good for me", especially not the government.

Pat your tripping yourself up.......In my 3 boat crash example alcohol was not a factor, yet all three had fatalities.

No Alcohol.....

Very fast boats
Choppy, nasty water (not much of a factor in 2 of the crash videos)
Bright Sunset......surely not a factor in the Fiore full canopy crash.

Now what is left to remove from the list to probably reverse the end result of that tragic day?

Recall we would always see David Scott and JT making those runs at 7-7:30 am when nobody else was on the water.

I left the racing examples out, those guys are running literally 10/10ths, pushing the equipment as hard as they can. But if you want to add in the racer fatalities, it isn't booze that is killing those guys, not choppy nasty water, not sunsets.........it is the very fast boats.

I don't care how shiny the plastic trophy is, I have no interest in it or dying so the next race will be done in my memory. Those guys don't go out there to die, but sadly the odds sometimes take their toll.

And I will agree with you there.

In regards to your comments regarding the other 3 accidents it is my understanding and what I have heard first hand from people on the scene is as follows and Jim Melling being a personal friend.
1) The crash at Lanier had no alcohol test done. Funny huh? However there were pics of jello shots on the deck and bottles that were cleaned up at the crash site. Funny also that the run has now changed too.
2) It was said that the outerlimits crash that he was not wearing a helmet. If that were the case it was an error in judgement and not to discredit Paul by any means but IMO did not have countless hours running a cat.
3) Jim and Garth were the only ones that had a lot of seat time, were prepared for the worse and knew they were pushing the envelope.

We can all learn something from this but growing up in S. FL and boating all my life I can tell you more often than not Alcohol and boating don't mix. If things continue the next disclaimer in our insurance policies will be NO POKER RUNS either. That may change things for life as we know it.

CORRECT. Dangerous talk.
I'll bet half the people on here drink and drive, the difference is, they know their limits...right?
There are laws about drinking and driving, and thats where it must end.

They weren't 'cruising', they were going for speed trials. And, yes, I consider 100-110 'cruising' in a 44 MTI.

But I give up. You think speed is the problem? I gotta agree with you. They should have been idling being double the limit impaired.

Sounds like you want to make America great again! :ernaehrung004:

It seems true that each of the incidents have several contributing conditions, some of which are present consistently, others not so much (sun glare/alcohol...)

Looking at the obvious consistencies, IMO helps define the most urgent action items and most likely operational procedures/equipment involved in these incidents. The style of boat is almost 100% consistent. The brand can be narrowed to almost two. The HP (>1000 a side) and MPH (>125'ish) are almost 100% consistent. These should be strong clues.

Choosing to drink and drive anything is wreckless behavior. While we are all entitled to live our lives as we choose, we are not entitled to risk other people's lives doing so. This concept also applies to rich guys running "offshore" monster boats down a crowded open waterway over 100 mph on a Saturday afternoon. That is wreckless behavior if your not drunk and unthinkable if you have been drinking. Without trying to paint with a broad brush I think there are some obvious patterns that have emerged. Not trying to disrespect any one group either. JMO.

That's not going to go over well.

That's cool. Not trying to get one over on anyone, or speaking of any individual(s).

If there's discussion about how laws are born or how insurance underwriters approach a risk pool, finger pointing usually doesn't come into play. They tend to follow more concrete evidence and historical record. That's all.

Everyone knows operating under the influence is a bad idea and against the law. What are the other consistent factors present in the incidents?

I could care less if someone engages in risk that has potential fatal consequences, what's unfortunate is the devastation thrust upon families/friends or others as a result of that, sometimes more consideration needs to be given to them.

Ya think? :party-smiley-004: