He broke another law - Don't run into a fixed object at speed. I suppose technically that would be classified as careless boating.
And apparently he did need a class to inform him that operating under the influence of alcohol should not be done
hudson river crash
- Thread starter getakey
- Start date
He broke another law - Don't run into a fixed object at speed. I suppose technically that would be classified as careless boating.
And apparently he did need a class to inform him that operating under the influence of alcohol should not be done
Based on the simple fact that he collided with an object and given that NAV rule number 2 paraphrased says, no matter who is wrong you have to take ALL steps necessary to avoid collision, that he was going to fast for the prevailing conditions and was unable to avoid striking the barge. Sure sounds like alcohol was the primary causation but he was driving fast enough to eject his passengers because he was unable to avoid the barge.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- RO Number
- 32420
- Messages
- 1,849
Of course we are all speculating but I said this before. Take a look at the damage to that boat. Hitting a barge is like hitting a cement wall. IMO, he was not traveling at a high rate of speed and from the early interviews, the passengers had no idea what had even happened so they probably had no clue they were goings to impact the barge. Therefore attempting to avoid it is a moot point. In a small boat like that you could probably get tossed at a very low rate of speed if you were not bracing yourself for impact. No excuses for boating and drinking but I will stick with my initial statement. It is highly unlikely that a boating couse is going to prevent people from boating and drinking. You see how well driving courses have worked for DWI's.
Rawidman says:
" . . .And apparently he did need a class to inform him that operating under the influence of alcohol should not be done"
IMHO anyone who chooses to drink while operating a boat is not going to be influenced by a classroom instructor telling them that it should not be done. You can't teach common sense.
" . . .And apparently he did need a class to inform him that operating under the influence of alcohol should not be done"
IMHO anyone who chooses to drink while operating a boat is not going to be influenced by a classroom instructor telling them that it should not be done. You can't teach common sense.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- RO Number
- 32420
- Messages
- 1,849
So here's the question to ask yourself...were you ever anchored out , maybe barbecuing and had a couple beers then drove your boat back? If the answer is yes, you were boating while intoxicated and if you killed or seriously hurt someone, you could have done extensive time in jail. In NYS .05 BAC (which is roughly two beers) is driving with your ability impaired and 3 beers Is driving while intoxicated. Now, how many of you who thought this guy is a real moron fall into the above categories? Granted, we have no idea what his BAC was but it is a sobering thought. (Pun intended)
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2000
- RO Number
- 36
- Messages
- 6,660
Thought about it. Chris, are you night certified to drive your car? Seriously that is what people are looking for. Anal, totally anal. If someone can get in their car at night and drive, they are far more at risk than they are on the water. Granted boats do not have headlights generally speaking, but there are far less things to worry about on the water.
But I still do not like boating at night because I have seen too much of this.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- RO Number
- 27413
- Messages
- 1,164
Seeing the lights on the barge amid the many lights on the bridge and the construction equipment would be very difficullt. That is all the more reason for someone to be traveling at no-wake speed in that area of the bay. The boat issn't a speedboat, as originally reported;it's just an ordinary 20' runabout. He obviously wasn't going at 40 knots (too little damage to the boat), but he was traveling too fast for the conditions. The coroner's reports today indicated that the two people died from drowning. They were probably knocked unconscious from the impact and never felt the rest. Traveling on the water at night is difficult, even under the best conditions. Doing so near a construction site is even more difficult. That's one of the reasons I stopped boating at night many years ago. I know my limits and abilities; I have no idea of the skills and abilities of everyone else on the water. As to boating drunk, a quick story. In june, 2012, I accompanied our son-in-law down to Annapolis, Maryland, to pick up his 'new' boat to bring it up to Westchester County, NY. We stayed on the boat overnight, after the train ride down. The boat was at a popular marina, which also had a bar and grill on the premises. All night, boats came and went with pilots drinking before arriving and before leaving. It sometimes looked like a bumper car track with 20' to 40' boats crashing into everything that was in their way. There wasn't a police or Coast Guard or harbor patrol boat around. It was one scary night. We left at dawn for NY. Hy
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- RO Number
- 32420
- Messages
- 1,849
The boat was a 19' bow rider and the folks who were tossed into the water wee sitting in the bow. Hitting a solid object with no warning could toss a person at a very low rate of speed.
"Recreational boaters claim the barges that the boat struck were not adequately lit, while New York state officials and the bridge construction company said all regulations were followed. After the crash, officials said additional lighting would be added."
Some folks on here act as though all accidents must be the result of BUI.
Some folks on here act as though all accidents must be the result of BUI.
A friend of mine is a survivor of an eerily-similar accident 6 years ago - even the lighting situation is familiar. In that case, the abandoned and partially-submerged barge was "equipped" with road construction flashers with questionable batteries.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- RO Number
- 12212
- Messages
- 12,214
I don't even remember off hand if a barge moored to the shore is required to be lit, is it? Maybe if it extends into a marked channel like the ICW incident in fl but if outside of a marked channel, I don't think it needs to be lit
What happens on the road which are heavily regulated, licensed and patrolled is telling... No regulation or licensing will cure these cases.
That said, some education may help as long as it is relevant. Most boating courses spend way too much time on bureaucratic stuff like paperwork and regs and not enough on practical things like night operations, night vision, lights, anchoring etc,,
What happens on the road which are heavily regulated, licensed and patrolled is telling... No regulation or licensing will cure these cases.
That said, some education may help as long as it is relevant. Most boating courses spend way too much time on bureaucratic stuff like paperwork and regs and not enough on practical things like night operations, night vision, lights, anchoring etc,,
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- RO Number
- 27413
- Messages
- 1,164
Now there is question as to whether alcohol was involved at all. The restaurant at which they had had dinner claims that only four drinks were ordered for the six of them. Toxicology reports will answer that question. The Coast Guard reported that the barge's lights followed regulations, yet the following day, the owners added more lights. The whole area was awash with various white lights from the construction itself and the equipment and barges surrounding it. Picking our the anchoring lights of the barges wwas probably very difficult because of the other lights all around. None of this excuses what happened. These details only reinforce the burden of responsibility of the pilot to proceed extremely slowly through the area, with a look-out on the bow to warn of any hazards. In my opinion, the fact that that obviously wasn't done is what holds the pilot negligent and reasponsible. All this will have to be settled in court after all the evidence is presented. Last evening, the accident was re-enacted by the police, probably to ascertain visibility and avoidability. Their findings will also factor in any decision on guilt or innocense. Construction sites, whether on water or on land, are always dangerous locations for drivers, and often are scenes of accidents. Lets hold back a little until all the facts are in. Stay safe, all. Hy
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- RO Number
- 32420
- Messages
- 1,849
It would be really great if the pilot was not intoxicated at the time but I doubt very much that they would have already charged him if they did not have some sort of evidence. Ie: breathalizer. Remember, he is already in custody charged with manslaughter and several other counts. Restaurant testimony holds very little weight as it is simply one point in time. Toxicology usually is for confirmation and to check for other drugs.
I agree with holding back. Like I mentioned before, I was there earlier in the day at dusk. We used the main channel under the bridge and were going North(with river), they were going East(parallel to bridge).
From my commuter train, I could see there are several barges and fixed decks in the area of construction and a few anchored here and there. I have no idea which one they hit. I tried to find an aerial shot of the area which would explain quite a bit.
I'm of the thought, accidents really do just happen. However, many can't rest until they find fault with someone. I'm not yet ready to jump on the driver of the boat. I do think if you moor a big barge in a non-designated area where the river is three miles wide, you have the responsibility to light it up. Obviously if you jump on a 21 foot bow rider at night, you assume risk.
Last night at my marina, it was a beautiful night on the Hudson. Several boats were going out for spins and all came back safely. Thankfully, what happened here is an anomaly and far from the norm.
Just Saturday I was watching / trying to warn a boat going to the west side of the Esopus light house. I was so worried about them, I took my eyes off the river and nearly hit a big fat floating (broadside) telephone pole/piling! I was on plane, broad daylight, had my daughter also helping me spot debris but guess what...we goofed. Luckily I caught it in time to swerve and there was no issue but heck, the boat could have sank with four teenagers a dog and me on board. I hope you guys would give me some levity if that happened. Instead of saying I was just stupid, stupid, stupid for worrying about the other guy and taking my eyes off the road for a minute.
Lets see what the accident investigation reveals. Here's what I have so far in my mind:
- Boat was 21'er bow rider
- Boat was not overloaded
- Boat was not travelling fast (IMHO) based on minimal damage
- Barges are recently added.
- Black barges are NOT properly lit if lit at all!
- There was a nice moon out, pretty good visibility even if overcast.
- Apparently the driver was very familiar with the area (ironically, could have been his downfall as barges were recently added).
- The operator might have been drinking or high.
So far, I see a tragic accident and will not join the lynch mob.
From my commuter train, I could see there are several barges and fixed decks in the area of construction and a few anchored here and there. I have no idea which one they hit. I tried to find an aerial shot of the area which would explain quite a bit.
I'm of the thought, accidents really do just happen. However, many can't rest until they find fault with someone. I'm not yet ready to jump on the driver of the boat. I do think if you moor a big barge in a non-designated area where the river is three miles wide, you have the responsibility to light it up. Obviously if you jump on a 21 foot bow rider at night, you assume risk.
Last night at my marina, it was a beautiful night on the Hudson. Several boats were going out for spins and all came back safely. Thankfully, what happened here is an anomaly and far from the norm.
Just Saturday I was watching / trying to warn a boat going to the west side of the Esopus light house. I was so worried about them, I took my eyes off the river and nearly hit a big fat floating (broadside) telephone pole/piling! I was on plane, broad daylight, had my daughter also helping me spot debris but guess what...we goofed. Luckily I caught it in time to swerve and there was no issue but heck, the boat could have sank with four teenagers a dog and me on board. I hope you guys would give me some levity if that happened. Instead of saying I was just stupid, stupid, stupid for worrying about the other guy and taking my eyes off the road for a minute.
Lets see what the accident investigation reveals. Here's what I have so far in my mind:
- Boat was 21'er bow rider
- Boat was not overloaded
- Boat was not travelling fast (IMHO) based on minimal damage
- Barges are recently added.
- Black barges are NOT properly lit if lit at all!
- There was a nice moon out, pretty good visibility even if overcast.
- Apparently the driver was very familiar with the area (ironically, could have been his downfall as barges were recently added).
- The operator might have been drinking or high.
So far, I see a tragic accident and will not join the lynch mob.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2002
- RO Number
- 10265
- Messages
- 9,958
Not sure this is true.
He could of been going fast, saw the barge and tried to slow down. We all know it takes a while for boats to slow down. So could of been going 40 and when within 50 yards saw it and went to neutual and just glanced it.
Fair point, which if true it says he did see the barge but not in time to avoid it. In this case, if the barge was properly lit, perhaps this whole thing accident have been avoided.
My gut feel is not all of these barges are properly lit.
Some responses in regards to lighting are:
From the Chief of police: "Barbera declined to identify the other people aboard the boat. He said the barge, one of several loaded with construction material for an upcoming replacement of the bridge, was equipped with lights, but it was still difficult to see on the water late at night."
Other views: "The sheriff said the barge’s lighting would also be part of the investigation of the crash.
The U.S. Coast Guard said Monday that the barge was equipped with the required lights. But several frequent boaters said they thought the required lighting was insufficient.
“It should have been lit up like a Christmas tree,” one boater said.
Boater Sharon Forman said it was “absolutely” hard to see the lights.
“I don’t know what the regulations are, but from someone who just came out from the water in the evening, I think you need a lot of light and it’s very confusing as you look out there, there’s a lot of other lights in the background,” Forman said.
Officials said the lighting on the barge will be properly investigated.
“We will determine if those barges were lit properly and if it was a factor,” Falco said.
A spokesman for the $3.9 billion bridge project also said the barges were properly lit Friday night, but lighting has since been added.
“Tappan Zee Constructors reported to the Thruway Authority that all Coast Guard lighting requirements were met and that the barges were properly lit Friday night,” said Brian Conybeare, special advisor to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for the project."
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- RO Number
- 32420
- Messages
- 1,849
The regulation for moored barges is one white light on the bow and one on the stern. All indications are that it met regulations. However, anyone that frequents this area at night woud most likely agree that this still presents a hazard as it is very difficult to pick up, especially with land and bridge lights in the area. Following the letter of the law is not necessarily the most prudent thing to do and that is the reason they are now adding additional lighting. (Not to become legally compliant). I have been on the river tons of times at night and it is very diffioult to pick up black barges moored or moving. I often pick them up with my radar and after really looking hard, I then can make them out. However, if the operator was under the influence, this will outweigh all other facts.