Accident on Harlem River - New York City
June Kendrick
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-miss1025,0,215056.story?coll=ny-main-tabheads3
A four person shell (doesn't say if a 4- or 4x) and a pleasure power
boat (with 2 onboard) collided "head on" about 6:00- 6:30 AM (before
sunrise). The power boat recovered 3 of the four rowers, one of whom
had a serious head injury. The bow person was being searched for and
presumed dead.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
rescue team, had one light on the bow but the inspector said that would
not have been enough in the early-morning darkness."
There would have to be other conditions which would prevent a bow light
from being seen, but certainly not merely darkness, we regularly see
the other boats on the water at more than a half a mile, unless it's
foggy and then it's downright frightening to hear a fast running motor
closing on you.
Prayers for all invoved.
- Paul Smith
tetsushi-ozawa
police boat, above news site:http://www.newsday.com....
As a similar accident in Japan, in 1981, a university coxed four
(without bow light in the dark) was collided by power boat, and lost
one rower by injury.
Tetsushi Ozawa
Rowing coach in Hiroshima
Carl Douglas
The photo suggests the four was struck hard on port-side near bow's
position. If the power boat was doing its potential 18mph/29kph (& why
not if there is no lower limit) that would explain both the injury to
the one guy & the loss of the other.
All of which shouts the need for crews rowing after the dark or in
twilight to be well lit and visible from _all_ directions. I'm not for
a minute saying that this crew was not well lit, but the consequences
were truly awful.
All of which has got me pondering:
1. It was clearly a side-on impact. In that alignment a four would have
presented the maximum possible target & probably been at its least
visible, especially if street lights reflecting off the water confused
whatever lights the four was showing.
2. This underlines the desirability of really effective all-round
illumination - as required anyway by the regulations on most waterways.
3. So why not do something radical, like any of the following:
a) have a short mast, behind cox or stroke, surmounted by an
all-round-visible lantern above head height
b) mount an all-round-visible lantern on the foredeck, just behind
bow's back & a stern-facing light on the aft deck
c) mount a side-light shining along the hull on each side - that
would have lit up that yellow hull splendidly.
d) any option supplemented by a refelctive strip on each side of the
boat and white clothing.
3. One man feared dead, one badly injured. What, already, has that
cost? Way over $4 millions seems not unlikely, plus all the human grief
to family, friends, the club & the launch occupants - regardless of who
is most to blame. Compare that with the cost of 3 or 4 bright LED or
quartz halogen lamps with rechargeable batteries, from the local bike
shop for under $40.
We regularly see unlit or ill lit crews after dark. They forget to
bring or to re-charge batteries, or to buy a torch, & the outing goes
ahead regardless. Yet how many of us, or them, would leave our phones
behind, or let its battery run flat?
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
JD
light of a 4+ among all the thousands glittering reflections from
skyscrapers, bridges and streetlights in the waters around Manhattan. JD
Henning Lippke
> You're right, Carl. Imagine how hard it must be to pick out a single
> light of a 4+ among all the thousands glittering reflections from
> skyscrapers, bridges and streetlights in the waters around Manhattan. JD
>
Probably not always a solution, but a lot of powered vessels have a
radar (I remember the incidents in the Sydney harbour):
http://www.sea-me.co.uk/
with about 800 EUR on the expensive side, but for busy waters proably
worth it.
Although I would suggest to inform potential ferry lines or whatever
about the existance of this device on your boats, so that they know what
a strong radar echo without any visible lights around it means.
Or cheaper, a passive device:
http://store1.yimg.com/I/landfallnav_1864_32028415
about 40 EUR.
Henning Lippke
> You're right, Carl. Imagine how hard it must be to pick out a single
> light of a 4+ among all the thousands glittering reflections from
> skyscrapers, bridges and streetlights in the waters around Manhattan. JD
>
Probably not always a solution, but a lot of powered vessels have a
bill
<SNIP>
> 2. This underlines the desirability of really effective all-round
> illumination - as required anyway by the regulations on most waterways.
> 3. So why not do something radical, like any of the following:
> a) have a short mast, behind cox or stroke, surmounted by an
> all-round-visible lantern above head height
> b) mount an all-round-visible lantern on the foredeck, just behind
> bow's back & a stern-facing light on the aft deck
> c) mount a side-light shining along the hull on each side - that
> would have lit up that yellow hull splendidly.
> d) any option supplemented by a refelctive strip on each side of the
> boat and white clothing.
I don't like the all round lights on the deck--it damages night vision.
In my opinion, the only appropriate way to illuminate a shell, is to
follow the COLREGS--in other words, use the marine standard for
navigation lights, appropriate to the length of the shell. A shell is
not really a rowboat (too long)--it cannot reasonably get away with
merely a flashlight as a rowboat is legally entitled to--though the
shell may be technically entitled to that (it is not explicit in the
rules). What is explicit is that a vessel under oars may display the
navigation lights appropriate to a sailing boat. (But a flashlight is
very useful for attracting attention!)
A few points, discussed further below:
1. Shell *must* keep a proper watch, as per international treaty.
2. In darkness, the mere fact that the shell is under oars does not
excuse it from keeping a proper watch, keeping clear when it is a
burdened vessel, and making audible wistle (horn) to warn of its
location.
3. The oarsmen are legally obligated to follow the same rules of the
road as are powerboats. They are liable in a court, if found to be
negligent of any of the above.
The problem of a city nearby is a difficult one. In my experience, the
distinctive pattern of the marine lighting is what you want--that is
the pattern that the powerboats are looking for. They are *not*
looking for bicycle strobes and other such lighting which works well on
a non-navigable body of water (like a lake or a small river where
motorboats cannot go) where only other rowers are present.
The lights do need to be elevated enough to be visible. If a masthead
light is used, it should be on a mast high enough so that it is truly
visible over its range. If a separate stern light (rather than a
masthead light) is used, then the red / green side lights need not be
on pedestals, but should be checked for angle--so that they have a
maximum brightness at a few degrees up-angle so that other vessels can
see them.
Another important point: Shells and rowers tend not to look where they
are going (rather a basic problem with the design) and further, are not
always socially expected to know the marine rules of the road. The
importance of keeping a proper watch, for preserving your night vision,
for maintaining vigilance, especially towards the "dangerous quadrant"
(to starboard and going forward)--cannot be underlined enough. The
shell, if hit from starboard, appears to have possibly suffered from
"invisibility" because the shell was the burdened vessel.
When it is dark, there is no way for other boats to be able to know
that the shell is a "restricted manuvering vessel" or a "human powered
vessel" and the shell must therefore act accordingly--i.e. keep clear,
or use appropriate loud sound signals to warn of its position. Note
that a shell is *not* technically entitled to "restricted manuevering"
status in the explicit sense.
I feel for the victims of this recent tragedy--it is not far from home.
_Bill
awestch...@yahoo.com
this area.
i am sure the light could have been seen if the powerboat operator was
paying attention.
powerboat probably had it opened up tp max throttle with the bow high
thereby reducing visibilty, the river is maybe 200 yard wide here.
Tony Curran
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/nyregion/24cnd-boat.html?hp
Tony
Ottawa RC
"June Kendrick" <jken...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Vi87f.19491$fn.1...@fe08.lga...
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
Jonny
A light system on a pole (over head height) would be a great idea.
However, most rowers and/or clubs don't want to modify or damage their
boats by mounting things to them. Who would want to row a single with a
tall pole wobbling around on it anyway? I have yet to see a decent and
simple light that addresses this need/problem. Using existing fittings
(race number holder/rudder) at least makes it easier for rowers to do
the right thing.
It seems that rowers are lazy in certain ways. Carl asks if people
would leave their mobile phone behind or have a flat battery in it when
we leave the house. Why then do people forget potentially life saving
kit?
I got sick of this stupidity on the river I row and coach on and began
to make lights for my club. Last night was a keen example of the
stupidity I see with many high level rowers from Melbourne University
Boat Club out in the dark (are you d!ckheads reading this? Hope so.).
They are a shocking offender. I will be happy (but not, if you know
what I mean) when a national level athlete is injured in a stupid
collision that may have been prevented by carrying the mandated lights.
Perhaps then certain club cultures will change.
Kourt in Texas makes lights (www.arcnav.com), as do I
(www.rowingboatlights.com).
TRRC coach
that MOST crews display adequate lighting.
I regret that some still do not know what an "All round" white light
means. Several boats from a local student boat boat club had small
pencil type lights taped onto the rear canvases of their boats, in a
position that made the light invisible except when in line astern.
The object of having a white light at each end of the boat is to ensure
that there are no blind spots.
TRRC coach
paul_v...@hotmail.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/nyregion/25crash.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1130246357-oZYKRZEbbEygg6G33L/VKA
Nick Suess
"Jonny" <jonny.c...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1130221797....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I frequently bang on about lights - i'll leave buoyancy to Carl! ; )
So do I, and I have a set of your lights, Jonny, which are absolutely
excellent, the best I've yet encountered for rowing applications. So
congratulations on a really good piece of work (and you're not even paying
me for this plug!)
However, our minds are on yet another rowing fatality - or at least another
rower currently presumed dead.
I wrote a couple of months ago about a night time incident a couple of years
ago on our comparatively quiet and calm stretch of water, the upstream
reaches of Perth's Swan River, when a well-lit quad I was in came very close
to being run down by one of the large catamaran ferries that carry revellers
up to the wineries of the Swan Valley. I mentioned the issue of power boat
drivers being in a high position above the water and viewing everything from
behind glass. In this incident in New York, we are told it was a 29 foot
powerboat, so not just a small runabout but something far more substantial.
I would expect the helm of this to be well elevated above the water, so even
a light on a pole of a metre or more height is likely to be viewed on a
downward angle where it mingles with stray reflection against a city
background. I'm not that particularly familiar with the Harlem River, but I
am with NYC, and there's nowhere you'd ever escape from a large amount of
reflected light.
Here we are told by our river authorities we must carry a steady white light
visible from 360 degrees. But why white and why steady? I find coloured
lights far easier to distinguish against stray reflection, and flashing
lights far more arresting of the attention. Let me bang on once more about
flying. Student pilots have drummed into them the fact, totally attributable
to sod's law, that the other aircraft with which you are on collision course
remains in precisely the same place in your field of view as you close on
it. No relative movement to catch the eye. It just very gradually gets
bigger until you exclaim "Oh F---" at the very point when it's too late to
avoid it. And so a steady white light, in that same spot in the field of
view, likewise fails to ring alarm bells amidst a mass of stray reflection.
Now, there's one type of light which always grabs us sharp and pulls us up
quick. What is it? Come on, any of you who've ever had a pint too many and
driven home. Flashing blue!!! It really triggers alarm bells every time we
see it. That reaction is deep down in the fundamental nerve of our society.
So why not have flashing blue as the standard for rowing boats? All the LED
lights we use are capable of flashing. I'm sure Jonny and others can provide
blue lenses instead of clear. Why not do it?
Or would the bloody cops object???
Nick Suess
anto...@aol.com
I know first hand of another incident which is very similar but the
crew only lost their bows. It was caused by the speed of the boat being
enough to be too fast but insufficient to create a plane and bring the
bows down.
The crew inquestion came within 1 foot of losing their lives. The motor
boat was a Police Patrol boat.
I concerns be greatly that in some countries, USA for istance, the rule
for lights is Red on the bows and White on the stern. It simply is not
enough
Joseph Meehan
....
>
> Here we are told by our river authorities we must carry a steady
> white light visible from 360 degrees. But why white and why steady?
Because in many areas that is the standard and that is what is looked
for. If you can convince the authorities everywhere to change the standard,
then I say fine. In the mean time using non-standard lighting is confusing
and less safe. We want everyone to see us and to know what it is that they
are seeing.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Alistair Potts
and been at times completely disorientated. I'm mean really not knowing
in which direction the river went, nor which direction we were
travelling relative to the bank. Of course the situation is exacerbated
by being only a foot above the water, but the pin-pricks of light,
mirrored in the water, and surrounded by lamp-posts and office windows
can be very confusing.
My suggestion (to try, it might not work): Wearing white with standard
torches on the riggers _shining inward_ I think might improve the
visibility issue greatly. The oarsmen shouldn't be dazzled, but the boat
and rowers would be much more easily seen.
anto...@aol.com
>
> My suggestion (to try, it might not work): Wearing white with standard
> torches on the riggers _shining inward_ I think might improve the
> visibility issue greatly. The oarsmen shouldn't be dazzled, but the boat
> and rowers would be much more easily seen.
LED Bike lights, lightweight shining inwards.....
Now that's a good idea. One could do that this evening with a trip to
the Bike Shop and they are that light so not to effect balance.
Nick Suess
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x%q7f.70544
> Because in many areas that is the standard and that is what is looked
> for. If you can convince the authorities everywhere to change the
standard,
> then I say fine. In the mean time using non-standard lighting is
confusing
> and less safe. We want everyone to see us and to know what it is that
they
> are seeing.
Joe, mate, we have clear evidence of FAILING to see here.
I guess the guy knew what he had FAILED to see when he heard the crunch, but
at least he wasn't confused!
anto...@aol.com
Agreed, I would rather look like a Christmas Tree and been seen than be
correct and be missed.
One key point is not in the rules in the US or GB but is in other
countries. Thats the height of the light from the water. They should be
on storks to get above heads
simonk
news:435e...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Here we are told by our river authorities we must carry a steady white
> light
> visible from 360 degrees. But why white and why steady?
This is definitely a drawback with the lighting regulations as enforced on
the Tideway. My second-worst ever crash as a bow-steersman was at the turn
of the tide, at night, head-on into a properly lit boat.
The other boat had made an incorrect assumption on the state of the tide,
and was heading straight for us. I had assumed incorrectly that the white
light I saw was on a boat we were following, and therefore much less of an
imminent threat to my lower back.
At Oxford there was a custom that rowing boats should show a red light to
the rear and a white light at the bows. This probably wouldn't work on the
Tideway due to the potential confusion between red=stern and red=port, but
some sort of rule where we could identify whether the threat was advancing
or receding might be useful.
--
simonk
paul_v...@hotmail.com
If two colors were to be used, the "Oxford custom" seems backwards.
This would make more sense.
Red Light bow = "This is the dangerous end and coming your way"
White Light Stern = Less dangerous end, can move away, and the occupant
can see your red light.
General rule - Steer to white lights (unless being screamed at), get
out of the path of red Lights (or Scream). [;o)
- Paul Smith
Henning Lippke
> LED Bike lights, lightweight shining inwards.....
>
> Now that's a good idea. One could do that this evening with a trip to
> the Bike Shop and they are that light so not to effect balance.
Something like this would be nice:
http://www.el-licht.de/30.0.html
http://www.el-licht.de/17.0.html
Having an active lighting stripe along the saxboards, a green one on
starboard, a red one on port...
Brightness is up to 100 cd/qm.
Downside:
Needs 110V @ 3000 Hz, although just very small current.
Lifetime is reduced by UV-light (you would have to remove it for daytime
use)
Lifetime is reduced by water (if somebody cuts the surface and water can
enter the stuff)
-HL
Nick Suess
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130250528.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Agreed, I would rather look like a Christmas Tree and been seen than be
> correct and be missed.
Hi Anton, me old mate. Yes I agree absolutely
> One key point is not in the rules in the US or GB but is in other
> countries. Thats the height of the light from the water. They should be
> on storks to get above heads
Well, I still reckon in a 29ft boat the driver's eye level may well be a
couple of metres above water, maybe a lot more on a fly-bridge boat. Even if
a light on a rowing boat is 1 metre above water, it will be hard to pick
when viewed on that downward angle, unless it kind of screams out to you.
The red end of the spectrum is largely used for navigation lights, with the
yellows and oranges often in street lighting, which causes so many confusing
and distracting reflections.
So go to the blue end fo the spectrum. Let's face it, a flashing blue light
is quite especially ARRESTING!!!
bill
simonk wrote:
> At Oxford there was a custom that rowing boats should show a red light to
> the rear and a white light at the bows.
In other words, let's all be landlubbers and pretend our shells are
cars. Brilliant. SO then red means safe, whereas in marine navigation
red means "danger"!!!
Ewoud Dronkert
> If two colors were to be used, the "Oxford custom" seems backwards.
> This would make more sense.
Just to state the obvious: of course not! That totally collides with far
more familiar road customs.
--
E. Dronkert
Ewoud Dronkert
> in marine navigation red means "danger"!!!
No it doesn't, it means port! Mmmm, port gghghhgh.
--
E. Dronkert
bill
Nick Suess wrote:
> Here we are told by our river authorities we must carry a steady white light
> visible from 360 degrees. But why white and why steady?
Your authorities are merely stating the minimum requirement for a
vessel under oars, as set down by international treaty. They will be
even happier if you exceed the minimums, as I state below:
You can, and should, in my opinion, use the ligthing pattern of a
sailing vessel--as allowed for in the rules. A vessel under oars is
permitted to use the light arrangement of a sailing vessel. This
consists of red/green side lights, and a white stern light.
This is the best method for a shell, for a number of reasons:
1. No mast required. The side lights go on the bow, and the stern
light goes pon the stern!
2. Equipment readily available. Side lights and stern lights for
small sailboats are available in dozens of patterns, off the shelf.
They are inexpensive, a set costing under $100 US.
3. The side lights at bow combined with stern light at stern reduces
the dazzle effect to the rowers' eyes. You need your night vision
intact in order to stand watch for other traffic.
4. If you install a proper battery set and carefully check the
alignment of the lights, you will be visible from other boats!
You can see the possible options here:
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/4_2_b.htm
Note that you can also have a red/ green all around light on the
masthead. But shells have no mast, so this is a poor choice.
I find it troubling that there is so much talk about using non-standard
lights on rowing craft. Re-inventing the wheel is not necessary and
will lead to confusion. Those other craft on the water have as much
right to the water--and those who know the rules will not know or
understand the rowers' own self-concocted lighting arrangements.
What is needed is understanding of the "rules of the road", *proper*
navigation lights, vigilance, and a proper lookout.
In other words, read a book on boating pilotage.
mwsc...@gmail.com
I use a red/green bowlight that mounts to the bow number clip, but for
added visability I also mount a white, blinking strobe light to the
washbox:
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product/10001/-1/10001/48614/10001/51/50/8
It basically looks like a camera flash going off once every second and
is very noticable.
I am thinking of adding reflective tape on my oar shafts also.
-Mike Wagner
Sagamore Rowing Association
Oyster Bay, NY
mwsc...@gmail.com
bill
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > in marine navigation red means "danger"!!!
>
> No it doesn't, it means port! Mmmm, port gghghhgh.
>
MMM, yes, it does. Port is red; a vessel that sees the port side (the
red) must KEEP CLEAR. Therefore, red means "danger" as in "dangerous
quadrant" as in "be especially mindful of traffic to starboard".
When you see red lights at sea, it is either:
1. a navigation buoy (a hazard may be nearby)
2. the port side of another boat (therefore something to keep clear
of).
When you see red, you must immediately decide whether it is a hazard.
When you see green, you are also interested (it may be changing to red
as it turns! or it may be a buoy) but you are not following hte
assumption that you are the burdened vessel. You proceed with
vigilance as the privildged vessel.
mwsc...@gmail.com
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product/10001/-1/10001/32074/10001/236/235/9
They work well and have good visibility.
As a non-profit organization the club orders the lights from
https://www.portsupply.com/ at a reduced cost.
mpruscoe
> This is definitely a drawback with the lighting regulations as enforced on
> the Tideway. My second-worst ever crash as a bow-steersman was at the turn
> of the tide, at night, head-on into a properly lit boat.
>
> The other boat had made an incorrect assumption on the state of the tide,
> and was heading straight for us. I had assumed incorrectly that the white
> light I saw was on a boat we were following, and therefore much less of an
> imminent threat to my lower back.
Having had a couple of crews thankfully avoid a similar collision, I'm
no happy letting people on the water in the dark around the stream
change - it's dangerous enough in daylight. It's very hard to identify
when the stream direction has changed in the unless you are next to a
bridge, and you can't rely on the low/high water times as they are not
neccessarily the time of the stream change. Also there's less traffic
around, so the switch over in traffic pattern is less evident.
> At Oxford there was a custom that rowing boats should show a red light to
> the rear and a white light at the bows. This probably wouldn't work on the
> Tideway due to the potential confusion between red=stern and red=port, but
> some sort of rule where we could identify whether the threat was advancing
> or receding might be useful.
>
Green and Red sector lights at the front would be the appropriate step,
but harder to get the rowers to do that straight white. Really, rowing
shells travel fast enough that we should be doing a better job than
all-round white.
simonk
news:djlidb$7av$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Green and Red sector lights at the front would be the appropriate step,
> but harder to get the rowers to do that straight white. Really, rowing
> shells travel fast enough that we should be doing a better job than
> all-round white.
I'd tend to agreee. The only problem I could foresee using port/starboard
lights is working out, halfway through a flat-out 20 minute piece, after a
quick swivel of the head, whether seeing a green light to the left of a red
light on a boat in front means "I'm catching someone up" or "I'm about to be
impaled" ...
--
simonk
bill
mpruscoe wrote:
> Really, rowing
> shells travel fast enough that we should be doing a better job than
> all-round white.
This is a good point.
On many narrow or confined rivers, the shells are doing nearly the same
speed as the commercial traffic and much of the other motorized
traffic.
Take as an example:
1 mile stretch of river, 4 oared shell doing 7 knots (half-speed or
so), barge coming around the corner at the other end of the mile
stretch, doing 10 knots. How long until you meet?
Speed of approach, 17 knots. That's 0.28 miles per minute.so, 3.5
minutes.
Try the same thing on a 1/4 mile stretch, as what happens as you
approach that bend, and you have only seconds...
Phil
bill
Jonny wrote:
> Kourt in Texas makes lights (www.arcnav.com), as do I
> (www.rowingboatlights.com).
Good to see an effort being made, but:
Neither of these lights comply with internationally recognized
navigation light standards.
Why can't you make them with the correct specifications? Seems that if
you have a market and people are buying them, you aught to tool up and
get them what they really need--lights that meet COLREGS.
Or at least indicate that your lights are not legal for night
navigation on navigable waters....but that seems silly when you could
simply start making them with the correct specifications.
bill
If you want a blue strobe, just be sure to do it *in addition* to the
lights required in COLREGS. Do not expect even an experienced navigator
to know wht the f__ that blue light is or how to deal with it. It
gives no indication of direction of travel, burden/priviledge etc
Ewoud Dronkert
> Port is red; a vessel that sees the port side (the
> red) must KEEP CLEAR. Therefore, red means "danger" as in "dangerous
> quadrant" as in "be especially mindful of traffic to starboard".
Huh? I am especially mindful of traffic to port (of which I see a red
light), because it is oncoming. Crossing courses (red light to starboard
getting bigger) do not normally come up very often on the river. Of
course, I do see many red lights to starboard but that is because I
overtake so many boats and because of the hookers alongside the canal.
--
E. Dronkert
Carl Douglas
> Nick Suess wrote:
> .....
I think what comes across clearly (?) from this awful incident is the
great difficulty of others seeing rowing shells, whether well lit or
not. These difficulties arise from, inter alia:
1. The acknowledged tendency of rather too many rowers to think good
(or any) lighting is an optional extra
2. Typical water-legal lighting on rowing shells still being far from
bright
3. The extreme difficulty, for someone high above the water in a
motorboat, of looking down & detecting as different & significant -
among all the other myriad reflections - your one none-too-bright light.
4. That power-boaters don't feel too much need to look for rowing
shells, not know what they are, how fragile & how vulnerable they are, &
may even feel antipathy/distaste for rowers from past encounters (cf
cyclists & van drivers).
5. It is useless to shout at an oncoming powerboat - he won't hear you.
Alistair has pointed up the disorientation problems for rowers on dark
water. Nick has underlined the flyers' (& others') classic problem of
not noticing the seemingly slow convergence of 2 craft until too late,
as well as some of the points I list above. A recent discussion has
pointed out how extremely crowded rowing waters are becoming as rowing
continues to expand while rowable waters do not - which is partly why
rowers go afloat after dark.
So what do we do, folks? Accept a flow of occasional tragedies & near
disasters as a price worth paying - which may not go down too well with
the river & other authorities? Or get ourselves properly organised to
make boats fully visible.
BTW, don't look to the NGBs to take a lead in this. Recent history
shows them more interested in finding ways to duck the responsibility
while retaining their supposed power. And there's going to be a higher
incidence of such accidents in the future unless the problem is
effectively addressed. So it's up to us, the rank & file rowing public,
to sort it out.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
bill
Carl Douglas wrote:
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
> > Nick Suess wrote:
> > .....
> >
> >>Here we are told by our river authorities we must carry a steady
> >>white light visible from 360 degrees. But why white and why steady?
> >
> >
> > Because in many areas that is the standard and that is what is looked
> > for. If you can convince the authorities everywhere to change the standard,
> > then I say fine. In the mean time using non-standard lighting is confusing
> > and less safe. We want everyone to see us and to know what it is that they
> > are seeing.
> >
> >
>
> I think what comes across clearly (?) from this awful incident is the
> great difficulty of others seeing rowing shells, whether well lit or
> not. These difficulties arise from, inter alia:
> 1. The acknowledged tendency of rather too many rowers to think good
> (or any) lighting is an optional extra
Agreed.
> 2. Typical water-legal lighting on rowing shells still being far from
> bright
Only when improperly installed. If your lights and batteries are
correct, and you meet or exceed COLREGS, you will be visible to any
vesse ltaht is actually standing watch.
> 3. The extreme difficulty, for someone high above the water in a
> motorboat, of looking down & detecting as different & significant -
> among all the other myriad reflections - your one none-too-bright light.
Yes, a problem. Solution: a proper vigilant lookout, along with
knowledge of the rules, and an efficient sound producing device (Not
your voice!).
> 4. That power-boaters don't feel too much need to look for rowing
> shells, not know what they are, how fragile & how vulnerable they are, &
> may even feel antipathy/distaste for rowers from past encounters (cf
> cyclists & van drivers).
Less a problem. Very few people are going to run you down *on
purpose*. I've only had that happen once on my bike. I chased the old
woman down (yes, a murderous grandmother of all things!), took her keys
out of her car, and tossed them down the storm drain. Then I called
the cops. She won't be driving anymore.
> 5. It is useless to shout at an oncoming powerboat - he won't hear you.
Vigilance. I cannot stress it enough. On the water, you need to stand
an *effective* watch. You need an efficient sound procucing device.
I have been in a sailboat, the priviledged vessel, sailing on a steady
course, upwind, and had rowers row right up on me without once turning
and seeing me---I am talking about 3 minutes without turning their
heads!
Fortunately, I keep an effective watch, even when I am the priviledged
vessel, and so take evasive action to prevent disaster. But that means
that the rower has entrusted me to save him, rather than taking
responsibility for his own safety.
It is completely unreasaonable to expect the other traffic to somehow
magically become "aware" of shells and then take especial effort to
protect them--and even to learn a whole new set of ideosyncratic
lighting schemes etc.
This is unacceptable. Vigilance and watchstanding is a critical
component in the safety of night rowing.
Mike Sullivan
"bill" <bi...@plattdesign.net> wrote in message
news:1130252097.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
\
snip
> I find it troubling that there is so much talk about using non-standard
> lights on rowing craft. Re-inventing the wheel is not necessary and
> will lead to confusion. Those other craft on the water have as much
> right to the water--and those who know the rules will not know or
> understand the rowers' own self-concocted lighting arrangements.
thanks for your detailed contribution to the thread. As lighting bitch
as well as boat handling bitch and course rules bitch I've had a lot
of trouble this autumn. When I first hooked in w/ the club here in
Redwood City, hardly anybody lit up their boats in the early morning,
including launch drivers. The extension of daylight savings this year
is a mess for the morning crews who are used to not needing their
lighting brought up to standard for another month or so.
Enforcing any lighting at all has been tough over the years, so you
can well imagine most of our lighting is sub-standard and I
know it. We've improved immensely, but I've had my meltdown
moments.
Anecdotally, on our water, we have very little water traffic outside of
rowing in the morning, a couple fishing boats, now and again a
barge pushed in. I've always pushed for the minimum of a red
light bow, white light stern, and have sniffed at some of the scullers
who wear them on their heads, but I've been finding it easier to
spot scullers with lights on their heads when I'm sculling.
Similarly, if the bowman wears a red light on the back of their
head in an eight instead of on the bow, it is also easier for me to
spot.
The approach I've been pushing toward(and have not been successful
yet, I don't have authority, just respect), is to have every shell
standardly
lit as Bill has outlined, with red/green bow, white stern but then
have bowman wear bike light on head as well.
One additional problem with shells: On the west coast
of the US, most of the bodies of water we row on are
harbors. There is generally a speed limit for power craft in
many of these places, though often unenforced in our harbor.
The racing shells more often than not are the fastest boats in the
harbor, which if inadequetely lit can be confusing for a
boat skipper who might be accustomed to boats traveling
at 5mph, not 13.
Mike
bill
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > Port is red; a vessel that sees the port side (the
> > red) must KEEP CLEAR. Therefore, red means "danger" as in "dangerous
> > quadrant" as in "be especially mindful of traffic to starboard".
>
> Huh? I am especially mindful of traffic to port (of which I see a red
> light), because it is oncoming.
If it is to port, and you see red, then it is a port-to-port textbook
passing. You are mindful of it, yes--that is good. With red to port,
you are not in danger--green to port and you are in potential
danger--but you are priviledged in that case.
Some rivers (such as the schuylkill) have non-standard stbd to stbd
traffic. Oh well.
>Crossing courses (red light to starboard
> getting bigger) do not normally come up very often on the river.
But when it does, you have the potential for a collision, if care is
not taken.
Note that in the news story that started this thread, the shell was
"turning around a bridge" and so I suspect that is precisely what
happened.
>Of
> course, I do see many red lights to starboard but that is because I
> overtake so many boats and because of the hookers alongside the canal.
When you see the hookers, you see the red light abreast of or astern of
you, not ahead of you, therefore you know that you are an overtaking
vessel (burdened) and you determine to keep clear.
-Bill
Carl Douglas
> Nick Suess wrote:
>
>>"Joseph Meehan" <sligojo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:x%q7f.70544
>>
>>
>>> Because in many areas that is the standard and that is what is looked
>>>for. If you can convince the authorities everywhere to change the
>>
>>standard,
>>
>>>then I say fine. In the mean time using non-standard lighting is
>>
>>confusing
>>
>>>and less safe. We want everyone to see us and to know what it is that
>>
>>they
>>
>>>are seeing.
>>
>>Joe, mate, we have clear evidence of FAILING to see here.
>>
>>I guess the guy knew what he had FAILED to see when he heard the crunch, but
>>at least he wasn't confused!
>
>
> Agreed, I would rather look like a Christmas Tree and been seen than be
> correct and be missed.
None of which, sadly, prevented a large loss of life and years of misery
for relatives after the Bowbell, a large gravel barge, ploughed down the
Marchioness, a tourist launch on the Thames some years ago. The
Marchioness was lit up like the proverbial Xmas tree, but so was the
skipper of the Bowbell - but with booze. Bowbell had a high bow, stern
wheelhouse & no proper lookout. The Coroner then took the unusual &
distressing (for the relatives) step of ordering (without discussion)
the removal of victims hands for subsequent forensic identification.
All of which underlines the desirability of a) not getting killed on the
river & b) not assuming that you will keep reasonably safe even in a
well-lit boat with anything less than a first-class lookout as well.
>
> One key point is not in the rules in the US or GB but is in other
> countries. Thats the height of the light from the water. They should be
> on storks to get above heads
>
And the higher, the better.
It really is not hard to mount a simple bracket on a boat for fixing a 3
ft x 1 inch/1 metre x 25mm carbon tube to carry an all-round light.
Cheaper & easier to do that on a few thousand boats than to pay for all
the tragic costs of 1 rower's death or disability.
Edd
> At Oxford there was a custom that rowing boats should show a red light to
> the rear and a white light at the bows. This probably wouldn't work on the
> Tideway due to the potential confusion between red=stern and red=port, but
> some sort of rule where we could identify whether the threat was advancing
> or receding might be useful.
Just been pointed back here as a result of a running thread on the
forums at Oxford on the issue of lights. It was once a custom,
maybe. It's long gone however, and everyone uses white lights (that or
they start paying for their foolishness).
--
Edd
paul_v...@hotmail.com
You face backwards on the road?!!?!?! I'm not sure I want to visit the
EU.
bill
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Mmmm, port gghghhgh.
(delayed reaction)....oh, I *now* I get it :-) I'm feeling a bit
parched; I'll be right back.
Ewoud Dronkert
> When you see the hookers [...] you determine to keep clear.
Never assume.
--
E. Dronkert
Gary van der Merwe
The white light should be at the end of the vehicle that it is
traveling. For boats, rowing or not, that is the bow.
Gary van der Merwe
Just arguing for augments sake. :-)
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Headlamps, you would be quite visible, as long as the crew keeps their
heads in the boat. Arrange on head appropriately for bow and stern
loaders.
Or a golden opportunity for LED technology to be leveraged, low voltage
requirements and could be set to perform any number of very visible
patterns. We have a Christmas row each year where the boats are decked
out with Battery powered lights and there is no missing them, though it
surely is a sight that may be misinterpretted as to what it is. Not to
mention the sound of Carols being sung coming across the water. [;o)
J Flory
mwsc...@gmail.com wrote:
but for
> added visability I also mount a white, blinking strobe light to the
> washbox:
> http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product/10001/-1/10001/48614/10001/51/50/8
>
> It basically looks like a camera flash going off once every second and
> is very noticable.
>
> I am thinking of adding reflective tape on my oar shafts also.
>
> -Mike Wagner
> Sagamore Rowing Association
> Oyster Bay, NY
> mwsc...@gmail.com
According to the Inland Coast Guard regs, in the US a white flashing
strobe light is a distress signal. See
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm
then download Parts D&E and check Rule 37 on page 127
I believe a flashing red is a signal for "I have something in tow", and
as noted above a flashing blue is a signal for police acrtivity. Too
bad, seems like flashing lights would be more visible.
Joseph Meehan
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:x%q7f.70544
>
>> Because in many areas that is the standard and that is what is
>> looked for. If you can convince the authorities everywhere to
>> change the standard, then I say fine. In the mean time using
>> non-standard lighting is confusing and less safe. We want everyone
>> to see us and to know what it is that they are seeing.
>
> Joe, mate, we have clear evidence of FAILING to see here.
>
> I guess the guy knew what he had FAILED to see when he heard the
> crunch, but at least he wasn't confused!
I stand by my thoughts on this. There are standards. Experienced
boaters will recognize the pattern of standard lights and be able to
identity not only the presence of a boat, but the direction it is headed
when properly marked. I believe that the boat in question would have been
more likely to be seen of they had proper lighting.
I might add that I have seen some boats using battery powered lights
that were using batteries so wasted that they barely made a glow. This is
really foolish. This is one rule where there should be no exceptions. You
may not like my opinion but remember it is also the law in most waters.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Joseph Meehan
> "Nick Suess" <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435e...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Here we are told by our river authorities we must carry a steady
>> white light
>> visible from 360 degrees. But why white and why steady?
>
I believe it is good to point out that the US and British rules are not
the same.
Unknown
>Vigilance. I cannot stress it enough. On the water, you need to stand
>an *effective* watch. You need an efficient sound procucing device.
And perhaps a spare hand-held torch too? If you ever end up in the
path of an oncoming vessel, making as much noise as possible, and
waving a light at the bridge surely is a good idea?
R
bill
Richard Packer wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2005 08:58:58 -0700, "bill" <bi...@plattdesign.net> wrote:
>
> >Vigilance. I cannot stress it enough. On the water, you need to stand
>
> And perhaps a spare hand-held torch too? If you ever end up in the
> path of an oncoming vessel, making as much noise as possible, and
> waving a light at the bridge surely is a good idea?
Yes, the torch (flashlight) is perfect. It is effective for getting the
other helmsman's attention, if it is bright enough so that you can see
its beam hitting the other boat.
JD
with the area, incl. ex- Columbia and Fordham rowers, talk about the
currents, boat traffic, sounds, visibility, etc. Of note is that
moments before the incident, the boat had apparently passed the boat
club throwing up quite a wake. It was also stated on RW that the driver
of the boat was a member of another rowing club in the region and
simply could not pick out the crew on the water.
JD
Taniwha
bill wrote:
> When you see the hookers, you see the red light abreast of or astern of
> you, not ahead of you, therefore you know that you are an overtaking
> vessel (burdened) and you determine to keep clear.
> -Bill
Shouldn't the hookers have red light abreast and red light astern.
They're dangerous at both ends.
[;^)
Taniwha
Marc
source for facts. Row2k is run by a former Columbia University Oarsman
(CUs boathouse is on the same river as the accident, close by) and
multi-time National team member- he knows the area well and knows people
familiar with the NY rowing scene.
http://www.row2k.com/news/news.cfm?ID=20259
From row2k:
Harlem River crash update
October 25, 2005
Update on the Harlem River crash as of 10 this morning.
The search for Jim Runsdorf was called off last night due to darkness,
and is expected to resume this morning; unfortunately, weather
conditions may impair the search.
Jim is 41 years old, a graduate of Tulane University and Columbia
graduate school, and the married father of two daughters, ages 9 and 11.
Jim is a member of the Board of Stewards for Power 10, a longtime member
of the Kings Crown Rowing Association, and is on the Board of Directors
of the Friends of Tulane Rowing. At Tulane, Jim was in the inaugural
crew as a junior in spring 1985 and rowed again his senior year in 86.
Jim is a good friend, a very well-liked member of the NYC rowing scene,
and without exaggeration is the real deal, a great person to be around.
We're pulling for him and his family.
Two-seat Ed Joyce, a Columbia grad and KCRA member, suffered a broken
scapula, two broken ribs, a head gash, and required some stitches in his
leg; after the collision, Ed was able to swim to the surface, and is
doing fairly well as I understand it, with no seriously threatening
injuries. Three-seat Vinny Houston suffered a head gash, and stroke Jeff
Lundwall bruises and some other relatively minor injuries; both are okay
as of this morning.
There have been conflicting reports in the news on precisely how the
incident occurred; as best I can understand it from folks close to those
involved, the crew was out for a regular morning row from the James P.
Sharpe boathouse, and had just turned their shell around underneath the
I-95 bridge near 181st street. The were taking a water break in
preparation for starting a piece when they saw the boat headed directly
for the bow at fairly high speed and close range, with no time to
respond by rowing away, taking their feet out of the shoes, bailing out,
or otherwise. The motorboat hit the crew head on, and Jim is thought to
have taken the full impact of the collision. The crew had a bow-light,
but reports say the pilot of the powerboat did not see it. As I
understand it, the powerboat captain is himself an oarsman with the
Piermont Rowing Club, located just south of the Tappan Zee Bridge on the
opposite side of the Hudson River, and is on the board of directors
there. He has not been found at fault at present, and no charges were
filed; an investigation will follow.
row2k will update this item as pertinent information becomes available.
June Kendrick wrote:
> There was an accident on the Harlem River this morning:
> http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-miss1025,0,215056.story?coll=ny-main-tabheads3
>
>
> A four person shell (doesn't say if a 4- or 4x) and a pleasure power
> boat (with 2 onboard) collided "head on" about 6:00- 6:30 AM (before
> sunrise). The power boat recovered 3 of the four rowers, one of whom
> had a serious head injury. The bow person was being searched for and
> presumed dead.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Row2k is run by a former Columbia University Oarsman
> (CUs boathouse is on the same river as the accident, close by) and
> multi-time National team member- he knows the area well and knows people
> familiar with the NY rowing scene.
We know Ed. http://www.usrtriton.nl/rsr/rsr2.html
--
E. Dronkert
Marc
yeah, that guy...
aside from being well-informed generally, he has a lot of close ties to
the story in question. and the newspeople often seem to muddle up the
details, especially for something as esoteric as rowing. (like calling a
4- a scull)
marc
JD
it is like to be capsized by a large boat wake and to have to hang onto
their shells, which are buoyant. "
I really don't know what to make of this, even in context with the rest
of article.
Jonny
My lights do comply with the local regulations and have been checked by
the local marine authority.
Laws are detailed on my website FAQ page...
"Marine Conventions
Standard rule is white, constant light visible through 360deg at 300m
(International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972).
Victorian trial legislation
Victoria Government Gazette G 38 16 September 2004 2561
2. Amendment to Schedule 3
Waters The Yarra River upstream of the Designated Port of Port Phillip
In Schedule 3, Item 4 insert:
(b) Yarra River special light provisions
A Recreational Vessel
(i) used for training or competition; and
(ii) is not powered but is propelled by using oars or paddles; on the
waters of the Yarra River upstream of the Designated Port of Port
Phillip to Dight's Falls shall exhibit between sunset and sunrise
(i) a light in accordance with Rule 25 of the International Rules for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; or
(ii) a fixed 180 degree white light located on the bow of the vessel
and a flashing 180 degree white light located on the stern of the
vessel.
bill
Hi Jonny,
When I looked at your site, I saw the bow lights without the correct
sectors--essentially looking forward over an arc of about 20 degrees.
Those do not appear to meet requirements for sidelights in terms of
arc. Is this more a matter of photographic interpretation?
Regarding the separated white lights:
Well, I see that they conform to local regs. I must say, I am baffled
at those regs--the "automobile" red stern light/white headlight---bad
on a number of points WRT maritime practice, and the flashing
white--surprised the flash is on the stern light. That would surely
drive you crazy if you were stroke, and does not seem to make best use
of the flash's ability to attract attention. But as they are the law
there, then so be it.
Jonny
is side on to you is clearly showing both a bow and stern light. There
are 5 LEDs in the light with a reflector. 3 face forward and one to
each side. The single LED light is fairly omnidirectional, stronger
from head on.
Doesn't seem to bother the stroke since the stern light is facing away
from him/her. I have only had one comment about the reflection off the
deck.
I can't explain the Western Australian red stern light regulation.
I think flashing white on both ends would be more visible, but at least
we know what direction the boat is going!
anto...@aol.com
Hmm in some countries the white light has to be 360 degrees Switzerland
for one and has to be a meter off the water.. And in the US the Red
light goes on the bow and white on the stern.
Jonny
that you should check with your local authorities.
The lights were designed with a number of factors in mind.
- local regulations
- ease of manufacture (and cost) - hence the 'donor' bike light and not
something custom made.
- ease of mounting (no modifications, use existing fittings) so that
lazy or dumb rowers have no excuses!
I would love to do a pole mounted 360deg light, but I don't have the
resources to do this quickly.
If anyone would seriously consider investing in this, I would be
interested in a partnership. I run this enterprise out of two boxes on
my lounge room floor. Some capital would be great!
anto...@aol.com
Hi , wasn't criticising your product, just showing how there is no
common rule. But interstingly the crashed 4- was spinning and if the
lights were torch like, they would have been far less visible than a
360/220 light.
Jonny
The regs under COLREG are clear, but no thought is given to the
practicality. The marine authorities here (Victoria, AUS) sat down with
the rowing association and the patrol/enforcement agency to come up
with a rule that would not upset COLREG but yet be easily achievable
for rowers. The impracticality of poles (rowers might then not bother
and enforcement becomes a costly/time consuming issue) led to the use
of two 180deg lights on each end - thus making you visible through
360deg (rather than having one light capable of 360 by itself).
I quite like the red/green port/starboard lights made by Kourt at
www.arcnav.com - you can see pics of them in action on my website at
www.rowingboatlights.com/gallery.html - and I would be surprised if
these were considered not suitable.
I have made sketches of a pole light system that would be easy to
attach to all larger boats (would think that 8s and 4s would be the
target market) and will eventually have this ready for sale.
Stamps
>
> I have made sketches of a pole light system that would be easy to
> attach to all larger boats (would think that 8s and 4s would be the
> target market) and will eventually have this ready for sale.
We actually have some lights on poles that fit to pretty much any boat
- got them from Australia, look kind of homemade though. Work ok but
the light on top (white 360 degree, but small) is not very bright and
actually is harder to see than a bright flashing red light attached to
the bow number holder.
But anyway - they are a metal V (with foam padding to protect boat, and
hinged so adaptable to almost any boat) which slots onto the V of the
saxboard at the bow. A couple of thin bungies then attach to the rigger
at bow (in scull / double / quad) or bow & 2 in sweep boats, to hold
the V in place. The pole then sticks up from the metal V, with a 360
degree light on top. Quite quick to fit and easy to make.
The pole does wobble a bit if you don't fix it scurely, but it is
actually a fairly good system. Attachment could be designed a bit
better. I think our other lights provided by the Hong Kong China Rowing
Assoc are currently better though - more secure, far brighter (ok that
can be fixed), and ability to flash too which I prefer for catching
attention.
cheers
Mark
Nick Suess
"Jonny" <jonny.c...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> I can't explain the Western Australian red stern light regulation.
I don't think we have one. Who suggested that was the case?
"Steady white light visible through 360 degrees" is what I've always been
told here.
Jonny
I've had people from at least two different clubs in WA buy lights and
request red. When I asked I was told by both groups that this was the
requirement. Pierre from WA rowing association has also been sent a
sample set and he wanted a red stern too.
If you can correct this, then I will update my information.
Nick Suess
Well, with the sheer weight of my ignorance, I'm always surprised that any
boat I'm in doesn't sink straight away!!!
However, to quote from the website of my own club - ANA RC, of Bayswater WA:
"Marine regulations require that a continuous white light be carried that is
visible from 360 degrees."
So that's our club's official version of it, and it appears Pierre is
singing from an altogether different songsheet.
Pierre is the Executive Officer of Rowing WA, so all I can say is "what we
have here is a failure to communicate"
(Rowing and the movies #5271)
Edward Fryer
> However, to quote from the website of my own club - ANA RC, of Bayswater
WA:
>
> "Marine regulations require that a continuous white light be carried that
is
> visible from 360 degrees."
And the Rowing WA website agrees with you:
http://www.rowingwa.asn.au/safety/
"BEFORE DAWN AND AFTER DUSK
a.. your boat must carry a continuous white light visible from all angles
"
Carl Douglas
I think the discussion so far illustrates the level of dire confusion &
plain immaturity in rowers' attitudes to rowing safety across the rowing
world.
We merrily put crews of 4, 5 & 9 people, whom few in their right minds
would term truly water-savvy, afloat in boats which will sink if it gets
rough - with no life-protection in form of support vessels, clothing or
flotation - & then nail blame onto anyone unlucky enough to die.
We go rowing after dark with so little light (or none) that our boats
are effectively invisible, even to ourselves, yet think that it is
always the other guy's fault when we get hit.
We use long, pointy craft, which can & do sometimes pierce right through
a human torso or limb on impact, yet we don't see why _we_ should do
anything meaningful about impact protection
We argue like frenzy with anyone who saysthe shoes or bow protection of
our boat are unsafe.
Our NGBs give pitifully weak safety guidance, pass the buck on safety,
oppose safety improvements, resist expert advice or assistance on safety
& even poo-poo the serious warnings of Coroners after rowing fatalities.
Yet many of us hold down important jobs, & even claim to be responsible
adults.
And now another rower, a really decent guy is dead. And others injured.
And a family bereaved & distraught.
Not particularly clever, is it?
I would seriously advocate that we take this awful accident as a wake-up
call, all of us.
In respect of lighting:
1. If we row in bad light we owe it to ourselves, our friends, families
& all other users of the same water, to be lit apropriately and effectively.
2. Increasingly in search of decent water conditions we row during hours
of relative darkness, as crews once almost never did.
3. Our boats a fast &, including their crews, both heavy & dangerous for
their size, capable of holing many large vessels. They are also very
vulnerable to impact. We ought to protect ourselves against others, &
to protect others against our own errors.
4. The statutory single 360-degree white light for a rowing boat is
hardly appropriate to how we travel, nor to warn other water users of
how fast, how unmanoeuvrable & how unsighted we are.
As responsible adults we don't demand the right to drive on the public
roads in decrrepit cars with bald tyres. I would suggest that,
similarly, we ought to accept that our high-performance racing boats
shoud be lit as befits, with the powered vessel's separate & adequately
spaced port, starboard & stern lights. Otherwise, if run down by others
after dark, shouldn't we accept much of any blame?
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> I think the discussion so far illustrates the level of dire confusion &
> plain immaturity in rowers' attitudes to rowing safety across the rowing
> world.
>
>
> We go rowing after dark with so little light (or none) [and are invisible]
>
> [So], if run down by others after dark, shouldn't we accept much of any blame?
>
> Carl
>
> --
So it's my duty to accept the responsibility for being run down while
out in the dark and nearly invisible (In reality, I take the
responsibility of being well lit, so I don't get run down, hopefully.),
but it's bad for anyone to blame me?
Hmmmmm, I know I'm confused! Are you suggesting that the dead need to
rise and take resposibility as to avoid being blamed by the living? I
suppose that makes sense in a strange way, and might in fact lead to
them not being dead in the first place.
I'm quite sure that I avoid several opportunities to be killed, or
kill, every day. After all, 5000lbs moving at 50ft/sec needs time to
avoid danger, and this requires our full attention to the task at hand.
I guess the general assumption that I use when on a motorcycle is
equally valid for low light rowing, "They not only can kill me, they
are trying to." Having realized that I am THEY, I don't ride
motorcycles anymore, and watch carefully for those that do. [:o)
- Paul Smith
mpruscoe
> As responsible adults we don't demand the right to drive on the public
> roads in decrrepit cars with bald tyres. I would suggest that,
> similarly, we ought to accept that our high-performance racing boats
> shoud be lit as befits, with the powered vessel's separate & adequately
> spaced port, starboard & stern lights. Otherwise, if run down by others
> after dark, shouldn't we accept much of any blame?
A powered vessel should be displaying a forward white light too.
If you start thinking about a rowing shell as comparable to a powered
vessel, given it's speed, and look at the Colregs:
Only a powered vessel of less than 7m and slower than 7 knots can get
away with just an all-round white light. A single isn't that short. 7
knots is 3.6 metres/second for those people who have their SpeedCoaches
set that way.
Over 12m (8s and a lot of 4s) requires a separate white forward masthead
light and sternlight as well as sidelights.
bill
> I guess the general assumption that I use when on a motorcycle is
> equally valid for low light rowing, "They not only can kill me, they
> are trying to." Having realized that I am THEY, I don't ride
> motorcycles anymore, and watch carefully for those that do. [:o)
Yes. On a bicycle it is that same sense of being a bit under seige. Or
as Ewoud points out, "Never Assume"
Really this all points back to vigilance, of knowing what is around
you, of what your options are.
Rowing is taxing--it puts mind & body into demands that are at odds
with the concept of "watchkeeping" and "vigilance". The best defence is
a good offense. In this case that being to be smarter, more alert,
more aware, than your big bully counterparts.
A related anecdote:
I used to teach sailing to adults. I used 27 foot sloops on a busy
waterway (Delaware River). I had 4 adults on the boat. Beginner
sailors. I had them for eight (8) two-hour sessions. After using over
half the sessions getting them to understand how to make the boat go,
how to point it in the right direction, trim the sails etc, then the
next big thing was to teach seamanship. How do you do that?
Well, remember, these people want to sail for pleasure. What are they
going to do all the time? They are going to sail, have a nice time,
chat in the cockpit. And so I did that--with them. We had a great
time--all sorts of great conversations--all completely getting these
greenhorn sailors off-topic---and their minds off of navigation.
Why did I do that? Because I knew that is what they would do.
SO I would then suddenly say. OK, scan the horizon. DO you SEE
anything different? They would look around, and say, "no, looks fine".
(I could see what was going on--a barge 1/2 mile downriver coming on
at 8 knots) About 5 minutes later I'd repeat this question. And they'd
say, "Where did that come from?!" (At this point the barge is a few
hundred yards away and looks big, menacing, white foam under the bow.)
It was a powerful tool. I remember surprise, shock, and the smiles of
understanding when they *got* it. The idea that you have to
multitask--that vigilance has to be maintained even in the face of
extraordinary preoccupation.
Apply that concept to rowing, somehow, and you have something.
I have no doubt that many oarsman have that sense. I know some who are
*very* aware that way. But I also see some that are not. I don't think
you get that sense "naturally" from collegiate rowing. The focus is on
the sport, performance, winning. Somehow, people just manage to figure
this stuff out, or not.
The tragedy is that the margins are so perilously thin and yet the
preparations for dealing with difficulty are so inadequate to the
point of the narrow margins, so then we have this sort or horrible
thing happen. It does require re-thinking the idea of "preparedness".
bill
mpruscoe wrote:
> Carl Douglas wrote:
> > As responsible adults we don't demand the right to drive on the public
> > roads in decrrepit cars with bald tyres. I would suggest that,
> > similarly, we ought to accept that our high-performance racing boats
> > shoud be lit as befits, with the powered vessel's separate & adequately
> > spaced port, starboard & stern lights. Otherwise, if run down by others
> > after dark, shouldn't we accept much of any blame?
>
> A powered vessel should be displaying a forward white light too.
Correct. All do--even little, slow-moving ones--in the form of a 360
degree white masthead light.
>
> If you start thinking about a rowing shell as comparable to a powered
> vessel, given it's speed, and look at the Colregs:
Except that a shell is interpreted as a "sailing vessel" in COLREGS.
This is an important distinction. If you make the shell appear to be a
powered vessel, then other vessels will assume that it is manueverable.
On the other hand, if you light it as a sailing vessel, then it is seen
as "unpredictable" by other vessels and so they pay special attention
to direction and speed.
ehrlich
recovery for those injured. I don't know any of these people, but
found this story very upsetting. I haven't posted here for a long
while, being completely out of the sport for over three years now, so
I'll compensate by adding a long wibble.
I hope we all agree in the need to be properly lit, but simply are
disagreeing as what is defined as "properly lit."
I think we have two conflicting strategies here.
The first strategy is to light our boats in accordance with the same
rules all over the world (for which the consensus seems to reflect
nautical rules), on the assumption that people around the world and on
different types of craft will want a uniform standard.
The second strategy is the light our boats according to a standard that
makes sense locally.
Having done most of my pre-dawn or post-dusk outings (coaching and
coxing and rowing) on rivers which get very little if any "nautical"
traffic, I can say that simply having white lights everywhere is very
confusing. It is sometimes hard to tell if a boat is coming or going,
or parked facing one or the other direction and maybe about to start
moving one way or another (or if the light is one of those 360-degree
ones, it could even be parked broadside). So I find the white light
bow and stern rule dangerous, at least on smaller bodies of water (and
I include here bodies as big as the Charles River).
When I was in high school and college in the US, and even when I first
went up to Oxford, we did have a white=bow and red=stern custom (not
always followed by everyone). This followed the inate logic of what
people were expecting (at least people who are not used to cruising
across the Atlantic in a naval vessel), and it had the advantage of
allowing us to know if a crew was coming or going.
The main problem with this was that the lights were often not strong
enough, and the white bow lights were usually flashlights taped to the
deck (and therefore not visible from the sides), whereas the red
sternlights were usually small bike lights affixed to the coxswain's
hat and not always bright enough. I remember in college we had red
sternlights that were the size of flashlights and which attached by
suction cup to the stern deck behind the rudder mast, but these had a
tendency to un-suck and fall off mid-practice leaving nothing back
there. I think technology has advanced since then and we should have
better solutions.
Sometime in the early/mid-1990s, Oxford and many other places switched
to the white light at both ends rule, and I remember seeing a bunch of
near accidents caused by people not knowing which way other boats were
going (forget those accidents I saw caused by totally-unlit boats).
I returned to coach in the US in the mid/late 1990s, where my program
was the only group of people using our bit of river (we got a rare
motorboat during the day, but I never remember any in dark or
twilight). So I made the lighting rules myself. I went back to
white=bow and red=stern. But I also required crews practicing in the
dark to be accompanied by a launch. Someone in the launch would carry
an extra-powerful flashlight which we used to light up the crews and
look out ahead (especially considering the restricted views of the
coxswains). Since my program was the only one which used the river,
and we only owned so many boats, we coaches also knew exactly who else
was out and had a good idea where we were likely to cross paths on the
river).
At different stages in my coaching career, I also adopted the
convention of attaching (white) flashlights to the riggers near the
stern of the boat but pointing to bow. This meant the white light was
visible ahead (thus not confusing those expecting a red light pointing
behind) plus it illuminated part of the crew which made the crew more
visible from the side.
Then I started coaching on a large lake in Switzerland, where the
360-degree white light rule was in force. It was often difficult to
tell what boats were doing, especially where lights reflected off the
water, but the general convention was: if you see a white light in the
distance, don't get close enough to find out. If it gets closer,
adjust your course to keep moving away (keeping traffic patterns in
mind also gave a hint as to which way to move). But this was a big
enough body of water for people to avoid each other.
My club had the best lights on the lake, but shortly before I started
coaching there they had an accident (fortunately no one hurt, but the
boat was a write-off). A Junior Boys' 2X was run over by a speeding
police motorboat, of all things. You can imagine that the police
report said that the fault was entirely that of the 2X which had
improper lighting, but when they recovered the bow off the bottom of
the lake the lights were still attached (as I said, we had the best
lights on the lake). The lawsuit against the police was still pending
when I left Switzerland, but the insurance did accept our club's
version and pay (we got a new boat).
So, what have I learned over the years. First, I think the crew itself
should be lit up. That makes it clear what it is we are dealing with,
and gives everyone a sense of how big a boat it is as well (a non-rower
may not expect a 60-foot eight, and even a rower may be unsure whether
the light he sees belongs to a 1X or an 8+, which may make a difference
in determining how best to avoid an accident). So lights which
illuminate the crew are a good idea (especially making it visible from
the side).
Second, directional lights are important. That is where I disagree
with the white light at both ends rules. Maybe if a rowing club shares
its water with shipping, then it needs to adapt for what shipping
captains expect. But most people I know are used to the rules of the
road being white=forward light and red=rear light. Since most people
can have easy access to good bike lights, this is a logical method to
follow for rowing shells. The red bike light clips easily on the
headband of the coxbox (all coxswains should use coxboxes, especially
in poor visibility since they need to get immediate reactions from the
rowers). For uncoxed or bow-coxed boats, this is more problematic -
but I'd be uncomfortable taking either out in limited visibility, at
least without a launch directly alongside.
(The bike lights alone are not enough, but if a boat is lit up enough,
with a rear-facing red light or two, then it is clear).
Third, especially with rowing in limited visibility, a practice should
be accompanied by a launch or a bike, so someone outside the crew has a
good lookout and can carry a high-powered flashlight. The coach can
look out ahead and around generally to see things the crew may not, and
if traffic is coming that may or may not see the crew being coached,
the coach can shine the high-powered flashlight on the crew he is
coaching to illuminate it (he should take care not to shine it in the
eyes of the driver/coxswain/steersman of oncoming craft, but rather use
the flashlight to illuminate his own crew).
And while it might be nice to have a world-wide standard for rowing
everywhere, I am not sure the same systems would apply everywhere.
Different people may be expecting different things (and I do not only
mean that some rowers share bodies of water with nautical vessels
expecting one sort of lighting and other rowers don't have to worry
about any other traffic besides themselves - some places just have
different customs or expectations). It is incumbant on any rower to
learn the rules of the river whereever he is, and follow the local
system (another example: some bodies of water require crews to stay
right, others require they stay left, still others have mixed traffic
patterns, and others change depending on tidal conditions - do we
advocate the same system be applied everywhere?).
My main observation about lights is simply that we never seem to use
enough of them. Some people will follow local rules to the letter, and
will still not be fully visible. It's dark - we need to take extra
precaution.
Charles Ehrlich
Pristina, Kosovo (no rowing even during daylight hours, however we do
have unpredictable rolling blackouts every day, and the most dangerous
thing about walking home at night is falling into a large hole in a
semi-paved street because it was too dark to see it. When I used to
coach I used a 10mm or 7/16ths for a keychain depending on which side
of the Pond I was coaching. I now use a pocket flashlight for a
keychain).
Joseph Meehan
> ..
> I hope we all agree in the need to be properly lit, but simply are
> disagreeing as what is defined as "properly lit."
>
> I think we have two conflicting strategies here.
>
> The first strategy is to light our boats in accordance with the same
> rules all over the world (for which the consensus seems to reflect
> nautical rules), on the assumption that people around the world and on
> different types of craft will want a uniform standard.
>
> The second strategy is the light our boats according to a standard
> that makes sense locally.
I agree totally. Here is a neat web pages that uses the current US
requirements.
http://www.boatingsidekicks.com/kidsknow/lightmain.htm
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/4_2_b.htm
Frankly I believe the three light (red green & white) make the best
sense.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Carl Douglas
The figure 3 option from:
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/4_2_b.htm
?
I agree entirely.
Thanks, Joe
bill
SNIP
> I hope we all agree in the need to be properly lit, but simply are
> disagreeing as what is defined as "properly lit."
Yes.
> I think we have two conflicting strategies here.
>
> The first strategy is to light our boats in accordance with the same
> rules all over the world (for which the consensus seems to reflect
> nautical rules), on the assumption that people around the world and on
> different types of craft will want a uniform standard.
They already have a uniform standard. COLREGS.
>
> The second strategy is the light our boats according to a standard that
> makes sense locally.
Which should be made to conform to international wherever and as much
as possible.
> Having done most of my pre-dawn or post-dusk outings (coaching and
> coxing and rowing) on rivers which get very little if any "nautical"
> traffic, I can say that simply having white lights everywhere is very
> confusing.
Yes.
360degree White all by itself is confusing in all environments. In
marine, it is an anchor light. The reason it has been accepted for
"rowing" craft is that rowing craft in the traditional maritime sense
are slow moving & manueverable. So, they are nearly "fixed" objects
that can also get out of the way (rather a paradox but I think you can
see what I mean).
But shells are swift, and so although technically they can be
classified as "rowing craft" this is insufficient, and the higher
standard of "sailing vessel" should be applied.
Note that COLREGS allows rowing craft to use sailing vessel
lighting--for precisely this reason--to enable the vessel to have the
opportunity to be more effectively identified with regards direction of
travel.
> So I find the white light
> bow and stern rule dangerous, at least on smaller bodies of water (and
> I include here bodies as big as the Charles River).
Agreed.
>
> When I was in high school and college in the US, and even when I first
> went up to Oxford, we did have a white=bow and red=stern custom (not
> always followed by everyone). This followed the inate logic of what
> people were expecting (at least people who are not used to cruising
> across the Atlantic in a naval vessel), and it had the advantage of
> allowing us to know if a crew was coming or going.
Great, except that it is out of synch with marine practice. Encourages
a land-based approach to a decidedly marine environment.
> Sometime in the early/mid-1990s, Oxford and many other places switched
> to the white light at both ends rule, and I remember seeing a bunch of
> near accidents caused by people not knowing which way other boats were
> going (forget those accidents I saw caused by totally-unlit boats).
I can imagine the confusion.
>
> I returned to coach in the US in the mid/late 1990s, where my program
> was the only group of people using our bit of river (we got a rare
> motorboat during the day, but I never remember any in dark or
> twilight). So I made the lighting rules myself. I went back to
> white=bow and red=stern. But I also required crews practicing in the
> dark to be accompanied by a launch. Someone in the launch would carry
> an extra-powerful flashlight which we used to light up the crews and
> look out ahead (especially considering the restricted views of the
> coxswains). Since my program was the only one which used the river,
> and we only owned so many boats, we coaches also knew exactly who else
> was out and had a good idea where we were likely to cross paths on the
> river).
Because you were effectively isolated, your "automobile-based" approach
worked. Note however that any motorboats would have been fooled into
thinking that your "headlights" were stern lights--and this would be
very bad!
> At different stages in my coaching career, I also adopted the
> convention of attaching (white) flashlights to the riggers near the
> stern of the boat but pointing to bow. This meant the white light was
> visible ahead (thus not confusing those expecting a red light pointing
> behind) plus it illuminated part of the crew which made the crew more
> visible from the side.
Illuminating the shell in addition to navigation lights is entirely
reasonable and does not contradict the COLREGS lighting requirements.
For comparison, look at:
A dinner boat. It has all kinds of lights--cabin lights etc. It still
has navigation lights.
A fishing boat. Huge bright deck lights.
A tugboat. Numerous working deck lights.
In all these cases, the additional lights do help to increaase
visibility, though that was not the intention. Note however that the
Navigation lights must not be obscured by these other lights. The
masthead light is higher than the other lights etc.
The same thing applies to shells.
>
> Then I started coaching on a large lake in Switzerland, where the
> 360-degree white light rule was in force.
In fact, I am quite certain that what was "in force" was the minimum of
a 360 white light, in alignment with COLREGS. A red/green sidelight,
combined with white stern light, would most certainly have been
acceptable.
>A Junior Boys' 2X was run over by a speeding
> police motorboat, of all things.
Well that is Irony. Even in Switzerland ;-)
> So, what have I learned over the years. First, I think the crew itself
> should be lit up.
Seems a good idea--just as long as someone still has their night vision
intact.
>
> Second, directional lights are important.
Absolutely agreed.
>That is where I disagree
> with the white light at both ends rules. Maybe if a rowing club shares
> its water with shipping, then it needs to adapt for what shipping
> captains expect.
Yes--except as I note elsewhere this can (and should) be to the
"sailing vessel" pattern of red/green sidelights and a white stern
light.
> But most people I know are used to the rules of the
> road being white=forward light and red=rear light.
Let's see if we can change that. It is really dangerous when mixed with
the absolutely established marine standards.
--The marine standards are *not* going to change to suit rowing.
Better and easier to bend rowing to conform to the existing standards.
>
> Third, especially with rowing in limited visibility, a practice should
> be accompanied by a launch or a bike, so someone outside the crew has a
> good lookout and can carry a high-powered flashlight.
And if without a chase boat (masters out by themselves etc), the bowman
aught to have a flashlight and a horn.
> And while it might be nice to have a world-wide standard for rowing
> everywhere, I am not sure the same systems would apply everywhere
SNIP
>It is incumbant on any rower to
> learn the rules of the river whereever he is...SNIP
Yes. Which is why everyone aught to learn the applicable marine
rules--and not merely the lights, but also collision avoidance
procedures, sound signals, etc.
>
> My main observation about lights is simply that we never seem to use
> enough of them. Some people will follow local rules to the letter, and
> will still not be fully visible. It's dark - we need to take extra
> precaution.
Yes.
Walter Martindale
> bill wrote:
>
>>When you see the hookers, you see the red light abreast of or astern of
>>you, not ahead of you, therefore you know that you are an overtaking
>>vessel (burdened) and you determine to keep clear.
>>-Bill
>
>
> Shouldn't the hookers have red light abreast and red light astern.
> They're dangerous at both ends.
> [;^)
>
> Taniwha
>
Shouldn't the hookers have props and ends nearby?
W
J Flory
Carl Douglas wrote:
> The figure 3 option from:
> http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/4_2_b.htm
> ?
>
> I agree entirely.
>
> Thanks, Joe
>
>
> Carl
>
In the US, West Marine/US Boat sells LED suction-mount lights that
would give this pattern for $27 for each end of the boat. Probably
want a lanyard on them in case the cup unsticks. I think the stern
light is 360 degrees, so maybe tape off the forward sector to conform
to the pattern (and preserve night vision). See:
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product/10001/-1/10001/145862/10001/236/235/9
Stephen Blockley
>
> Yes. Which is why everyone aught to learn the applicable marine
> rules--and not merely the lights, but also collision avoidance
> procedures, sound signals, etc.
>
It has often struck us that rowers do not seem to perceive themselves as
subject to any of the established rules of the waterways. Over the years
there seems to have been many perverse assumptions made at institutional or
individual level e.g that Archimedes principle does not apply to rowing
shells, or that one light in the dark will be enough to alert others to the
presence of a swiftly moving, 55 foot long vessel, moving quietly, low in
the water with 9 precious lives aboard.
We have never understood how or why rowing got itself exempted from the
European Recreational Craft Directive - which gives the protection of basic
safety design requirements. Or why rowers have seemed to be unaware of the
unforgiving nature of water, so that little attention has been paid to
preventing immersion or helping survival when it happens.
Bill, your posts in this thread have been excellent - full of sense, patient
and persuasive. Totally agree - why reinvent the wheel, why complicate
matters? All mariners and watermen understand the red/green fore and white
light aft pattern. Why would rowing want to be the only ones out of step,
when the stakes are so high?
We hope Jim is found soon, and we hope that his death is not in vain - there
is always something to learn.
Jane and Stephen
Taniwha
Certainly props but if he had ends he would be a centre?
T
Edward Fryer
"Stephen Blockley" <stephenDO...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3sadcrF...@individual.net...
> We have never understood how or why rowing got itself exempted from the
> European Recreational Craft Directive - which gives the protection of
basic
> safety design requirements. Or why rowers have seemed to be unaware of
the
> unforgiving nature of water, so that little attention has been paid to
> preventing immersion or helping survival when it happens.
Often wondered about that one myself. I've also wondered how applicable an
exemption it actually is. The wording of Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1353
The Recreational Craft Regulations 1996 from
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961353_en_1.htm is:
...Excluded products...
4. The following are not products for the purposes of these Regulations-
a) craft intended solely for racing, including rowing racing boats and
training rowing boats labelled as such by the manufacturer..
Given the ratio of time spent training to time racing, can any boat be
described as "intended solely for racing"? And how is a training boat
intended solely for racing?
June Kendrick
vessel displays, it's the old "who has the right of way" issue. Sailing
vessels were less manuverable than powered vessels, so had rightof way
over powered vessels. At night, sail and power vessels had to be able
to tell which was which, so the burdened vessel could keep clear, and
the power vessel got the extra light so that all could tell who had the
right of way.
In theory, how a rowing shell should be lit should be determined by
where it stands with regard to right of way.
I agree that I'd rather be lit up like a christmas tree and be seen,
than only have the legally required lights and be hit.
June
bill
SNIP
> We have never understood how or why rowing got itself exempted from the
> European Recreational Craft Directive - which gives the protection of basic
> safety design requirements.
It is hard to imagine how one would *include* shells in that directive.
Shells are so far beyond the pale regarding concepts of stability,
seakindliness and strength etc, that to fit them to the Directive would
be to obsolete the sport. Or to write a whole specific extra
section--essentially usurping FISA etc.
Note that kayaks, canoes and sailboards and racing hydroplanes as well
as some other classes are also exempted, for similar reasons.
At some point, you have to be glad that the government stays out of the
way and allows people to make their own choices--and even, yes, make
mistakes. Part of Free Will. Being informed is not a birthright--it
is a choice. Of course this board is all bout being informed--so we
all do our best to "spread the word" which is how and why we are now
seeing positive change in rowing regarding flotation (thank you very
much, Stephen--we would be nowhere without your efforts.)
>Or why rowers have seemed to be unaware of the
> unforgiving nature of water, so that little attention has been paid to
> preventing immersion or helping survival when it happens.
Well, that's a good one. I think it has to do with the focus on the
"sport and winning" as well as the controlled conditions under which
most rowers take part--especially at the introductory level.
University or school, coaches, launches etc.
SNIP
> We hope Jim is found soon, and we hope that his death is not in vain - there
> is always something to learn.
I feel the same way.
(Just to be sure we do not 'blame the victim' in the present case, I
will note that there were *two* boats and skippers involved in the
collision and that *neither* of them saw trouble in time.....or we can
never be too vigilant)
fel...@eudoramail.com
ehrlich wrote:
> The main problem with this was that the lights were often not strong
> enough, and the white bow lights were usually flashlights taped to the
> deck (and therefore not visible from the sides), whereas the red
> sternlights were usually small bike lights affixed to the coxswain's
> hat and not always bright enough.
> My main observation about lights is simply that we never seem to use
> enough of them. Some people will follow local rules to the letter, and
> will still not be fully visible. It's dark - we need to take extra
> precaution.
>
I think this is the real point. Even if directionality lights don't
show all the information a motorboat vs. sailboat might expect, just
having lights -- and plenty of 'em -- seems to be the most important
thing. And, those little mounted flashlights are nigh useless, esp.
the red/green ones, especially in the fog. A bright blinking (us
terminology) red bike light is worth a dozen properly mounted and
colored little flashlights, like some rowing supply companies sell.
Jay L
> There was an accident on the Harlem River this morning:
> http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-miss1025,0,215056.story?coll=ny-main-tabheads3
>
>
> A four person shell (doesn't say if a 4- or 4x) and a pleasure power
> boat (with 2 onboard) collided "head on" about 6:00- 6:30 AM (before
> sunrise). The power boat recovered 3 of the four rowers, one of whom
> had a serious head injury. The bow person was being searched for and
> presumed dead.
What is sad about this story is that nobody at FISA have picked up th
story and put it on their website. The death of any oarsman around the
would should be noted and (as Carl and co have repeatedly pointed out)
circumstances surrounding the death be made public knowledge. I would
suggest that in the event of a death (accidental or otherwise - death by
swamping can no longer be considered an accident) FISA takes the lead
and supersedes any national body and publicly posts findings.
In the mean time our thoughts go out to the family and friends involved
in this tragedy...
Jay L
mitchel
come to the realization that very few say anything important, so I will
get to the point.
As captain of a boathouse with 72 boats, let's just say the lighting
issue has come up before. Simply stated, follow the lighting
guidelines and use a red/green bow light and a white stern light. (I
know shells don't exactly fit the lighting guidelines) Strobes, all
around lights or simply lots of one type may only provide a false sense
of security. It is the non-boaters who tend to think more is better. If
you want more lights, make sure they are in excess of the proper
lights. Take any sanctioned boating course and you will understand the
logic of the red/green bow and white stern light.
>From the boathouse looking out, when I see a red/green light I know a
boat is coming in. When I see the white lite I know the boat is going
out. When I see any combination of lights I can tell exactly the angle
of the boat and where it is heading. When I bow a quad I turn around
often and by virtue of the colors of the lights I know if I am on a
collision course or or just gaining on a boat. Of equal importance is
that when I see a motor boat I can tell its course and hopefully he can
tell mine, all because we use a COMMON lighting scheme. Fog is a
different situation all together, just as there is no protection from
an asshole in a powerboat who isn't watching the water or doesn't know
the rules of the road or the difference between 5 MPH and no wake.
Now, as for the lights, the best units I have found thus far are made
by INNOVATIVE and can be purchased through West Marine. They make two
types, one with an incandescent bulb and one with an LED. While the
bulb is a bit brighter, go for the LED model. A few bucks more, but
the batteries should last 10x longer. Each unit uses 4 "AA" batteries
and they mount with suction cups. We haven't lost one yet. They are
also available with "C" clamps and extension poles. Our coach boats
are also equipped with these lights. As a club we have about 10 sets
of these lights for the shells. Some rowers even have their own.
>From the articles I read about the accident, they mentioned the boat
had a white light. Consider this. In a narrow waterway a Four is
making a 180 degree turn. At some point a single bow or stern light
will be obscured by the rowers during the turn. That's why the proper
bow AND stern lights are needed.
Two years ago we had an early morning incident where one of our coach
boats was stopped near several Fours at the end of a piece. A local
patrol boat (for the oyster company)with an experianced driver was
making his early morning rounds looking for poachers through a pair of
binoculars. He puts them down and suddenly spots the lights of the
coach boat directly in front of him. He swerves only to take off a
6'long section of the bow of a Four. No injuries except to the boat
which was destroyed.
Hope this helps.
Carl Douglas
> I have read most of the posts about the accident and lights and have
> come to the realization that very few say anything important, so I will
> get to the point.
>
> As captain of a boathouse with 72 boats, let's just say the lighting
> issue has come up before. Simply stated, follow the lighting
> guidelines and use a red/green bow light and a white stern light. (I
> know shells don't exactly fit the lighting guidelines) Strobes, all
> around lights or simply lots of one type may only provide a false sense
> of security. It is the non-boaters who tend to think more is better. If
> you want more lights, make sure they are in excess of the proper
> lights. Take any sanctioned boating course and you will understand the
> logic of the red/green bow and white stern light.
With respect, you'll find that is exactly what some of us have been
proposing on this thread.
Let's accept that racing shells are _not_ mere rowing boats bobbing on
the waters. They differ radically from other rowing boats, a class for
which COLREGs permits the single 360-deg white light, in being very
long, relatively fast, not maneouvrable, & very close to the water. And
the steering of rowing shells is subject to unusual visual limitations
because we go backwards or our coxes have much of their visual feild
obstructed.
So, we are a peculiar sub-class of power or sail boat. Which means we
should, at the very least, employ the minimum COLREGS lighting of
red/port, green/starboard & white/stern lighting. And we should avoid
trying to dream up ever more fancy schemes of lighting which serve only
to indicate that we know little of the lengthy history of how marine
ligting & think the rest of the world revolves around ourselves.
Now, where are all the concerned contributors to this thread from within
the USRA, RCA, ARA, DRV, FFSA, FISA, Uncle Tom Cobley et al? And if
they are not listening & contributing to this well-informed forum, why
on earth not? Are they too important to involve themselves in the
general deliberations on a subject brought so tragically to the fore by
the Hudson River accident?
I see that a USRA spokesman has been quoted saying such accidents are
rare. Well, such self-exculpatory flannel from NGBs is anything but
rare following nasty or fatal rowing mishaps. Some folk'll say anything
just to preserve the Mr. Clean image of our sport, even if that means
deliberately hiding the simple & soluble causes of a rower's death.
And we are seeing from reorts that are coming out, that such accidents
themselves are not rare either.
Looks like another case of doing teh blindingly obvious being all far
too much bother for the chattering classes. GRRRR!
bill
mitchel wrote:
>SNIP
If you read the following article, you will see that here is yet
another example of using the "automoblile" headlight system. --Not
Good! for all the reasons I have pointed out previously--that a sail
or notorboat helmsman will mistake the "headlight" for a "stern light"
an CRASH!
or full url:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=413130&category=REGION&newsdate=10/27/2005
Rob Collings
> So, we are a peculiar sub-class of power or sail boat.
I would contend that we are most definately not sail boats! We cannot
be on port or starboard tack, we do not consider ourselves to be to
windward or leeward of a boat on the same tack. The navigation rules
most suited to rowing shells are those for power boats (right hand
rule, etc). Surely if we are to bring rowing in to line with COLREGS,
we should have the same classification for lighting and navigation? I
have in my head from my sailing days that rowing shells should give way
to sailing boats, which would also suggest we are power boats and not
sailing boats.
Power boats are 'those propelled by machinery' and we can probably all
claim to know a rower/sculler who is 'a machine'...
Rob.
bill
Rob Collings wrote:
> Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> > So, we are a peculiar sub-class of power or sail boat.
>
> I would contend that we are most definately not sail boats! We cannot
> be on port or starboard tack, we do not consider ourselves to be to
> windward or leeward of a boat on the same tack. The navigation rules
> most suited to rowing shells are those for power boats (right hand
> rule, etc).
No, I *really* disagree. Look, 'tis true "we are not sailboats and
cannot tack etc" but that is not important. What *is* important is
that under many circumstances, sailing vessels have *right of way* over
powered craft.
Unless you want motorboats to mistake you for another
motorboat--meaning that using the "right hand rule" you *must* give way
when you see a crossing boat coming from stbd---unless you are prepared
for the ramifications of having to *give way* to motorboats---then
please accept that the lot of the shell is to be lit the same as a
sailboat.
If you have powerboat lighting, then at night, ther eis no way for a
boat helmsman to know that you are *not* a motorboat!
>Surely if we are to bring rowing in to line with COLREGS,
> we should have the same classification for lighting and navigation? I
> have in my head from my sailing days that rowing shells should give way
> to sailing boats, which would also suggest we are power boats and not
> sailing boats.
No, it just says that you are not a sailing boat but ar elit under the
same convention. Remember, sailing boats have to avoid each other, too!
See:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/mwv_files/NR_Files/Rules11-19.pdf
and click along to see the differences between international and inland
etc.
Also remember,
"Due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and
to any special circumstances which may make a departure from these
rules necessary to avoid immediate danger"
Which means you have to be somewhat flexible--and always use some
common sense.
I *strongly* suggest that rather than attempting to create a "special
category" or "recategorizing" the shell, it would be much more
productive to simply gain a thorough understanding of the "rules of the
road".
This means that, yes, clubs, bodies such as USRowing, MRA etc really
should consider making this a "continuing education" and "resource"
issue, IMO.
>
> Power boats are 'those propelled by machinery' and we can probably all
> claim to know a rower/sculler who is 'a machine'...
:-)
Best regards,
Bill
bill
I would also like to add that in regards to "giving way" etc, what is
of great importance to learn and understand are the rules, as laid out
in "Steering and Sailing Rules" of how crossing and overtaking vessels
should proceed and react to each other.
Being predictable is a great help to avoidance of collision. By
understanding what other vessels are looking for, what they will do to
avoid collision (assuming they are following the sailing rules) you
will then know when it is necessary to "break the rules" in regards to
collision avoidance steering, and when you should continue with
standard procedure etc.
I am speaking to the issue of "turning to stbd" etc and when to not do
that...
One of the ramifications of being the "privileged" vessel is that
others must react to you--which they cannot do safely if that
"privileged" vessel is acting erratically or inadvertently un-doing an
attempt at collision-avoidance initiated by the burdened vessel.
So, once again, there is a need for responsible action,
awareness--vigilamnt watchstanding.
I hate to sound like such an Admiralty type (no, I was *never* in the
military!) but it really does make a difference!
Regards,
Bill