100mph in Southampton Water

[Triassic]

I found this video of a Vector 40 travelling at 100mph. You can clearly see how the driver is struggling to maintain his knife edge control, the complete absence of any other water users, the carefully prepared course with the chase helicopter checking for any obstruction, and most importantly of all the safety equipment being used by the highly trained occupants......

Well at least I though you could.... then I realised it was filmed on this planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZscwSgjPzk

 

[chewi]

Actually his decision not to use the safety harnesses was based on the fact that the two passengers had not completed the necessary training that would help ensure they would be able to extract themselves from them in the event of a turnover.

I suspect that the history of the boat being used extensively in the previous season to carry passengers on high speed runs, and the fact that these passengers would also not have completed the training or used the restraints, would also have influenced his decision.

Still doesn't explain the lack of use of the helmets though.

It is consistent with a lack of informal risk assessment though ( though he did have the presence of mind to alert Hamble CG).

I don't mean necessarily a formal risk assessment which is tedious and unviable for constant application in changing circumstances on the water, but the kind of thinking that responsible people continuously apply to what lies ahead.

I am mystified at why his own son would not have been trained to use the harness,( let alone his casual passengers, who perhaps didn't get the full speed experience, just a thrill ride) perhaps the training was expensive or time-consuming. I expect there was plenty of powerboat experience in the family.

The harness and helmet were there for a reason, why would you venture out while unable to wear them, ? We are obliged to do so in cars, but boats are different , so we are left to think for ourselves out safety.... so far.

Its not just about the mobo driver , its about an apparent unawareness of what could go wrong, and no defence against it.

Compulsory tickbox training is the most likely response, and that will apply to all of us

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

It is consistent with a lack of informal risk assessment though ( though he did have the presence of mind to alert Hamble CG).

I don't mean necessarily a formal risk assessment which is tedious and unviable for constant application in changing circumstances on the water, but the kind of thinking that responsible people continuously apply to what lies ahead.

I am mystified at why his own son would not have been trained to use the harness,( let alone his casual passengers, who perhaps didn't get the full speed experience, just a thrill ride) perhaps the training was expensive or time-consuming. I expect there was plenty of powerboat experience in the family.

The harness and helmet were there for a reason, why would you venture out while unable to wear them, ? We are obliged to do so in cars, but boats are different , so we are left to think for ourselves out safety.... so far.

Its not just about the mobo driver , its about an apparent unawareness of what could go wrong, and no defence against it.

Compulsory tickbox training is the most likely response, and that will apply to all of us

I guess we cruisers all do our own risk assessment every time we go afloat, if on our own mentally at least.
When with crew we would be doing our check list and safety talk before discussing the possibilities of the days voyage.
As a business (and possibly with sponsors etc... ??) wouldn't his insurance be wanting a written risk assessment too?

S.

 

[Triassic]

Its not just about the mobo driver , its about an apparent unawareness of what could go wrong, and no defence against it.

Compulsory tickbox training is the most likely response, and that will apply to all of us

Or perhaps it's actually a very through understanding of what may go wrong and why, combined with the experience to apply the likelihood of it happening against what they are proposing to do.

I know I seem to be coming across as the minority who endorses what they were doing but my objective is not to do that. My objective is to stand up to those that criticise an individual and an activity without appearing to understand it or consider the facts around what was actually going on.

Knee jerk reaction and legislation to individual incidents is the bane of modern society and it is fed by those that have behaved in that way.

 

[chewi]

Or perhaps it's actually a very through understanding of what may go wrong and why, combined with the experience to apply the likelihood of it happening against what they are proposing to do.

I know I seem to be coming across as the minority who endorses what they were doing but my objective is not to do that. My objective is to stand up to those that criticise an individual and an activity without appearing to understand it or consider the facts around what was actually going on.

Knee jerk reaction and legislation to individual incidents is the bane of modern society and it is fed by those that have behaved in that way.

Had that experience been sufficient, the incident would not have happened, so there is something to. be learnt.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

There are many motorised sports that have had to improve their safety in a big way.

Many of them are track oriented, enclosed away from the general public and the paying public who wish to watch are in safe areas that have been established over time to fit H&S requirements.

There can be no such safe areas established when missiles of 100mph are rocketed down a 'public' stretch of water.

s.

 

[Triassic]

There can be no such safe areas established when missiles of 100mph are rocketed down a 'public' stretch of water.

s.

And you form that opinion based on what exactly? One incident where a boat that had been going fast earlier crashed whilst avoiding something that shouldn't have been there?

As the video I linked to shows there are people all over the world flying around in these things on a recreational basis in public water all the time. Just how many crashes involving this type of craft travelling at high speed can you refer me to?

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

And you form that opinion based on what exactly? One incident where a boat that had been going fast earlier crashed whilst avoiding something that shouldn't have been there?

As the video I linked to shows there are people all over the world flying around in these things on a recreational basis in public water all the time. Just how many crashes involving this type of craft travelling at high speed can you refer me to?

This was or is a 'speed boat'.
Speed boats have serious accidents and if you look through Google
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=speed boat accidents
or YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=speed+boat+accidents
you will undoubtedly find some examples

I have merely offered you the links and have not looked further at this time, I'd be surprised if there weren't results.
If you think that this very selfish type of behaviour in a public place is justifiable then we could never be reconciled in believing alike and will have to admit being on a completely different wavelength.

S.

 

[Triassic]

Sure if you follow those links you will see lots of examples of "speed boats" crashing. Almost all of them, without exception, incurred when racing or during other competitive activity. Even accepting that such activities are more likely to feature as they tend to be filmed using them as evidence that speed boats are dangerous is a bit like watching motor racing and saying cars are dangerous....

If you google "yacht capsize" or enter it into Youtube then you will find lots of examples of yachts coming to grief, is that a fair safety measure of our activity?

And as for speed boats, or even the activity subject of this thread being selfish, how is that? Who exactly was disadvantaged or denied some activity as a result of what they were doing?

We are indeed of different wavelengths, but I can account for mine with some reasoned argument supported with evidence. I look forward to seeing you do likewise.

 

[steve yates]

That was a long read, over nothing.
Storm in a teacup.
A good driver had an accident. His son got hurt but rescued by the driver.
Happens in cars all the time, with much worse consequences.
I suspect the mere fact of having to rescue his boy and drag him unconscious from that boat is something that will be with him for the rest of his life. He certainly doesn't need a bunch of folk pointing the finger and tut tutting.
And as for asking for legislation, talk about digging your own grave!
I would be very surprised if sailing does not have a far worse safety record than power-boating, people in glass houses and all that.

 

[Thistle]

Who exactly was disadvantaged or denied some activity as a result of what they were doing?

Those who were involved in the incident, particularly those who were injured.

I'm not suggesting that that bit of water shouldn't be used for fast testing, let alone that such testing shouldn't be done: I don't know enough about either the area or the sport to suggest that. I would suggest, however, that the fact that the incident happened is proof that the driver wasn't in full control of the situation. This leads me to the conclusion that the set of conditions, taken together, were outwith the driver's competence zone. There are a number of actions, many of them highlighted by the report, which could have been taken to bring the conditions within his competence zone (which, incidentally, I acknowledge as being both extensive and much greater than mine in this area.)

I would be interested to hear from the driver why he felt that it was appropriate to conduct such a high speed run without the use of helmets and harnesses. In particular I'd like to know why lack of training in the use of harnesses was a reason for not using them rather than a reason for postponing the run until the relevant training had been undertaken.

 

[Resolution]

That was a long read, over nothing.
Storm in a teacup.
A good driver had an accident. His son got hurt but rescued by the driver.
Happens in cars all the time, with much worse consequences.
I suspect the mere fact of having to rescue his boy and drag him unconscious from that boat is something that will be with him for the rest of his life. He certainly doesn't need a bunch of folk pointing the finger and tut tutting.
And as for asking for legislation, talk about digging your own grave!
I would be very surprised if sailing does not have a far worse safety record than power-boating, people in glass houses and all that.

+1
Neatly summarised!

 

[Triassic]

Those who were involved in the incident, particularly those who were injured.

That's not being selfish. Being selfish is putting your own needs before those of others. What did the driver have to gain by taking the passengers? They presumably expressed an interest in coming along and he saw no reason why they shouldn't. Selfish pretty much sums up all those that are making this entire incident the "Storm in a teacup" (thanks Steve Yates) because by doing so they are potentially denying others the opportunity to experience these boats, or even putting some out of work which I suspect is why Vector are keen to challenge the MAIB investigation and report.

People on here have said the driver just doesn't "get it". I would suggest that many on here don't get it. This boat is based on a production model that is designed to motor around at 100mph plus with numerous persons on board enjoying their afternoon drinks (well maybe not at the same time but you get my drift). Just watch the video I linked to earlier if you really want to see how undramatic the experience can be. As far as I can make out there was never any intention during this incident to do any more than a routine high speed run up and down the smooth water of Southampton Water so I totally "get" why the driver was comfortable taking passengers and not using all the possible safety equipment. Had they been intending to go out onto the open sea and motor flat out across waves and in the vicinity of other boats, like they do when they are racing, then I suspect his decisions might have been different, but that's not the point is it. The co-driver in this incident, himself extremely experienced in using these boats, has come on this forum and described the crash as a "freak incident". Are we really at the stage in society where we are going to react to such events in such a manner that we impact on an entire leisure activity, and the commercial operation behind it?

 

[mainsail1]

Nobody with any common sense would say it was a 'freak accident'. It was, in fact, an accident waiting to happen and their luck ran out.

 

[steve yates]

Nobody with any common sense would say it was a 'freak accident'. It was, in fact, an accident waiting to happen and their luck ran out.

Being an easy going kind of soul, I would be inclined to believe the words of the only person directly involved who posted on here, and take them at face value.

So by doing so I obviously have no common sense?

If we follow your logic, then perhaps so is driving down the motorway at 80mph, or doing 70 on one of those lovely long stretches of straight and gently curving roads in the NW highlands.

 

[Resolution]

Had that experience been sufficient, the incident would not have happened, so there is something to. be learnt.

I don't think that infinite experience can ever rule out an occasional accident, not while a human is involved. None of us are infallible.:encouragement:

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I don't think that infinite experience can ever rule out an occasional accident, not while a human is involved. None of us are infallible.:encouragement:

Exactly .... an accident waiting to happen!

Speed is said to kill, thank goodness that all were alive at the end of this incident.

Unless the conditions are 'sterile' and 'safe to the greatest degree possible, why take risks with the lack of training and preparedness of those onboard?

S.

 

[NormanS]

One of the details that I just don't understand, is the claim that the seatbelts/safety harnesses were not used because the passengers had not been instructed in their use. How complicated is it to use a safety harness?

Come to think of it, I don't remember being instructed how to use my car seat belts. Does that mean that if the police stop me, in the extremely unlikely possibility of my not wearing my seat belt, I can say, "Well, I would have worn it, but I have not been instructed in its correct usage".

Any properly designed safety harness should be simple and intuitive in its use, and if the ones on the boat were not, then why not?

 

[Triassic]

The way I understood it is the risk is one of being strapped in upside down, underwater and in the dark. This is a situation in which someone not trained or experienced in how to get out of may be at more risk of drowning than if they hadn't been strapped in. Obviously in a race boat taking part in a race the straps are not just there for the event of a crash, they are necessary to actually keep you in your seat. The production boats do not appear to even be fitted with belts so clearly they are not essential for the safe operation within their intended parameters.

 

[NormanS]

The way I understood it is the risk is one of being strapped in upside down, underwater and in the dark. This is a situation in which someone not trained or experienced in how to get out of may be at more risk of drowning than if they hadn't been strapped in.

And that is different from car seat belts in what respect?