100mph in Southampton Water

[Joker]

Apparently removal of the illegal fishing gear might legally be regarded as theft. I believe that the legal definition of theft is to remove with intent to permanently deprive. Surely one way around this would be for the harbour authority to remove the gear, and tell the fisherman that he can collect the gear from them, but if it is used again, it will be confiscated again.

 

[mainsail1]

I agree completely, if everyone continues to sail without crash hemlets on, people will continue to be hit by the boom and die.

We should all be sailing with crash helmets on. After all "you can get away with silly stuff for a long time before the inevitable accident happens"

So which is more dangerous, the accidents that are killing or injuring people every single year in the Solent, or the ones that aren't?

Which should be the priority here, the accidents that are happening, or the ones which might?

The issues are different.
You have mentioned cases where the people hurt are on the boat and are willingly involved in the activity. Of course they can wear crash helmets if they wish but the real answer is to address the problems with the boom.
The difference is that someone completely unconnected to an activity is suddenly put at risk as a powerboat goes close by at 50,60,70,80,90 or even 100 mph. Why should the powerboat have the right to act in a way that puts others not involved at risk? They don't have that right. If they want to boom around at great speed they should do it well away from others not involved.
Same as a Porche driver might go to a racetrack if he wants to boom around above the road speed limit.

 

[l'escargot]

Good summary. As someone who lost a close relation (and a bit of a hero) killed in a sailing race due in part to massive head injuries I do find the rather chippy comments from some of the sailing fraternity more than a little irritating.

I was out in the 'crowded' Southampton Water and Solent last week I think I saw about half a dozen other pleasure vessel over four hours - plus BAR Land Rover zipping about apparently using me as a turning mark - great fun and a wonderful spectacle. If you want a risk free life stay at home (it won't be risk free in fact but at least you won't worry so much).

Oh an while I'm at it Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen, now that was stupidity.

I was on the M27 the other night and it was relatively quiet. Perhaps I should have driven at 100mph without seat belts and disabled the passenger airbags.

The skipper of the Atalanta was prosecuted for endangering no-one but himself and crew, presumably you think the skipper of this powerboat, who stupidly couldn't avoid a known hazard, should have been prosecuted too - especially considering that his crew suffered significant injury...

 

[pmagowan]

you're right. we should put a stop to large, fast boats charging down the western solent, recklessly endangering other water users for a bit of fun. shame though, the round the island race and fastnet race were quite entertaining - but needs must...

I think you are missing the definition of the key word. Reducto ab absurdium tends to get nowhere.

 

[Lucky Duck]

I was on the M27 the other night and it was relatively quiet. Perhaps I should have driven at 100mph without seat belts and disabled the passenger airbags.

Perhaps a better analogy a would be doing that speed on a road where other road users could be expected to going little faster than walking speed.

 

[{151760}]

Just imagine the howls of fury if a mobo forum suggested all sailing boats should "inform the coastguard" whenever they went out! Does anyone really think a0 the CG are the least bit interested, 2) "informing" someone in a uniform prevents accidents (!!!) 3) that more bureaucratic control is required to prevent accidents?

Are we really minded to give away our freedom of the water just because one mobo had an accident?

I'm off to Tesco now. Oops! Must just call the D of T hotline to tell them.

As has been stated many times, the danger here is the high speed, strictly, the speed differential. Most sailing boats don't travel fast enough to endanger others.
Telling the coastguard will allow them to inform other boats of the proposed high-speed run. That might prevent an accident. They have the ability to broadcast this information, whether they wear a uniform or not doesn't come into it.
There is no bureaucracy other than one radio or phone call; irresponsible actions will infringe on our freedoms by prompting regulation.

 

[{151760}]

I am not sure that analysis holds much water. Otherwise you could say BASE jumping from Big Ben is safe because nobody has died yet doing it. Speed is not a problem, as such. It is the irresponsible use of speed in a public place without due care and attention that is the problem.

The bottom line is that they crashed and thus something went badly wrong. In this case it is clear that wasn't simply a random mistake or unpreventable mishap. Someone was driving a boat with insufficient care considering their speed. They took insufficient care of their passengers and had insufficient understanding of their surroundings. That buoy could have been divers, like he thought, and he was unable to safely avoid them.

If you own a boat you have a responsibility to other water users, your crew and your hobby to act in a reasonable manner. In a sailboat that could mean obeying colregs or warning crew of the boom. On a 100mph speedboat that means making sure your course is clear and that everyone on board is wearing their protective equipment. That buoy did not suddenly appear, I presume it was there all day. Everyone makes mistakes but when there is a catalogue of mistakes leading up to a crash causing serious injuries and risk to life then you must question the judgment of the skipper.

We don't need more regulation but we do need people to take responsibility for their actions and to learn from them. A failure to do so, or an attitude of protectionism does risk regulation being imposed.

+1

 

[snooks]

The difference is that someone completely unconnected to an activity is suddenly put at risk as a powerboat goes close by at 50,60,70,80,90 or even 100 mph. Why should the powerboat have the right to act in a way that puts others not involved at risk? They don't have that right.

Do you worry about slipping in the bath, crossing the road or being hit by an aeroplane involved in an air display? Or is the risk actually so small it's not really worth worrying about?

I'd say you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're on a bike. Why should car drivers have the right to act in a way that puts others not involved at risk? They don't have that right. However, the chances of something happening are so small, that it is allowed.

If this was happening on a weekly, monthly or even annual then I would support your viewpoint, but it has happened once.

More people have died from picking their nose in the last 10 years than have in an accident like this on Southampton water. :0)

 

[pmagowan]

Do you worry about slipping in the bath, crossing the road or being hit by an aeroplane involved in an air display? Or is the risk actually so small it's not really worth worrying about?

I'd say you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're on a bike. Why should car drivers have the right to act in a way that puts others not involved at risk? They don't have that right. However, the chances of something happening are so small, that it is allowed.

If this was happening on a weekly, monthly or even annual then I would support your viewpoint, but it has happened once.

More people have died from picking their nose in the last 10 years than have in an accident like this on Southampton water. :0)

I am afraid that analysis continues to be incorrect. How many people have died this year playing Russian roulette. If the number is zero that doesn't make it a good idea. You can't simply dismiss a risk because most people are not silly enough to do it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with boating in super fast boats. You simply need to take appropriate precautions to minimise the risk to yourself, your crew and other water users. It is absolutely clear that this did not happen in this case and it is also clear that that irresponsible behaviour has brought negative attention to the sport. If a sport/hobby is to be self regulating then it is vitally important to accept when someone has made errors and to learn from them. Not to do so is detrimental to the sport/hobby.

Comparisons with completely unrelated and incomparable scenarios do not help, IMO. On that day, on the water, someone was operating a boat beyond their capability to ensure the relative safety of their crew and other water users. It was irresponsible. Most days he would have got away with it and perhaps he did on many occasions. On this occasion his irresponsible behaviour was brought to our attention by what could have been a very tragic 'accident'.

 

[dylanwinter]

the statement from the boat driver is interesting in that it shows no contrition. If I had come that close to killing my own son I would have been full of remorse. There appears to be no acceptance of taking personal responsibility for what happened.

The solent is a unique place full of unique mobo steerers who manage to make the Romford Navy seem the embodiment of consideration for other water users.

 

[PhillM]

Not kept up with every post but I think the general jist is nobody wants power boat speed testing banned, just managed better.

Not informing the port authority, no LNTM, not checking the route for obstructions, not following standard race safety operating procedures, etc, made that particular run unsafe and should the same thing happen in future, could have different and worse outcomes.

iirc correctly, speed testing for bikes, cars and in the past boats have all had cleared routes, with marshals and safety people on hand. I don't think that a super bike or super car speed test could take place on the m27, so why should a speed boat have free reign to storm down Southampton water unannounced?

Oh and if I did buy myself a super car and try 200 mph on the m27 I'd expect to lose my licence.

Oh and even the Royal Navy have to announce when they are doing trials or gun practice. Imagine the fuss if they shot said powerboat up without warning!

 

[Triassic]

Comparisons with completely unrelated and incomparable scenarios do not help, IMO. On that day, on the water, someone was operating a boat beyond their capability to ensure the relative safety of their crew and other water users. It was irresponsible. Most days he would have got away with it and perhaps he did on many occasions. On this occasion his irresponsible behaviour was brought to our attention by what could have been a very tragic 'accident'.

Could someone please point me to where I can find information on these "other water users" because as far as I can make out from the report, the photographs and all the other information flying around there were no other vessels anywhere near this boat either when they carried out their high speed pass or on their subsequent return to the Hamble and the crash.

People keep making reference to "what if there had been a yacht there, a kayak there, it's a busy crowded water etc etc but the facts of the matter are that it was deserted at the time.

I would venture to suggest that had their been anyone around likely to have been endangered they wouldn't have made the pass?

I've been feeling at a bit of a disadvantage not knowing the water everybody is talking about. Today I drove down to Southampton and caught the ferry across to Cowes so I went up and down Southampton water. On the out leg there was the ferry and one yacht in the relevant area, plus the Redjet fast ferry which came past us doing whatever they do, 25 knots or thereabouts? The water was perfectly flat, the visibility excellent, and I completely see why it is so suitable for what they did with the powerboat.

On the return leg in the afternoon the place was crowded, numerous yachts going in all sorts of directions plus a fleet of dinghies engaged in what looked like a race. A completely unsuitable place for doing 100mph, in fact the Redjet which again came past us at the same speed he was doing earlier caused quite a bit of excitement for a few.....

There is a time and place for everything and I saw nothing today that leads me to think they got it wrong in that powerboat.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Comparisons with completely unrelated and incomparable scenarios do not help, IMO. On that day, on the water, someone was operating a boat beyond their capability to ensure the relative safety of their crew and other water users. It was irresponsible. Most days he would have got away with it and perhaps he did on many occasions. On this occasion his irresponsible behaviour was brought to our attention by what could have been a very tragic 'accident'.

Utter bollocks.

 

[Daydream believer]

How many accidents have there been of high-power fast motorboats hitting other vessels in this area?

Jackie S made a mess of a yacht during the Cowes - Torquay power boat race
Mind you it was circa 1970

 

[Blue Sunray]

Could someone please point me to where I can find information on these "other water users" because as far as I can make out from the report, the photographs and all the other information flying around there were no other vessels anywhere near this boat either when they carried out their high speed pass or on their subsequent return to the Hamble and the crash.

People keep making reference to "what if there had been a yacht there, a kayak there, it's a busy crowded water etc etc but the facts of the matter are that it was deserted at the time.

I would venture to suggest that had their been anyone around likely to have been endangered they wouldn't have made the pass?

I've been feeling at a bit of a disadvantage not knowing the water everybody is talking about. Today I drove down to Southampton and caught the ferry across to Cowes so I went up and down Southampton water. On the out leg there was the ferry and one yacht in the relevant area, plus the Redjet fast ferry which came past us doing whatever they do, 25 knots or thereabouts? The water was perfectly flat, the visibility excellent, and I completely see why it is so suitable for what they did with the powerboat.

On the return leg in the afternoon the place was crowded, numerous yachts going in all sorts of directions plus a fleet of dinghies engaged in what looked like a race. A completely unsuitable place for doing 100mph, in fact the Redjet which again came past us at the same speed he was doing earlier caused quite a bit of excitement for a few.....

There is a time and place for everything and I saw nothing today that leads me to think they got it wrong in that powerboat.

:encouragement:

 

[pmagowan]

Could someone please point me to where I can find information on these "other water users" because as far as I can make out from the report, the photographs and all the other information flying around there were no other vessels anywhere near this boat either when they carried out their high speed pass or on their subsequent return to the Hamble and the crash.

People keep making reference to "what if there had been a yacht there, a kayak there, it's a busy crowded water etc etc but the facts of the matter are that it was deserted at the time.

The drivers excuse for flipping the boat was that he thought he saw a diver down SMB. The fact that it was not does not take away from the fact that it COULD have been. If I drive at 150mph on the motorway it is not an excuse that it happened to be empty at the time despite the fact I didn't check it. You are making the mistake of assuming that something is absolutely fine simply because a particular consequence did not happen, through no effort of the driver. The course was NOT clear and for all he knew there could have been half a dozen divers and a swimming race on.

I would venture to suggest that had their been anyone around likely to have been endangered they wouldn't have made the pass?

How would he know. He didn't check. He thought there were divers down so he obviously hadn't checked.

I've been feeling at a bit of a disadvantage not knowing the water everybody is talking about. Today I drove down to Southampton and caught the ferry across to Cowes so I went up and down Southampton water. On the out leg there was the ferry and one yacht in the relevant area, plus the Redjet fast ferry which came past us doing whatever they do, 25 knots or thereabouts? The water was perfectly flat, the visibility excellent, and I completely see why it is so suitable for what they did with the powerboat.

It may be perfect yet he misjudged a pot buoy that obviously had been there all day and hit another marker buoy. The fact conditions were perfect actually makes it worse as he has little excuse for his errors.

On the return leg in the afternoon the place was crowded, numerous yachts going in all sorts of directions plus a fleet of dinghies engaged in what looked like a race. A completely unsuitable place for doing 100mph, in fact the Redjet which again came past us at the same speed he was doing earlier caused quite a bit of excitement for a few.....

There is a time and place for everything and I saw nothing today that leads me to think they got it wrong in that powerboat.

It may have been the time and the place but it was still irresponsible. If I drive round a race track at the time I booked it doesn't excuse the fact I don't wear a seatbelt or appropriate safety gear or that I haven't informed the local authorities that I have arrived or checked that the track is clear. Worse still to do it with others in the vehicle who haven't the experience I have.

 

[pmagowan]

Utter bollocks.

A very enlightening statement but you might like to expand on what part you disagree with giving that a crash DID occur and that people WERE hurt. That buoy didn't jump out from behind a bush. He failed to check the course was clear, it wasn't. He failed to avoid the obstacle safely. He failed to take appropriate precautions to protect himself and his crew should he happen to crash which he IN FACT did. Seems like a catalogue of failures to me.

 

[Triassic]

The drivers excuse for flipping the boat was that he thought he saw a diver down SMB. The fact that it was not does not take away from the fact that it COULD have been.

Indeed there could have been, and if you look at the photographs in the report you will see that the boat went nowhere near the marker that the driver was trying to avoid so even if there had been divers there they wouldn't have been in any danger.

Yes the driver made the mistake in thinking the marker might be associated with divers. If he had known if was just marking a lobster pot or whatever he would have carried on straight over it without any incident so if anything this supports the argument that he was very much aware of his responsibilities to other water users and was prepared to risk both his and his passengers safety to discharge it.

It's a shame people still seem intent on diverting the discussion away from the topic of the thread. Is Southampton Water a suitable place to carry out a 100mph pass in a powerboat? My view is that it is and nothing I've seen from this incident or read in either this discussion or the MAIB report suggests otherwise. What happened to this boat and crew could have happened pretty much anywhere else in the Solent, or any other coastal location for that matter. He mistook an incorrectly marked item of fishing gear for something he had to avoid and as a result rolled the boat whilst avoiding it.

Now the consequences of that roll are a completely different discussion. We've heard that the reasons they weren't using the harnesses was because two of the passengers hadn't been trained in how to remove them in the event, ironically, of a roll, however we also hear that the boat had been used fairly extensively the season before to give sponsor guests high speed joy rides so it's safe to assume I think that they weren't exactly setting a precedent here. I don't know enough about the specifics of driving a powerboat or the associated risks to comment on whether that was a reasonable action on their part, the MAIB seem to think not and have made recommendations about it.

 

[Resolution]

I vividly remember sailing in the Solent and being frightened out of my wits when a crowd of very high speed powerboats shot by in a group. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see their boat control was on a knife edge and that one day there would be a horrible accident.

Can you describe exactly what it was that you saw that showed that " their boat control was on a knife edge"?
It would be useful for me to know for another time.
Peter

 

[pmagowan]

Indeed there could have been, and if you look at the photographs in the report you will see that the boat went nowhere near the marker that the driver was trying to avoid so even if there had been divers there they wouldn't have been in any danger.

Yes the driver made the mistake in thinking the marker might be associated with divers. If he had known if was just marking a lobster pot or whatever he would have carried on straight over it without any incident so if anything this supports the argument that he was very much aware of his responsibilities to other water users and was prepared to risk both his and his passengers safety to discharge it.

It's a shame people still seem intent on diverting the discussion away from the topic of the thread. Is Southampton Water a suitable place to carry out a 100mph pass in a powerboat? My view is that it is and nothing I've seen from this incident or read in either this discussion or the MAIB report suggests otherwise. What happened to this boat and crew could have happened pretty much anywhere else in the Solent, or any other coastal location for that matter. He mistook an incorrectly marked item of fishing gear for something he had to avoid and as a result rolled the boat whilst avoiding it.

Now the consequences of that roll are a completely different discussion. We've heard that the reasons they weren't using the harnesses was because two of the passengers hadn't been trained in how to remove them in the event, ironically, of a roll, however we also hear that the boat had been used fairly extensively the season before to give sponsor guests high speed joy rides so it's safe to assume I think that they weren't exactly setting a precedent here. I don't know enough about the specifics of driving a powerboat or the associated risks to comment on whether that was a reasonable action on their part, the MAIB seem to think not and have made recommendations about it.

The driver saw an object in the water at a point where he was incapable of safely avoiding it. An object in the water is a common thing: a diver, swimmer, buoy, log, canoe etc. It doesn't matter what it was or why it was there. What matters is that the driver was traveling at a speed that did not give him sufficient time to assess and avoid it safely. This is why when you are travelling at this speed you need to make sure the course is clear. It is also why you and your crew should wear their protective equipment. I find it odd that such things seem controversial.

I don't care where they want to go fast. They can do as they please as long as they are reasonable and responsible.