100mph in Southampton Water

I've seen some pretty small SMBs.
The sort that are towed aroud for the whole dive can be quite small,
But unless it's a shore dive there's normally a boat with a big A flag and gesticulating Brummies nearby?
 
Triassic said:
Actually what I see in this thread is a lot of people basing their view of what is a safe speed on a realistic view of their own ability, rather than a realistic view of the ability of the driver actually involved in the incident. He was quite experienced at those speeds, how many people on here are actually qualified to offer an informed view on what he was doing?
Click to expand...

Fair comment.
Of course the fact that he crashed suggests it was not 'safe'.
But people who do the ton accept a reduced level of safety, as do people doing loads of other risky activities.

He capsized, people got significantly hurt, but not maimed or dead. That can happen dinghy sailing. People can get injured on yachts too...
 
lw395 said:
Fair comment.
Of course the fact that he crashed suggests it was not 'safe'.
But people who do the ton accept a reduced level of safety, as do people doing loads of other risky activities.

He capsized, people got significantly hurt, but not maimed or dead. That can happen dinghy sailing. People can get injured on yachts too...
Click to expand...

I disagree that people doing a ton accept a reduced level of safety. That is patently wrong. A doddery beginner with failing eyesight and an hangover in a clapped out wreck doing 30 may be many times more dangerous than a highly competent highly tuned and alert racing driver in the latest kit.

Each may be accepting there own level of risk.

As for safe - it depends on how you define safe. If you mean with no risk then nothing is safe. Even lying in bed you might die from a gas explosion or a chunk of plane landing on you.

I would define it as being within your own acceptable parameters of risk. If you haven't triggered those - it's safe.
 
I think the major issue for me is not the risk to themselves. If they want to kill themselves i believe they have that right but they have no right to put others not involved in their stupidity at considerable risk.
Further the risk may not come from their competence but a mechanical or other unforeseen event. For example, if they have a problem at 20mph I would say there is a good chance they can recover the situation but at 100mph, no way.
It's dumb to go at such high speed in such crowded waters whatever the time of day.
 
mainsail1 said:
It's dumb to go at such high speed in such crowded waters whatever the time of day.
Click to expand...

Crowded waters? have you read the report or seen the photos therein? Not at all crowded.

The lunatics that insist on racing their (sailing) boats in the adjacent waters in the height of summer are far more of a risk to other water users.
 
mainsail1 said:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/56cc42d940f0b61507000006/MAIBInvReport2_2016.pdf
The MCA report is published. To me, the idea that anyone would think even half this speed was appropriate beggars belief.
What do you think?
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Seems hugely beyond the sensible limits for such waters - and would also appear to contravene the Harbour Bye Laws which prohibit speeds which could endanger other users, boats, buoys etc. I would lay money on this stupid action leading to a formal speed limit being introduced.
And to go out to do a test at 100mph without bothering with the helmets, doing up the seatbelts or notifying the coastguard sounds arguably close to negligence. Surprised that didn't end in court like the yacht skipper that hooked the tanker.

And those who post that we don't have the experience to take a view I would suggest (a) MAIB have this experience and (b) the outcome demonstrated that the boat/driver combination were not able to take safe avoiding action at that speed.
PS. I asume any posters on this thread, including those in the yachting trade, will note if they have connections with the parties when commenting.
 
dunedin said:
And to go out to do a test at 100mph without bothering with the helmets, doing up the seatbelts or notifying the coastguard sounds arguably close to negligence.
Click to expand...

There's a more extensive discussion on the mobo forum, particularly about harnesses and helmets. I tend to agree about the harnesses, and am ambivalent about the helmets, but what do you imagine that calling the Coastguard would have achieved?

Pete
 
Elecglitch said:
Crowded waters? have you read the report or seen the photos therein? Not at all crowded.

The lunatics that insist on racing their (sailing) boats in the adjacent waters in the height of summer are far more of a risk to other water users.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have read the report. Maybe you missed the the photo of them doing 100mph past a tanker alongside Fawley Oil Refinery. Maybe you do not realise those ships unload gas, petrol and oil day and night. A rogue wave, steering problem or driver error could easily have led to this skittish powerboat speeding into the tanker with explosive results. Dumb or what?
 
Resolution said:
I wonder how many of us on this sailing branch of the fora have ever been half that speed - ie about 45 knots - anywhere in a boat on the water?
For those who have not, how can we know what it is like?
Click to expand...

What does it matter what it feels like? The subject under discussion is whether the run was responsible or not. I would say that had they taken precautions beforehand, ie checking the course for obstructions, and having an attendant boat or two would have helped enormously. The bottom line is that the driver believed he saw a hazard and was unable to avoid it safely, regardless of his experience and skill. As someone else pointed out, he could have hit a family out for a day's sailing.
As for the speed: force varies as the square of speed whatever the form of transport. If you hit something a little faster you hit it a LOT harder.
 
Elecglitch said:
Crowded waters? have you read the report or seen the photos therein? Not at all crowded.

The lunatics that insist on racing their (sailing) boats in the adjacent waters in the height of summer are far more of a risk to other water users.
Click to expand...
But significantly less of a risk to themselves, navigation marks, surface markers and pot buoys in waters that were as you pointed out uncrowded - and more able to avoid colliding with the latter without placing crew at risk of injury. A 100mph in an area where there are known to be poorly marked pots and the like, in close proximity to large navigation marks can only be considered, and demonstrated as such, irresponsible. I am sure the helm in this accident would consider that he got it wrong and would be surprised if he were to take the same risk again...
 
Last edited:
StormNorm said:
What does it matter what it feels like? .
Click to expand...

The OP was asking for our views. I was trying in a polite way to suggest, that unless we have had some experience of driving at high speeds, our views should be taken with some caution. I have driven at 45 knots, in relatively open sea off Brighton, and I have some idea of the critical factors of visibility and controlability (sp?). ** Very different from our usual 5 to 10 knots. But I have no idea of how much further different it would be at twice the speed, so my views would be little more than well-meaning speculation. Which is precisely what most of the comments have been.

**At that speed the scary part was how far ahead you have to be looking and planning where to go. The reassuring part was how precisely one could steer on the throttles, how closely one could round the marker buoys.
 
mainsail1 said:
A rogue wave, steering problem or driver error could easily have led to this skittish powerboat speeding into the tanker with explosive results. Dumb or what?
Click to expand...

A biddy little powerboat hitting an oil tanker with explosive results? You are kidding us, surely?

"surely you realise" (your words) that these things routinely face the full fury of the oceans weather and don't suffer "explosive results"?
That's not only because they don't carry explosives in the first place, but also cos a biddy little powerboat wouldn't do more than knock a little antifoul off one whether it was full of nitroglycerine or chocolate.

The fact that this occurred at 0800 on a wednesday suggests strongly to me that the crew were indeed careful to pick a quiet time on the Solent which is a pretty huge piece of water on which to go fast safely in good vis.
 
Last edited:
Triassic said:
Actually what I see in this thread is a lot of people basing their view of what is a safe speed on a realistic view of their own ability, rather than a realistic view of the ability of the driver actually involved in the incident. He was quite experienced at those speeds, how many people on here are actually qualified to offer an informed view on what he was doing?
Click to expand...
Nigel Mansell is skilled and qualified to drive F1 cars very very fast, but that he does not practice such on a motorway is simply common sense. Such a trait was not shown by the driver that day.

I abhor fishermen poorly marking their gear, but it is a fact of life, and indeed any barely floating object could have caused a similar need for an unexpected turn.

The IRPCS have a very clear statement upon safe speed. If this vessel was travelling at a safe speed then the accident would not have occurred because of the requirement for an unexpected manoeuvre, would not have caused the vessel to spin and / or hook. As it was he hit the most busy navigational marker in Southampton Water.

As mentioned fortunate for all others that it was the buoy, and not another vessel innocently navigating in or out of the Hamble.

Bravado or stupidy, or perhaps just showing off.
 
dunedin said:
And those who post that we don't have the experience to take a view I would suggest (a) MAIB have this experience and (b) the outcome demonstrated that the boat/driver combination were not able to take safe avoiding action at that speed.
PS. I asume any posters on this thread, including those in the yachting trade, will note if they have connections with the parties when commenting.
Click to expand...

Indeed the MAIB do have the experience and expertise to offer an informed view, so it's interesting to note that nowhere in their report do they say the speed was unsafe in itself, or that they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing where they were doing it.

They do conclude that had there been a speed limit in place at the location the crash wouldn't have happened. That's fair enough, assuming the driver was minded to obey rules he would have been doing the speed somewhere else, but the "cause" of the crash was his reaction to inadequately marked fishing gear not the specific location so given it can be found pretty much all over the Solent just how far are we going to extend this speed limited area?

Their comments about keeping the Port authority informed of such events are more to do I suspect with them being aware of what is going on within their patch rather than suggesting they should have been able to prevent it happening. Indeed they acknowledge that the port authority had no power to actually stop them from doing it in the absence of some other activity that may have made it dangerous.

They have suggested the port authority seek the power to place and enforce speed limits, and to regulate the marking of fishing gear. I have no problem with that, in fact I'm surprised they haven't got it already.

They make recommendations to the operators that they should ensure safety equipment is used, but the lack of it did not cause the crash, although it contributed to the injuries sustained.

I used to drive in excess of 140mph on British motorways pretty much on a daily basis. I wonder how many people on here think that isn't "safe" either?
 
Triassic said:
Indeed the MAIB do have the experience and expertise to offer an informed view, so it's interesting to note that nowhere in their report do they say the speed was unsafe in itself, or that they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing where they were doing it.

They do conclude that had there been a speed limit in place at the location the crash wouldn't have happened. That's fair enough, assuming the driver was minded to obey rules he would have been doing the speed somewhere else, but the "cause" of the crash was his reaction to inadequately marked fishing gear not the specific location so given it can be found pretty much all over the Solent just how far are we going to extend this speed limited area?

Their comments about keeping the Port authority informed of such events are more to do I suspect with them being aware of what is going on within their patch rather than suggesting they should have been able to prevent it happening. Indeed they acknowledge that the port authority had no power to actually stop them from doing it in the absence of some other activity that may have made it dangerous.

They have suggested the port authority seek the power to place and enforce speed limits, and to regulate the marking of fishing gear. I have no problem with that, in fact I'm surprised they haven't got it already.

They make recommendations to the operators that they should ensure safety equipment is used, but the lack of it did not cause the crash, although it contributed to the injuries sustained.

I used to drive in excess of 140mph on British motorways pretty much on a daily basis. I wonder how many people on here think that isn't "safe" either?
Click to expand...

It is not safe to drive at 140mph on British motorways

Dylan (Micra driver)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top