Its an unfortunate fact of life that it takes very few dickheads to give Jo Public the impression that all PWC riders are the same - irresponsible idots. It is also unfortunate that one jetski can ruin the enjoyment of a stretch of water for everyone else present on land or sea.
Having been attacked by PWC riders, and assaulted by the ear piercing racket the wrteched things make even when they are ridden 'responsibly' I have little sympathy for a rider who behaves like a biker playing chicken in front of a fully loaded artic at 60mph and comes off the worse for it.
But, pretending the rider 'doesnt understand' that people like to remain dry and unmolested is rubbish. When a PWC rider attacks another craft he knows damn well what he is doing, and can and should expect no sympathy if he gets it wrong, or the victim finds a way of retaliating.
[ QUOTE ]
However his second arguement is less robust. If it is the case that the channel was so narrow as to restrict his ability to take avoiding action then he should have been displaying the appropriate visual signal.
[/ QUOTE ] The rules relating to narrow channels don't require display of the CBD signals.
>I think it's a subject that needs an occasional airing...the better we understand each other, the more likely we are to co-exist in relative harmony.<
Oh good! Is it possible to fit them with silencers?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rules relating to narrow channels don't require display of the CBD signals.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless the vessel concerned wishes to claim that privilige in which case he should display the required signals.
A case in point - the x-channel ferries using Portsmouth Harbour.
[/ QUOTE ]
The rules don't say that, though. I hope someone with more professional knowledge will comment, but the narrow channel rules (Rule 9) make no reference to those signal. Nor do the Constrained By Draught clauses elsewhere make any reference back to Rule 9. They are detailed as two separate cases,