lowering of standards

[Rivers & creeks]

We use one of these puppies at anchor or on a mooring buoy. It's two main benefits are that it twinkles with the slightest movement and it illuminates the superstructure making us much more visible than a masthead light up there with the stars. It uses about an amp a year.

 

[sailorman]

We use one of these puppies at anchor or on a mooring buoy. It's two main benefits are that it twinkles with the slightest movement and it illuminates the superstructure making us much more visible than a masthead light up there with the stars. It uses about an amp a year.

Mast Hd light ???????

 

[Rivers & creeks]

it illuminates the superstructure making us much more visible than a masthead light up there with the stars.

The clue was in the text ninny, it's better than a masthead light

 

[sailorman]

The clue was in the text ninny, it's better than a masthead light

promise 2 do better

 

[ianfr]

We have one of those and they are brilliant. In more ways than one!

Ian

 

[davidfox]

You will have to check with your underwriters who keep such a record. The same poeple will most likely also refer you to your obligations as insured and the exclusions in your policy which will most probably read something like this:
You will not be covered for any loss damage caused by failure to exercise due diligence to manage the vessel properly or to maintain her in a seaworthy condition.
Due diligence is defined as the degree of diligence which a prudent uninsured owner could reasonably be expected to exercise in relation to the vessel.
With this in mind, I guess one could decide whether acting prudently in omitting anchor lights or anchoring ball as required by colregs.

I am quite certain, that your insurance would be negated if you made a claim following an incident when it was found that you were not showing the correct shapes or lights.

I was a share holder in a boat many years ago when one of the partners decided that in order to save money he would take the boat back to his industrial unit on a sort of industrial estate, with a fence around it and a barrier (not unlike shotley!) and park it outside so that he could work on it over the winter. he informed the insurance company of his intentions and where it was to be kept and received no adverse reaction from them.
One night some kids got on board, had a party, lit some candles and fell asleep, they awoke to the boat on fire, they all ran off except one, a girl, who phoned the fire brigade and police and owned up to it.
The vessel was a total loss, the insurance company refused to accept the claim saying that it should have been kept in a secure enclosure, as you can imagine we argued that it was as secure as anywhere else and we had no definition of what was a secure enclosure etc etc, the long and the short was that we lost £48,000.

So you can bet your life that if you get T boned whilst not showing the correct lights or shapes you will be wearing it! and also the damage to the other boat.

 

[pyrojames]

Which insurance company? If persued they should have had a chance of a recovery against the girl/parent's libility cover.