You asked how many times I’d collided with a yacht not showing shapes.
What a load of old bunny. Sorry. Not being bothered to comply with a simple rule is sheer laziness. So many people think they just don't have to bother with aspects of IRPCS as though they are somehow far too self important.
I think they are actually quite visible - they contrast/silloutte well
But that’s not the argument that is actually happening - people are justifying their own ambivalence by saying a lot of the time they don’t add to safety rather than saying perhaps if we all did it all of the time then people who otherwise never bother might just get in the habit too for the odd occasions it does matter!
In your analogy John and Mark are approaching traffic lights. Mark sees the lights change to red but chances it, whilst John sees green which he knows means proceed of safe to do so, he goes anyway, the collide. Mark’s insurer will usually pay out, he’ll lose his no claims bonus and pay higher premiums, and John will be smug despite having proceeded when it was not safe to do so. It’s an analogy that doesn’t translate well to anchoring.
Do you ever put up an anchoring day shape? Or do you always not bother (or haven’t got one?)
Correct - you could say parking lights, but that is obviously not a daylight thing. Perhaps rule 239 that says not to park facing the wrong direction for traffic (which presumably is to help other mororists quickly understand your car is parked?). But that in daylight is only a should not a must. Car insurance is also different in that it is legally required by both parties, and if a party is uninsured there is still a mechanism for compensation.
But who would pay out? Would they make a fuss / make you jump through hoops / say you contributed so your excess is lost and premiums go up?
The problem with your demand for proof is it ignores the reality - if the other party refuses to pay it’s likely your own insurer still will (assuming you have comprehensive coverage). If the other party claims contributory negligence it delays your claim even if you ultimately win. And then there’s still the question of your excess and premiums even if only a small portion of blame was yours.
You know that can’t happen because none of us have access to the claims rejection files of the insurance industry. You’re also completely missing the point. It might be that claims aren’t always rejected by insurance companies if there was a collision with a yacht that wasn’t showing correct day shapes. But the insurance company might reduce their payout in the grounds that failing to display shapes contributed to the accident. I don’t need to supply numbers or accounts of incidents. Anyone with any experience of making a claim against their insurance will know that insurance companies do everything in their power to minimise their losses. They’ll use any excuse to reduce the payout and not displaying an anchor ball is an open goal for them as far as I’m concerned.
Really??
Lets all fervently hope that ‘crash for cash’ is a long, long way away in the yachting world. Even in the aspects of our hobby where limits are pushed, you will, and do, get a DSQ for deliberately causing a collision, right of way or not.
Just out of curiosity, how many of the average jet skiers would know the significance of the anchor ball if they saw it?
A bit late, but it was sunny for me yesterday, and a pint of beer outside in the sun was very pleasant !
Ostrich springs to mind, these scams are for money if there is an opportunity they will test it, it's the world we live in today.
There's living in hope, and putting a ball up, I'd put a ball up,