|
Title: Guido vs. the aquabus Post by: DBWTim on April 15, 2004, 10:04:24 PM Looks like words getting around the community that our favorite Italian had a little altercation with the "owners" of the waterways of False Creek. Can he ever stay out of trouble?
Before the rumor gets out of hand... there was no ninja-like leap from the dragonboat to board the aquabus punch the driver out... It was just a battle of words where the words "Marine Law" was thrown about... I also heard there may be a complaint filed. Using the incident as an example, let's see if you know your marine law... Aquabus is heading into their dock to unload passengers. To the right of the aquabus there is a dragonboat, moving at a faster speed and starts to pull by the aquabus. Aquabus doesn't notice the dragonboat until he starts to cross the d-boat's path. Swerving out of the way last minute, driver leaves the wheel while the aquabus is still moving, to have a "friendly chat" with the steersperson of the d-boat. Who's at fault? Title: Guido vs. the aquabus Post by: zephyrantes on April 15, 2004, 11:09:03 PM considering that this is "marine law", the dragonboat is at fault because they have to respect the fact that the aquabus is a machine operated vehicle. ESPECIALLY, if the machine operated vehicle has a set path that it abides to. The dragonboat should've known this and therefore should've done whatever it could've to avoid the vehicle. Henceforth, the steersperson of the dragonboat was also negligent. HOwever, the driver of the aquabus is partially to blame for not being aware of his surroundings, considering that the dragonboat was moving faster. But in this case, it's machine over humans.
Also, in the interest of safety, I believe that in the event of even a minor collision, there would probably have been a greater chance of someone in the dragonboat being hurt than the aquabus. What if it was a yacht, or a boat that was bigger/faster than the aquabus? Section 14, subsection b of the Canada Marine Act, regarding Ports and Public Port Facilities regulation: 14. Unless otherwise authorized under these Regulations, no person shall, by act or omission, do anything or permit anything to be done in a public port or at a public port facility that has or is likely to have any of the following results: (a) to jeopardize the safety or health of persons in the public port or at the public port facility; (b) to interfere with navigation the aquabus has a set navigation route. Even if BOTH the driver and steersperson was negligent, he TECHNICALLY still had the right of way. The steersperson should've used his/her judgement as well and avoided a potential mishap.. I'm sorry, I realize that I'm going against the grain here.. but if I were a lawyer, that's what I'd argue.. Title: Guido vs. the aquabus Post by: nakano on April 16, 2004, 12:51:50 AM Quote from: zephyrantes the aquabus has a set navigation route. Oooh...going to have to borrow a line from chaos here...an aquabus with set navigation route? how do you say it..."take it with a grain of salt" :D ...I mean they may have a set destination...but I don't really see them sticking directly to a 'set' route. They pretty much go where ever they please. I have to agree though...machine power vs people power...machine wins. Why don't we just go with what ICBC :blasted: likes to do...when in doubt who is at fault...make it 50/50! :naughty: Title: Guido vs. the aquabus Post by: zephyrantes on April 16, 2004, 08:13:23 AM not to mention that those aquabus drivers probably treat their jobs as just another 9-5 job with a paycheque. Considering how mundane their job must be, the driver was probably spaced out..
|