Select to expand quoteRichardG said..forceten said..
In the right of way...rules...a vessel, is a sailboard or paddle board actually considered a vessel ?.......
In Western Australia it is clear that a vessel includes a windsurfer and it seems a paddle board. Clearly a paddle board is not a sailing vessel however whereas a sailing vessel includes as I read the definitions a windsurfer. What are the rules in your state/jurisdiction ? Where is that ?
Rule 3 - General definitions
For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires: -
(a) The word "vessel" includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
(b) The term "power driven vessel" means any vessel propelled by machinery.
(c) The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.
(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict the manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.
(e) The word "seaplane" includes any aircraft designed to manoeuvre on the water.
(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
(h) The term "vessel constrained by her draught" means a power driven vessel which because of her draught in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.
(i) The word "underway" means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.
(j) The words "length" and "breadth" of a vessel means her length overall and greatest breadth.
(k) Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other.
(l) The term "restricted visibility" means any condition in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes.
(m) The term WIG craft means a multimodal craft which, in its main operational mode, flies in close operational proximity to the surface by utilising surface effect action.
[Rule 3 amended: Gazette 27 May 2005 p. 2296.]
USA, each state may have Marine laws , guidelines ,right of way, the same as each state have motor vechile laws, most are the same generally speaking, that's vechiles laws.
I would say a sailboard would be considered a vessel in the USA, in some states I would not want to test that .
www.windvisions.com/USCGdefinition.html
can someone devise a small waterproof LED beacon (like a nav light) to clamp to the top of your mast giving off say, 3 bright orange flashes in series every 4 secs ? a colour that is easily discernible in bright sunlight. Just like a life jacket or handheld beacon or emergency strobe light With 180 degree angle at the front of the mast, provides at least some extra visibility and the technology is already there, just needs to cut to suit and shouldn't affect the sailing
^^Top idea I reckon.
The new LED stuff for bikes is easily seen in daylight so I reckon that could be a winner
Select to expand quotewa881 said..
can someone devise a small waterproof LED beacon (like a nav light) to clamp to the top of your mast giving off say, 3 bright orange flashes in series every 4 secs ? a colour that is easily discernible in bright sunlight. Just like a life jacket or handheld beacon or emergency strobe light With 180 degree angle at the front of the mast, provides at least some extra visibility and the technology is already there, just needs to cut to suit and shouldn't affect the sailing
Already out there and I use it for my night windsurfing trips. Not sure it would be seen in daylight
Slowing the powerboats down on the whole river during weekend and public holidays surely would make a difference? Or maybe from midday to dawn so if they must travel at high speed they can do so in the morning. Also make this season specific say aligned with Yacht club seasons. This would also give other sailing craft a break from the wakes.
regarding Pelican Point I have been sailing there a long time and generally gybe inside the Nedlands spit post of on short board as I have always been concerned about falling off in the channel and having to water start hoping the powerboats have seen me. If I'm on Wally LT I tend to tack to avoid the area just beyond the spit post as well as this is relatively narrow for powerboats. However after looking at the charts I see the big powerboats go on the other side of outer dolphin whereas smaller go in between outer and Nedlands spits then around inner dolphin. Why not make all powerboats round outer dolphin and remove Nedlands spit post (keep inner dolphin) giving us more room at end of spit. It would save the confusion for powerboats as I have seen them cross the spit in shallow water at high speed inside Nedlands spit where until recently I always thought I was safe
I totally agree with most of the comments.yes we are a solo water user when we are sailing on the river .its made me think l should be more careful & watch what vessels are heading in our direction.l have even brought a high vis rashie,it all helps.lm sorry to hear about Petes & Neils accident,collisions can happen so quickly.
I just finished doing a non compulsory 45 minute video interview with two officers from the Department of Transport.
The 22.5 degree rule applies in the Swan River. A collision from zero up to 22.5 degrees - then the accident is the sailing vessels fault.
That angle is like close to parallel - so if a sailing vessel like a windsurfer is overtaking a power boat and a collision results - it is the windsurfers fault.
Any greater angle and it is the power boats fault. I had this confirmed to me by the investigator.
Looking at the pics of the right side wall of my board the initial damage is clearly consistent with an impact of 80-90 degrees.
I will post a pic in the next week.
As far as improving safety in this stretch of water is concerned - i do not believe anything tangible will be done.
Problem is not much can be done short of banning windsurfers from the area and this is not an option that is going to be considered and fair enough.
Some type of publicity campaign is likely to be done to increase awareness of sailing vessels travelling 90 degrees to power boats.
Unlikely in my opinion to have any impact on reducing these types of accidents - just my opinion.
Perhaps a sharp audible device that can be heard from a minimum distance of 100 metres away from the power boat is the best solution.
Some will complain about the noise and the cost.
Good to see you posting Pete, there is a video on the 22.5 deg that explains how they calculate starting at the 3min mark. Is this how DOT calculates the angle?
Good video Boz. The overtaking rule is set out in WA law consistent with the COLREGs:
"Section II - Conduct of vessels in sight of one another
Rule 11 - Application
Rules in this Section apply to vessels in sight of one another.
........................
Rule 13 - Overtaking
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.
(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.
(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear. "
The overtaking vessel must keep clear. This also applies when a sailing vessel or windsurfer is overtaking a power boat. I believe the video accurately states the above law in WA including the method prescribed by law for calculation of angles. It appears petermac33 contends he was not overtaking within the meaning of Rule 13 and hence if he is correct then it is the power boat skipper's fault.
Select to expand quotehardie said..
Great Discussion.
The issues are around what we can control and what we can't.
What stands out for me, is our Blind Spot/s. That's our big vulnerability.
We've got such a large wise, and clever community, this is our challenge.
WE need a Blind Spot Solution , c'morrn you great minds, get cracking
If we can resolve this, we give ourselves much more control over avoiding collisions.
I agree with hardie, my near death experiences both happened when I was missed by less than a meter by people bearing away doing over 30 knots speed runs. I didn't see them coming from behind and they did not see me behind their sail until I crossed their path in front of them.
So I also would add looking back and not just behind the sail if you want to stay safe.
Select to expand quotepowersloshin said..hardie said..
Great Discussion.
The issues are around what we can control and what we can't.
What stands out for me, is our Blind Spot/s. That's our big vulnerability.
We've got such a large wise, and clever community, this is our challenge.
WE need a Blind Spot Solution , c'morrn you great minds, get cracking
If we can resolve this, we give ourselves much more control over avoiding collisions.
I agree with hardie, my near death experiences both happened when I was missed by less than a meter by people bearing away doing over 30 knots speed runs. I didn't see them coming from behind and they did not see me behind their sail until I crossed their path in front of them.
So I also would add looking back and not just behind the sail if you want to stay safe.
You have to be vigilant and always aware of what is around you. You could have a ferry bearing down on you one minute (you have to give way) and on the other have to avoid a foiling moth on starboard which comes up very fast and silently. You will need to avoid a speedboat or be taken out by a speedboat from aft or behind which doesn't see you because of the sun. It is dangerous out there, particularly on the Swan River, as I have observed from sailing my Windsurfer LT in congested weekend sailing conditions, so always be aware of what is around you. It is easy to say but more difficult in practice.
And also with the foils being so quiet and doing crazy angles upwind it is easy to miss them
Select to expand quoteRichardG said..
You have to be vigilant and always aware of what is around you. You could have a ferry bearing down on you one minute (you have to give way) and on the other have to avoid a foiling moth on starboard which comes up very fast and silently. You will need to avoid a speedboat or be taken out by a speedboat from aft or behind which doesn't see you because of the sun. It is dangerous out there, particularly on the Swan River, as I have observed from sailing my Windsurfer LT in congested weekend sailing conditions, so always be aware of what is around you. It is easy to say but more difficult in practice.
Let's say I'm watching a speedboat and planning to cross behind it - but the "helmsman" doesn't see me and changes direction towards me at the last second while doing 30 knots, then what?
The major responsibility to avoid collisions must surely be with the boat owner?
They can do all the damage.
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..RichardG said..
You have to be vigilant and always aware of what is around you. You could have a ferry bearing down on you one minute (you have to give way) and on the other have to avoid a foiling moth on starboard which comes up very fast and silently. You will need to avoid a speedboat or be taken out by a speedboat from aft or behind which doesn't see you because of the sun. It is dangerous out there, particularly on the Swan River, as I have observed from sailing my Windsurfer LT in congested weekend sailing conditions, so always be aware of what is around you. It is easy to say but more difficult in practice.
Let's say I'm watching a speedboat and planning to cross behind it - but the "helmsman" doesn't see me and changes direction towards me at the last second while doing 30 knots, then what?
The major responsibility to avoid collisions must surely be with the boat owner?
They can do all the damage.
Yes true but can you avoid the collision and are you travelling at a safe speed ? Assuming you are and have done all you can, let me say this: the law is one thing but I would suggest regardless of fault you avoid a collision at all costs. I think the speed boat skipper will be at fault, save for certain exceptions enshrined in the law but not applicable to your example since you are not overtaking, but I would not want to end up in hospital critically injured, lose a limb like the guy (Adrian Bull) in 1988 on the Swan, be injured like PM33 or Neil or die like Kirsty MacColl. As you indicate, the windsurfer will usually be at the most risk of injury or death in a collision.
When I'm sailing along at 25 plus knots I'm mostly looking in front at the chop and swell.
I can see in my peripheral vision to the windward side of me any risk of a collision with a boat.
To look through my sail say every 5-10 seconds for a small boat that is travelling around 90 degrees to me and who's owner is potentially not paying attention to windsurfers is just going to lead to more not less accidents I would have thought.
The margins are quite small especially at Pelican Pt where the chop and swell are sizeable.
As I said in a previous post I'm not sure anything can really be done in this congested area of water.
2.5 million people in a body of water that once was used by one million is always going to result in a significant
increase in risk to windsurfers and other lightweight sailing vessels.
Simple answer is to sail at the beach or at Lucky Bay.
As for my recovery - took my leg brace off last night so I could have a better sleep and slept better.
Tried to walk with the walker to the shower in the morning without the brace and my knee started to hurt so had to put the brace set at 120 degrees back on to have a shower!
Can only hop in the two wheel walker. When I try to put pressure on the injured leg I only apply 20 percent max pressure and hop the rest. Seems to be my injured knee and not the broken fema that is the problem. 9 weeks and I see no improvement in mobility though I can move it around much better whilst on a chair or in bed. When I straighten my leg I am unable to lift it at all as the fusion between the ligaments,tendons and kneecap is only at a early stage.
I am guessing 6 months before I can walk without the aid of a walker or crutches.
Two of the four surgeons reckon I can make a full recovery,other two saying 80 percent.
One mentioned i will need 12 months before I can run.
I am healing but there's a very long way to go. Was hoping to get back on the water by October 1st but that is looking increasingly unlikely. January 1st and I'll be delighted.
Hopefully Neil's recovery time will be a lot faster than mine as the knee seems to be the bad one by far.
From playing various sports every day to a couch potato for a year my muscles are going to disappear 
That said,both accidents could have been so much worse,so I guess we should both count our lucky stars.
The rules are important, in particular they determine what we do when we become aware of a potential interaction on the water with another vessel. It's also very important to be early and decisive in your course change to avoid collision.
Even this does not always work, so like a cyclist or motorcyclist, a sailboarder has to sail defensively, because in a collision, it doesn't matter if we have right of way, we have the potential to die or be seriously injured, while the boat owner might have a scratch on his gel coat.
We are relatively lucky on Moreton Bay. It's easy to avoid busy navigation channels. The Broadwater on the Gold Coast is another story. It like Pelican Point has had its share of collisions and serious injury. I avoid the Broadwater on the weekend, when powered craft are most numerous and unpredictable.
Are there safer alternatives to Pelican Point.
One should look at the definition of an Accident ( - law : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought )
- and an Incident . ( https://ipmconsult.com.au/inspiring/ipm-blog/work-health-and-safety/accidents-vs-incidents-do-you-know-the-difference/ )
The common phrase in my workplace prior to retiring was " there is no such thing as Accident's they are avoidable Incidents "
Google " definition of an incident whs" and if nothing to do have a read of the WHS Act.
The two events in WA in my view were "Incidents". Were they avoidable - Yes. How do you prevent this happening in the future is debatable.
Everyone has a duty of care. Do not rely on others to do "the right thing".
So look after your own safety first then others.
Best wishes and a speedy recovery to the two injured sailors.
Have been following this thread keenly. Thought id share my close call from late yesterday here at GB. Fanging along on a gloomy late afternoon. Western Sun occasionally spearing thru the heavy cloud cover.. Im the only craft on the water. Or so i thought. Visibility quite bad as its only 30min until dark. Big gust nearly catapulted me. Back foot out of the strap. As im trying to recover at 20kts n get my back foot back in i glance forward to my horror a 55ft launch was dead infront of me only 15m away. It was cruising at around 10kts. I was heading for a collision midships of the launch. Had to ditch to windward immediately. I ended up about 3m from the launch as she slid by. Close call... Almost a big one. Really reminded me of just how POOR visibility can be. Didnt even see the launch thru the sail window!! Close to sunset on a gloomy afternoon. Hmm.. note to self,
KEEP A VIGILANT LOOKOUT.
AS I've said here before, assume nothing about the behaviour of boat owners.
I was coming back on my 10m power boat from Rotto about 5 on Sunday to Perth Flying Squadron, opposite Melville Water. I'm doing 23 knots but I'm keeping a good eye out. Behind me, a 50 foot luxury cruiser cranks it right up and I have to speed up even more to get ahead of her into the club. At the same time, I notice a kayaker paddling downriver in the boat channel about 60m away towards Melville Water. So here's a kayak sitting 1 foot above the water and the guys wearing dark clothing in the middle of one of the busiest parts of the river in a no speed limit zone 
Now that is a really bad accident waiting to happen....But I saw him early because I was looking hard. A windsurfer is of course far more obvious, but Neil and Pete's accidents attest to the fact that there are boat owners who don't look hard enough.
Now when I sail, I am rubbernecking all the time. A bit like sailing out the back at Exmouth really 
Never heard of this before.
Without knowing the details of the accident it is hard to comment.
There is no mention in the article to the speed the motor boat was travelling at the time of the accident.
Also coaching three other windsurfers whilst simultaneously piloting a moving motor boat is probably not a good idea from a safety standpoint.
Donating 500K was a nice gesture by Yachting N.Z but obviously looking at the extent of her injuries it is a drop in the ocean to her.
Claiming the court case has the power to sink Yachting N.Z is irrelevant. Having insurance cover up to only 500 thousand dollars is their fault not the fault of the woman sailor.
The article also comes across as it is Yachting N.Z and Kendall who are the real victims which I dislike considering the extreme severity of the injuries suffered by the woman.
From the article....
Kendall who became a father for the first time two weeks ago said the prolonged legal battle has been "pretty horrible" and he'd felt like his "life has been on hold".
"It's been going so long now I struggle to believe it's over," he said. Kendall said he has wanted to help Birkenfeld from the start but her legal proceedings against him made that impossible.
Yachting NZ chief executive Des Brennan said Birkenfeld's case had the potential to sink his organisation, and he's "very pleased and relieved it's come to an end".
His organisation wasn't "obliged" to compensate Birkenfeld but put money aside for her in 2007 in the hope it would "bring to an end" the costly proceedings.
Brennan said the case had consumed much of his time. For the last four and a half years he said he'd spent several hours a week working on it.
The Supreme Court decision left him with "mixed feelings".
"There is part of me that is deeply regretful that this has happened because nobody should have to suffer the loss of opportunity that she has suffered ... someone has a great measure of sympathy for someone so talented should suffer in this way," he said.
But he said that had been "tempered" by the fact she had been a "serious adversary to both Yachting NZ and Bruce".
Brennan said since Birkenfeld's accident, Yachting NZ now takes out between $5 million to $10 million insurance to ensure they will be covered for any eventuality.
That is such a sad story. To think that could so easily be Neil or myself is so scary! Stay safe on the water everyone and be every bit as safety conscious as when driving on the road if not more so.
The near complete lack of damage to her board is a strong indicator that if she did sail in to the boat it was from close to a parallel angle.
Looking at the pic from the below link - how she sustained such a severe injury to the back of her head is hard to explain.
www.kimberly2004.com
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
That is such a sad story. To think that could so easily be Neil or myself is so scary! Stay safe on the water everyone and be every bit as safety conscious as when driving on the road if not more so.
The near complete lack of damage to her board is a strong indicator that if she did sail in to the boat it was from close to a parallel angle.
Looking at the pic from the below link - how she sustained such a severe injury to the back of her head is hard to explain.
www.kimberly2004.com
It was a rib with round inflatable sides
speedy recovery mate
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Never heard of this before.
Without knowing the details of the accident it is hard to comment.
There is no mention in the article to the speed the motor boat was travelling at the time of the accident.
Also coaching three other windsurfers whilst simultaneously piloting a moving motor boat is probably not a good idea from a safety standpoint.
Donating 500K was a nice gesture by Yachting N.Z but obviously looking at the extent of her injuries it is a drop in the ocean to her.
Claiming the court case has the power to sink Yachting N.Z is irrelevant. Having insurance cover up to only 500 thousand dollars is their fault not the fault of the woman sailor.
The article also comes across as it is Yachting N.Z and Kendall who are the real victims which I dislike considering the extreme severity of the injuries suffered by the woman.
From the article....
Kendall who became a father for the first time two weeks ago said the prolonged legal battle has been "pretty horrible" and he'd felt like his "life has been on hold".
"It's been going so long now I struggle to believe it's over," he said. Kendall said he has wanted to help Birkenfeld from the start but her legal proceedings against him made that impossible.
Yachting NZ chief executive Des Brennan said Birkenfeld's case had the potential to sink his organisation, and he's "very pleased and relieved it's come to an end".
His organisation wasn't "obliged" to compensate Birkenfeld but put money aside for her in 2007 in the hope it would "bring to an end" the costly proceedings.
Brennan said the case had consumed much of his time. For the last four and a half years he said he'd spent several hours a week working on it.
The Supreme Court decision left him with "mixed feelings".
"There is part of me that is deeply regretful that this has happened because nobody should have to suffer the loss of opportunity that she has suffered ... someone has a great measure of sympathy for someone so talented should suffer in this way," he said.
But he said that had been "tempered" by the fact she had been a "serious adversary to both Yachting NZ and Bruce".
Brennan said since Birkenfeld's accident, Yachting NZ now takes out between $5 million to $10 million insurance to ensure they will be covered for any eventuality.
I've read a lot of what Birkenfeld has to say, and also read the judgment of the NZ court. Basically, Birkenfeld says that all the other witnesses were wrong, that the Greek police are wrong, that US Sailing is wrong, that Yachting NZ is wrong, the US Olympic Commission is wrong, her lawyers were wrong, that the NZ courts are wrong, that the entire NZ legal system is flawed. She also, by the way, says that EVERY media story written about the incident is wrong.
Birkenfeld appears to believe, in contrast, that she is 100% correct in every one of her deductions, conclusions, and even that she knows more about NZ law than NZ's judges. Birkenfeld lost in court; she lost in the Court of Appeal; she lost in her application to go to the NZ Supreme Court.
To just to give one example of the way this action has gone; Birkenfeld demanded a copy of the transcript of the action she lost in the NZ Court of Appeal. The NZ Supreme Court said OK, because she does not have a lawyer we will make sure she gets a copy of the transcript. Birkenfeld was unable to find anything in the transcript that showed that she had reason to complain about the Court of Appeal action she lost.
She then appealed to the NZ Supreme Court because she hadn't been given a copy of the transcript at the end of the Court of Appeal action, even though that's not the way things are usually done, and even though the transcript showed nothing wrong about the Court of Appeal action. Birkenfeld then also appealed on the grounds that the transcript she got was not a certified copy. There was no reason the transcript NEEDED to be certified, and no allegation that it had somehow been altered or was misleading; she basically just alleged that because the Registrar or someone had not signed the transcript she got then somehow the whole NZ legal system was wrong, Kendall was wrong, and the other witnesses were wrong.
In that situation, calling her "a serious adversary" is pretty generous.
If I was her I'd take the 700K.
If that is the real pic of her board in the link,the damage is very minor to the middle side wall section.
Had he ran over her the damage to the side of her board would surely be greater. The testimonials are also inconsistent with the minor damage to her board.
The boat was only travelling at a claimed 9 knots and she was going fast according to Kendall.
With a difference in speed of around 10 knots you would only have to glance the boat with your upper body to sustain serious injuries.
Boats unlike boards have zero give and they weigh a lot more which is also a big factor.
Let this be a warning to all windsurfers out there - hit a boat, even a minor glancing blow and likely you will be critically injured.
Whatever happened it is such a sad story and I do feel for her.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
That is such a sad story. To think that could so easily be Neil or myself is so scary! Stay safe on the water everyone and be every bit as safety conscious as when driving on the road if not more so.
The near complete lack of damage to her board is a strong indicator that if she did sail in to the boat it was from close to a parallel angle.
Looking at the pic from the below link - how she sustained such a severe injury to the back of her head is hard to explain.
www.kimberly2004.com
Yes, it wouldn't be hard to be hurt like that if one catapulted at 20+ knots into the engine cover or the rib console. Like you, I think that the very minor damage indicates that she wasn't driven over when stopped, as she claims - she has no memory of the time surrounding the incident.
I don't know Bruce Kendall that well, but he never struck me as the sort of person who would lie, time after time after time.
I don't know the other witnesses at all, but very few people lie when giving evidence. One of the witnesses was 19 years old and a German. She would therefore almost certainly have not been under pressure from Kendall or Yachting NZ. It's very hard to see why a 19 year old windsurfer sailors would blatantly lie about such a serious matter.
I've worked in investigations for decades. Most people are very scared of perjury. Many of them make mistakes in their testimony because the human memory is not very reliable - but to straight-out lie when one's evidence is critical in a serious case like that is very rare.
It looks like just a terrible accident caused by poor lookout.
Their testimony is similar to that of the Bruce Kendall.....
New Zealand windsurfer James Wells and German Julia Conrad, 19, who was a passenger on Kendall's boat, said in their statements that the sailboard hit the rear left of the motorboat.
"Out of the corner of my eye I saw a shadow coming towards me at high speed, at the left side of my craft," Kendall told Greek investigators at the time."I immediately made a manoeuvre to avoid it but the speed of the windsurf board was so high that it hit the back left side of my craft."
My fault as i understood hit to mean a more or less square contact but the minor damage to the side of her board indicates to me anyway the collision was very much a glancing blow from close to a parallel angle.
After reading about her injuries and looking at the minor damage to her board i am now in greater fear of boats out there. You hit another boat with your body whilst windsurfing there is little hope of escaping serious injury.
What her board looks like is irrelevant. If your head falls unrestrained from 6ft high onto concrete you're dead. Look at one punch style deaths at the front of nightclubs.
So: if she is doing even less than 20kn and catapaults, and the first thing to hit is head vs any solid part of the boat...... its a serious injury.
Why do people have to try and pick it apart ???
Fact is all the evidence disagreed with her - lots of evidence from lots of people.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
What her board looks like is irrelevant. If your head falls unrestrained from 6ft high onto concrete you're dead. Look at one punch style deaths at the front of nightclubs.
So: if she is doing even less than 20kn and catapaults, and the first thing to hit is head vs any solid part of the boat...... its a serious injury.
Why do people have to try and pick it apart ???
Fact is all the evidence disagreed with her - lots of evidence from lots of people.
Just to make it clear, I wasn't "picking it apart" but merely saying, like you, that all the evidence disagreed with her.
