Mission Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Thats bad, Is there no web cams in the docks Yep - not working though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckett Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Funny watching it move up the news agenda - hours later - it's third headline on BBC News website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 the incident is far from over - approx 80 people could lose their vehicles. That is news, to me. In other news today, man gets annoyed because news he already knows is not reported. Boo Hoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Just wondering...... who will be the first to provide us with some pics of the damage done?It must have been a scary moment for all on board especially when told to put their life jackets on. my mum was on the boat and she said there were a lot of very worried people when it happened and they were then told to put thier lifejackets on. She is still pretty shaken now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 There's a second pic on the BBC website now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Standby to repel flamers, Mr Christian... Seems to me that we don't really need to wait for an expert accident investigation. Two ships, loaded down with the latest navigation and positional/collision avoidance kit, travelling at low speed in bad visibility (therefore one would assume heightened lookout and monitoring by both crews) operating in a busy controlled sea lane, in touch with the port authorities on radio, collide - and one almost sinks with hundreds of passengers on board. Technical term = SNAFU. Heads must roll for allowing this to happen. Even IF one of the parties did something unexpected or unauthorised, the other captain should have been able to take avoiding action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggle Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 It's made the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020300485.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Ten Posted February 3, 2007 Author Share Posted February 3, 2007 There's a second pic on the BBC website now Quite a sad sight really Last Ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I wonder how many dogs were in the cars and if they got them off ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 - approx 80 people could lose their vehicles. That is news, to me. I wonder if all of them will be covered by insurance? According to the SP's T&C's "Passengers are advised to ensure that they, their vehicles and luggage are insured when on the vessel or ashore. The Company does not accept liability for damage to or loss of passengers vehicle or luggage." and how such an 'accident' fits with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 - approx 80 people could lose their vehicles. That is news, to me. I wonder if all of them will be covered by insurance? According to the SP's T&C's "Passengers are advised to ensure that they, their vehicles and luggage are insured when on the vessel or ashore. The Company does not accept liability for damage to or loss of passengers vehicle or luggage." and how such an 'accident' fits with this. Even though the Racket advertises this it's the law of the country where the vessel (loose description I know) is registered which covers this sort of thing? So if the captain was found to be negligent the Racket could be taken to court? Any laywers / long tails out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 - approx 80 people could lose their vehicles. That is news, to me. I wonder if all of them will be covered by insurance? According to the SP's T&C's "Passengers are advised to ensure that they, their vehicles and luggage are insured when on the vessel or ashore. The Company does not accept liability for damage to or loss of passengers vehicle or luggage." and how such an 'accident' fits with this. Imagine it depends on who (if anybody) is found liable for the collision. I doubt a complete exclusion of liability by the Steam Packet would be allowed to stand. What are you paying them for if not transporting you, your car and you stuff safely from A to B? In the UK at least (and I guess the IoM too) there are laws regarding unfair contract terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 - approx 80 people could lose their vehicles. That is news, to me. I wonder if all of them will be covered by insurance? According to the SP's T&C's "Passengers are advised to ensure that they, their vehicles and luggage are insured when on the vessel or ashore. The Company does not accept liability for damage to or loss of passengers vehicle or luggage." and how such an 'accident' fits with this. Imagine it depends on who (if anybody) is found liable for the collision. I doubt a complete exclusion of liability by the Steam Packet would be allowed to stand. What are you paying them for if not transporting you, your car and you stuff safely from A to B? In the UK at least (and I guess the IoM too) there are laws regarding unfair contract terms. I thought there was a limitation - under the 'Athens convention'. Doesn't this limit the company's liability for each passengers luggage and vehicles to around £8K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholmondley-Warner Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Transport of passengers and their belongings whilst at sea is governed by the "Athens Convention" in the same way that air travels is governed by the "Warsaw Convention" information can be found here: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.a...&doc_id=663 I am not a lawyer and there may be variations in individual companies conditions. On reading the T&C's some of you may cry "unfair" but you can be assured that these conditions will have been well tried and tested in courts of law. When purchasing a ticket you automatically agree to the T&C's and are bound by contract. My advice would be that anyone who has suffered damage to a vehicle should advise their own insurer, if the vehicle is covered comprehensively then their Insurer should subjugate the claim to the Carrier, likewise household goods or personal effects may be covered by the householders policy whilst they are in transit and anyone with travel insurance will be covered for loss of personal effects ( there will be limitations ) The key word as with most liability disputes - Negligence" - if there is found to be neglect on behalf of any of the personnel or companies involved then almost certainly Insurers will have no choice but to settle claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issues99 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 so is it going to sink or have they stopped it from taking in water? the news does not mention that it may sink so i presume it is not going to. To someone like me who does not have marine knowledge that pictures makes me think its not looking like it will stay afloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.