SUE15, Thank you for filling us in on the whole story.

Well it sounds like
 

Sue's first hand account matches pretty well with what I had heard.

I will take that apology now APS.

Sue15
 

I agree with ITD... you went above and beyond... and did all you could. Be proud of that.. some people in that type of situation would not have done all that you did.

Hey, I wonder if they were in Sea Kayaks? :D

Dern pachyderm!
 

Those drawings appeared full-page in the NH Boating Handbooks of the 90s, before New Hampshire boaters' guides received their glossy covers and misleading photographs. (And printed/edited in Dallas, Texas instead of New Hampshire).

How does my question differ from this one or this one? :confused:

OTOH, I think Bear Island residents are owed an apology. :(

IMHO, based on one Winnipesaukee-kayak-cut-in-half account at an Internet speedboat site yesterday, we are still vacuuming around "the elephant in the living room".

Sue15, Thanks
 

Thank you Sue15 for sharing the information with the forum.

Would you please tell us the type of boat you were in and about how fast (or slow) you were going.

Thanks

The captain is required to maintain a proper watch regardless. He also may not display lighting that interferes with his capacity for night operations and keeping a proper watch.

While one or both kayaks violated visibility regulations, the captain is responsible that a proper watch is kept and responsible for the safety of his passengers and crew. Unlighted kayak, raft, island, shoal or cruiser, conditions that night were ideal for the captain to avoid a collision. A captain cannot pick and choose what he may collide with.

I haven't read past post 6 or so, but I'll say one thing: I smell alcohol.

The facts seems to indicate that this boat operator had no lights whats-so-ever. So the nuances of what flavor of lights he should have had are moot. Using that issue to somehow justify his actions is a weak position. It does support my opinion that everyone on the water should be required to take the safety course.

If this incident is all the boat banners have left. Maybe common sense may yet prevail. A speed limit to protect this guy would be about 5 MPH. If you make the argument that he doesn't need lights, then why does anyone?

Yes , when it comes to responsibilities "the buck stops here " on the captain . But your answer is akin to blaming the man in charge of operating a locomotive with 10 or 100 cars behind him for running over an idiot asleep on the railroad tracks. The kayakers had no right being there,were breaking many of our boating laws and only by the Grace of God are they alive .
the captain of this boat deserves a "round of applause" and not a negative word otherwise . To to do anything else or to suggest that he /she is partly at fault is simply inappropriate and insulting to the captain and simple human logic....But then, there is an entire group out there in our society that thinks that there is always someone else to blame . "hey , I have lung cancer because i smoked butts for 25 years ...i think I'll file a suit against the tobacco companies " while they have been telling everyone who will listen that smoking causes cancer..... The fault must fall on the person who acted
irresponsibly....that would be,by 99 % of the American public,the kayakers
I am very happy that no one suffered serious injury.There was injury caused that night: to the people operating and riding in the boat...they will never forget that night and I am sorry for that . they don't deserve that.....

Proper watch
 

I pretty much agree with you but, and it's a big but ( ;) ) when you're out at night w/o a light I really can't blame the power boat. That far out from shore I'd be expecting any non-fixed hazards to do their part by having some lighting. I'm not sure where the collision occured but the Moon might not have been illuminating that spot at that time. I believe it set about 3:30 that AM. Maybe more info from Sue will follow.

Take Indiana... please...
 

Whether the kayakers had the best in required lights, no lights, or dead batteries, the kayakers had the benefit of a full moon to assure visibility among boaters sharing the lake. We've seen where the absence of a full moon was used to dismiss responsibility for a previous infamous Winnipesaukee collision.

Just this year so far, we have seen a tragedy resulting with a boy from Massachusetts, adults from Vermont, and still another boy from Massachusetts making LR headlines. What happens when we read of multiples? (Which could have happened here).

We also point to the required safety course as a factor in boaters abandoning this form of recreation altogether—nationwide. That slow boaters may be all dummies doesn't relieve the rest of lake boaters of responsibility.

Even when the safety course is taken, New Hampshire has unique safety circumstances.

We've seen that even savvy forum members will try to enjoy what remains of our Winnipesaukee wilderness heritage. Our Vermont visitors weren't all that savvy, and were lucky that the collision didn't involve one of Winnipesaukee's even more formidable players.

A sensible limit like 25-MPH could forestall an even more extreme measure like Indiana's. In that state, when you put on your navigation lights, you must proceed at 10-MPH—even on the Great Lakes in that state's jurisdiction!

We don't know if the visiting kayakers could have been spared their ordeal even being rules-compliant, but how is "unlimited limits" the answer?

It's been awhile, and indications are they are not forum regulars. I have implicit trust that WeirsBeachBoater (who is a daily forum regular and provided the first, most complete, account of this collision—including apparently a witness for the speedboat) will be providing what we seek.

Nobody's banning boats, common sense isn't common, and it's not "all that's left". It's unfortunate, and even with reduced boat traffic, we could see yet what drove Indiana's legislators to such an extreme measure.

I will tell you,
 

How does my question differ from :confused:

Your question differs for one simple reason. You are trying (desperately) I might add to make this incident fit the mold you need. That way you can beat your drum about speed limits and GFBL's... Obviously you are so obsessed that you monitor other boating community websites to see what you can use against them and strike fear into the non boating public. You see, that is the goal of the pro speed limit crowd, prey on the fact that non boaters can't see that there is no speeding issue, you are holding on to the hope that you can make perception, a reality. I think that is starting to backfire, A boy can only cry wolf so many times!This proves my point, there is much more to life APS, get out and enjoy it, don't spend so much time trying to catch the evil powerboats!!! LOL

Quite Simply
 

Being out on the lake at night in a tiny craft without lights in simply dumb!

On the other hand, the captain has to watch ALL the time. I've done a lot of boating at night on the lake. It's easy to assume you the only one out there when you don't see any lights for some ways, but ultimately you are responsible.

I just had to put a motor in my truck due to catastophic oil pump failure. I had an oil pressure gauge. I've had my truck for 8 years. It ran great! Do I watch the oil pressure gauge? Not all the time, I got complacent enough to cost me.
It wasn't my fault that the enging blew, but I could have prevented it! Does everyone watch thier gauges on a regular basis? I mean every few minutes ALL the time? I didn't think so! :)

Dodge 5.2 or 5.9, by chance?

I couldn't agree more!!

I've also done a fair amount of nighttime boating. IMHO as far as moonlight goes, it depends on if it is in front of you or behind you. If the moon is in front of you, it illuminates the water quite nicely and things are pretty easy to see , mostly as silhouettes. On the other hand, if the moon is behind you, most everything in front of you seems very dark and it tends to be quite difficult to see whats out there. This person should have had some form of light for there own safety. We all have to be responsible for are own actions, and look out for our own well being!! Geeesh.

This court is dismissed...
 

What responsibility was dismissed??? We all know what you are talking about and a certain someone is in jail because of the incident. Although it may have been tried in litigation, it certainly dismissed nothing. Since you brought it up, other than the direct parties involved knowing the truth, there is still no outside proof that the boat that was hit had their lights on! Other posters recently have made comments of witnessing boats without their lights on at night. It unfortunately happens frequently.

I think that the overwhelming percentage of boaters have no problem with a 25mph night time speed limit. Its the day time limit that is not necessary.

So let me get this straight, based on some of the posts I've seen here responsibility for ones actions is directly tied to what type of boat they drive? I.E. a slow kayaker is not responsible for following the law, but the GFBL boater is responsible for not following an non-existent law?

Why couldn't I have had parents that think like that?

Liberalism at its best!
 

This is the most outrageous statement I have seen yet. The poor kayaker who was in clear violation of the law by not having the required light is not at fault, but the boat driver is? Give me a break.

You should probably read past post 6.

Case law is what you want to look at here.
 

I figured it’s been a while so I’ll “weigh” in on this one.

The ultimate cause of the accident, assuming the facts presented are accurate, was that the kayaker(s) that were struck were not showing the required lighting configuration and are therefore completely to blame for the accident.

Navigation laws are similar in the US and Canada, so without digging too deeply looking for case law on this topic I found a similar case (underway powerboat strikes an unlighted vessel at night). The case was decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I am sure anyone who wishes will be able to find other such accidents to compare it with.

So unless there is NH case law to the contrary it stands to reason the kayaker is the liable party.

Kudos to Sue15 and her crew for taking quick action preventing this from becoming much much worse. It's unfortunate that they are going to suffer emotionally because of the bonehead move of a couple of kayakers!

Airwaves

Since I frequently go out at night, I've been trying to come to grips with this one all week, and I'm not sure that the issue is quite that simple.

I'll freely admit that the kayakers were completely and totally in the wrong being out there without lights. :( I also commend the operator of the powerboat for stopping and assisting the kayakers. :)

But, had there been a fatality (God forbid that should happen to anybody on Winni ever again :eek: ), I'm not at all certain that a case couldn't have been made for "failure to keep a sharp lookout" and/or operating at too high a speed for the current conditions.

I've never come across a legal definition of keeping a sharp watch :confused: (Skip, maybe you can help out with this) but I suspect that it would involve becoming aware of dangers in time to avoid them. That did not happen in this case. :(

And, I've no idea how fast the powerboat was going, but whatever the speed was, it was inarguably too fast for the powerboat operator to see the kayak in time to respond and miss it.

The powerboat operator came within a few feet of possibly having his/her life ruined by this incident (and the kayaker's stupidity), and certainly had a horrible scare that will stay with him/her for a long time; I'm not in the least unsympathetic to him/her.

But, I suspect that there are a couple of object lessons here for the rest of us.

First, if you can't see what's around you clearly and for a goodly distance, slow down (way down, if necessary)! That applies to sun glare, fog, rain, etc. as well as darkness. Never, ever, outrun your field of vision! :eek:

Second, carry a spotlight at night and use it to "sweep the area" in front of your boat as needed to be certain that you know what's in front of you (brief scans, please; don't just leave it on!)

Silver Duck

Obviously good words to live by but not practical in every case. On a cloud covered moonless night your visibilty is near zero, you would have to stop. People have been boating at night for hundreds of years with charts to identify fixed objects and lights to mark moving objects. If everyone follows the rules, it works pretty well. It will always be more dangerous than daylight boating, but if you get in the boat you chose to take the risk.

Hi Silver Duck
We agree that had the kayaker followed the law and displayed the proper lighting configuration the accident would never have happened.

I don't know if you've ever come upon an unlighted boat at night or not, I have, and from that one experience I can tell you that anything above headway speed and you are going to have a collision! An unlighted boat at night is invisible!

As for keeping a proper lookout, that's part of the law but again, even with someone kneeling in the bow seat whose only job was to look ahead an unlighted kayak would still be invisible until the collision.

As for using a search light ahead of your boat, even it's it's brief I would strongly recommend against it for all but tricky situations. The use of a searchlight destroys everyone's night vision. When you turn it out and the world is darker than before. Wasn't there a post on another thread about someone being pulled over by the MP because he forgot he had his headlights on while leaving the Weirs? Those kinds of lights are helpful going through tough channels at night, searching for something, or someone lost overboard and maybe even docking if you aren't sure of your approach, but should not be used to sweep the area.

As I mentioned, if there is NH case law floating around to the contrary then my arguments are moot. But in the absence of NH case law then you have to look at similar accidents in other areas and lacking other circumstances, such as excessive speed or alcohol, the case really is pretty simple.

Knowing the law is a must and probably would have helped the person in the kayak, but don't you guys depend on your own commonsense to keep yourself safe? I follow the laws but don't rely on them to keep me safe. If the law says a single white light, think about it if you have boated at night, a single white light not moving very fast or at all tends to blend in with shore lights and even if legal, in my opinion, it is not enough, and I realize this kayak had no light.

Using a less reasonable example to make a point...if a car is speeding over a cross walk and as a pedestrian you are in the right, do you step out in front of the car anyway. You may be technically or legally right but you will also be technically and legally dead. I am glad these folks jumped in time.

I feel for the people in the boat that hit them, glad everyone is ok

Right?
 

They call that being "Dead Right".

All my common sense isnt gong to save you if I cant see you at night. Having appropriate lights would have increased the lead time that could have allowed all the involved operators to avoid a dangerous situation.

I try to be heads-up but no one is 100% all the time. Running a boat involves a bit of multi-tasking. If the moon would have let me see a hazard at the last second but I'm looking down at my chart-plotter at that instant, there's going to be an accident.

Highway planners use the term "conflicts" for situations like that. Where you need to be aware of more than one thing at a time and are trying to priotise. Roads are supposed to be designed so that a driver is not surpised by the conflicts built into the highways system. Nothing can protect you from the conflicts that arise from another person's actions. You just have to hope you recognise them in time to deal with them appropriatly.

With poor visibility, you don't need to stop. You would need to go slow enough to overcome any loss of night vision caused by cockpit lighting or chart plotter lighting, That speed will still get you to your destination and if it's less than 10 or 15 miles per hour, a collision's impact would be minimal on whatever is struck.

Airwaves: Kayaks without lighting after dark are always going to be wrong in a legal sense. But it's like the unanticipated night time jaywalker. When machine strikes man, it's a major burden to have to carry for life even when it's legal.

Gavia immer wrote:
First, ANY vessel on the water at night without the required lighting configuation is legally in the wrong and is a hazard to navigation!

Second, I don't understand what it is that you are saying about the emotional baggage that Sue15 and her crew will carry. Of course anyone who is involved in an accident like this, on land or on water, will carry it with them. Isn't that what I said?

Sue15 and her crew are to be commended for their actions in preventing a tragic situation.

BTW. My posts are moderated so please keep that in mind, they eventually show up as I respond, but not as the most recent posts.

What?
 

Simple fact; "The Kayaker" is a BONE-HEAD! I still think this story is a little fishy, but if true, he violated the boating regulations/law requiring PROPER lighting while navigating at night.

Don't blame the captain of the power boat

Obviously the kayaker was in the wrong if he had no light. But his being wrong does not mean the power boat was in the right, they can both be wrong, and I think they are.

This idea that you can fly along at night as long as you don't see any lights is wrong. Floating logs and drifting docks don't have lights. How often do we see damaged markers.

If conditions are such that you can't see something as big as a kayak or canoe then you need to slow down for you own safety.

I didn't see anyone mention "flying along"

Just trying to make it fit their mold.
 

PBR, You see this is the "pro" speed limits way of trying to make this incident fit into their cry for help from all the boats "flying along".

As you pointed out, there was never any mention of speed in this incident.

"Flying along" was in the second paragraph. That paragraph did not refer to the accident. It was about going fast when you can't see what is in front of you.

Many 45/25 speed limit opponents say they favor a night speed limit.

WeirsBeachBoater and Paugus Bay Resident are sniping. Looking through the posts of people they don't like in hopes of finding something they can make into an attack.

The boat had gone from Meredith Bay to Bear Island and was headed back. If it was moving it had a speed, we just don't know what that speed was.

We do know they couldn't see an obstacle in their path before it was to late. Therefore they were going TO fast.

A Meredith resident is in prison right now. He was convicted of operator inattention because he hit another boat at night.

Who is the sniper?
 

Who is picking and choosing their words to make this a speed issue? Also, why are you dragging the past into this? We are all aware of the past incident. You only pull it up to cause issues. I am the only one who will step up and call the pro-speed limit side all out as Alarmists, and on the fact that they all try and make every incident a "speed issue". Give it up. Speed isn't the issue, Education, Enforcement of current boating laws will make our lake a better place. Unfortunately we can't teach common sense or courtesy, if we could, none of us would have any gripes to write about on here.

New Hampshire must have a lot of alarmists because 78% of registered voters support a speed limit. And 74% think it will make our lakes more enjoyable. Both from an independent poll.

Education and enforcement are wonderful, but they are not making and can not make the changes we need. The speed limit will pass easily this time. Then you will one day notice that the most offensive boats and people have gone to faster waters. And most of us will say GOOD BYE!

I think you have convinced yourself.....
 

because your poll of non boaters does not mean a thing to me. Ask people the right question, and anybody can get the desired answer. For example: When people were posed the question, In this day and age with all the worry about the enviroment and global warming, Don't you think we should put a ban on DiHydrogen Monoxide... Overwhelming amounts of people said YES.. Now to those who don't know what it is H2o is another way of stating it. Now if you can convince a majority of those polled that water is bad for them. Imagine how easy it is to get 78% of those polled (by the way most have no boating experience, but they don't mention that) to agree that speed limits are a must have on the lakes.

BTW, isn't this thread hijacked enough. I will make this my last post, unless we move this discussion to appropriate thread in the speed limit forum.

yadda yadda
 

This should be taken to the speed limit forum as it brings up the old argument of paid lobbyists "educating" the non-boating population before the survey. It will be sad daywhen the bass boaters are encouraged to stay under 45 just to keep the safe yet "scary" big boats off the big lake.

these numbers are accurate:
 

34 per cent of ALL auto accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

therefore we must also know that 66 per cent of all auto accidents are caused by sober people.... Using your logic , If we all drove around drunk, there would be far fewer auto accidents ....
Anyone can make the numbers fit their situation /viewpoint.

If we stay with the facts and not go off course and begin debating what a boaters responsibilites under THESE conditions or "those conditions" ,,,not
"what if's " and "just suppose"
the Kayakers were out in the middle of the night. they had no lights on .
that is against both the laws of the state of N.H and every other state in the union [ I wonder about california ] the Kayakers were wrong ...period .

the driver of the power boat was going from point A to point B and knew his way, was driving his boat in a lawful way ...the only way for the kayaker to make himself MORE difficult to see ,would be for him to be swimming ,head under water ,using a snorkle !!!
I think anyone who cannot see why this is clear,,,crystal clear , is also in line to file a law suit against Macdonalds for making them fat ....
I apologize to the skipper and his crew for the some subtle and some not so subtle assaults on your abilities ..It is also clear, crystal clear , that these people have Dain Bramage:(