You really have no clue do you? A sea kayak is the safest type of paddle boat for use on large bodies of water.

I have no fear of Winni - I'm afraid of the people who feel the need to go fast, at the expense of other boaters.

You're actually suggesting that I give up my preferred type of boating, just so you guys can continue to go as fast as you want?!!! And you complain that a speed limit would infringe on your boating rights? Give me a break!

If I wanted to sail, I would buy a sailboat! Then there's the little problem that hi-speed powerboats also run into sailboats. So how would I be any safer?

The obvious solution is to have you guys slow down, which is exactly what HB-162 is for.

Anyone who thinks that a little flag is going to keep kayakers safe from being run over should watch APS's video link: http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

How much of a chance would any kayaker have if they had been in the path of that speeding boat?

EvenStar..

Do you understand the rules of navigation? That video has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with being an complete idiot! That speeding boat that you are so afraid of being run over by is a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Boat, probably similar in layout to the one the MP have on Lake Winnipesaukee. It wasn't somebody driving a Hi-Performance boat! The helmsman at the controls of the USCG Patrol Boat was WRONG! I did not hear any siren or horn that indicated they were enroute to an emergency and thus be given the right of way. In this instance the Coast Guard boat was the give way vessel... he didn't yield right of way and the little boat got run over! He should have chopped his throttles and turned to starboard in order to miss the little boat. Of course on the Great Lakes where this occured there is no 150' Safe Passage Rule... so he could have missed the little boat by a few feet and all would be well and legal!

If the boat is not approaching you on a Zero bearing then its not going to collide with you. Your forward motion of 5-6MPH is pretty similar to the headway speed of any powered vessel and is pretty negligible. Its that simple. Speed is very difficult to judge on the water because you have no point of reference. Its not like a car where you have trees and signs etc to give you a point of reference.

I can concede your point on the flags. Rolling a kayak with a flag might add a bit of difficulty, but it will not be immpossible. Perhaps if they add a requirement that instead of a flag, you are required to have hunter orange paddle blades and wear a hunter orange PFD... would that work for you? Last year on the weekend after July 4th I witnessed 3 kayakers out at out at dusk in a dark green kayaks, black wetsuit tops and no lights... That is a recipe for disaster. I don't think all kayakers and other paddlers are that irresponsible.

I do understand your fear, and to you its real. But statistically you can safely enjoy your sport on the big lake without compromising another individuals personal freedom. Nobody has been run over in a kayak or canoe by a speeding boat on Lake Winnipesaukee! Boating accidents are down dramatically since the inception of a BSC requirement. To point, accidents are down 68%!

Woodsy

Woodsy, you have repeatedly posted that no collisions have involved kayaks and speeding boats. Would you provide the source of that questionable item? Although an alert kayak has just the speed to avoid a collision, that would likely result in a non-ticketed violation of the 150-foot rule instead. (An unreported "close call").

Also, I recall WRKO-talk/radio reporting a Winnipesaukee kayaker that had been run over in 2003 and was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I reported that accident here at the forum. No further word as to his future prospects appeared. Perhaps a new forum member can elaborate on that collision. It's likely that collisions like his are not well reported—this being a tourist state, and all. (WRKO is a Boston station).

Visibility is measured in miles at night, too. This lake's "loudest" crash occurred at night.

Using your own numbers (25MPH, 45MPH, 70MPH) would you care to guess what speed this guy's doin' in Winter Harbor—a favorite spot of skiers and tubers?

Spoken from the vast knowledge gained by spending a couple hours lifetime total on Lake Winnipesaukee.

I have a sailboat, I've spent tons more time than you on Lake Winnipesaukee in my sailboat alone. I've never felt threatened by large GFBL boats in my sailboat or any of my other boats for that matter. I have felt threatened by several captains in their pontoon boats and runabouts who were either not paying attention or wanted for some reason to get close to the sailboat. One guy was tooling along reading the newspaper. A blast from a canned air horn quickly solved each problem. (By the way, it's not real convenient to carry a canned air horn in a small sail boat either, but your foolish if you venture more than a few hundred feet off shore without one.)

You've decided there is a big problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when in reality and statistically there isn't.

Well, if you were paying attention, unlike the guy who got hit, your chances would have been pretty good in that situation. If however you are in a situation like that and not paying attention you would be in a world of hurt. The person driving that CG boat should not be allowed to drive another CG boat, ever.

Now you called that boat a "speeding boat" which from reading your other posts is not a boat "speeding" at "high speed". From what I can tell from your other posts a "speeding" boat is not exceeding the proposed 45 mph speed limit, whereas a boat "speeding" at "high speed" does exceed the proposed 45 mph speed limit, now these are your words from your posts.
Furthermore, most in that thread pretty much agreed that probably neither boat was capable of traveling over 45 mph, hence the accident happened at a speed of less than 45 mph.

So why is it relevant in a speed limit discussion, other than to prove, yes, accidents do happen, and yes, the cause of this accident was not speeding but operator inattention. Just one more case of your evidence and statistics not proving your point.

It was actually a USCG Auxilliary boat according to a post on another forum. The USCG crew footage was spliced in by the media. Apparently, the USCG Auxilliary in that area is not very selective... Note the flopping fenders hanging off the starboard side prior to the collision too.

People aren't going fast on Winni at any other boater's expense. They bear the cost all on their own. But seriously, you make it sound like paddlers on Winnipesaukee actaully get run over by speedboats all the time. It's just not true.

The folks we all need to watch out for are the uninformed people plowing along, bow high, making a huge wake and thinking they are saving fuel by not being up on plane. They can hardly see in front of them because they are running at a terrible angle. They are going so slowly that they probably think they don't need to pay much attention, but are moving fast enough to do some serious damage if they do have a collision.

Since you brought up infringment... You are asking that the rules for the whole state be changed to suit your own fears of paddling on one lake that you rarely frequent, right?

The Coastie ignored rule 15 of the COLREGS... and a collision occured! This collision has absolutely nothing to do with HB-162 or Lake Winnipesaukee. Why APS brought it up is beyond me, other than for some sort of inflammatory reason.

www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf

Woodsy

Marine Patrol accident.
 

I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?

I don't recall that event but I do know that the Colregs require vessels to have lights at night. So if the MP boat operator was correct then he/she was not at fault and was a scapegoat.

After ignoring this post for a while I decided it needed to be addressed because someone might actually believe it to be accurate, it's not!

New Jersey's NEW!!!-AND-IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course went from requiring operators of PWCs under age 25 to pass a test, to boaters on NON-tidal waters to pass a test! THAT WAS THE NEW AND IMPROVED ASPECT OF THE TEST. It also means ocean boaters are NOT REQUIRED to take or pass a mandatory boating test.

Now I don't know how long their PWC requirement was in effect but the expansion to include NON-tidal waters is much more recent than NH's boater education law!

I'll be the first to admit I don't know alot about boating in New Jersey, but based on a map of NJ I think I am safe in saying the vast majority of boaters are ocean boaters, not lake boaters and are not required to pass a boating education course or pass a test.

So to try to say New Jersey's boating law isn't working when it doesn't require a majority of their boaters to take or pass a boating course is not relevant to anything!
If New Jersey had the same law, or even a similar one to the law in place in NH it might have a place in this discussion!

I have spent some time searching the internet to find a correlation between boater education and increased boating accidents in CT but I haven't found one, could you please tell us your source?

In the meantime I stand by my statement. Boating accidents in NH have decreased every year from 1999 to 2004. Boater education is working, LET IT WORK!

Yes, I understand the navigation rules. Were were discussing visibility, and my point was that powerboaters run into each other out on open water, when visibility is just fine. The operator of the smaller boat admitted that he never even saw the coast guard vessel – a boat that is way larger and way more visible than any kayak. The 150’ rule is a great law, but it won’t prevent a collision, when someone doesn’t even notice that another vessel is in their path. If a kayaker had been in the path of that smaller boat, he would not likely have survived.

I understand all that, but boats change direction - constantly. I can be safe one second and directly in the path of an approaching high speed boat the next. It really doesn’t make any difference if I can or cannot tell exactly how fast that boat is going.

Look – I kayak for fun. It’s my favorite recreational activity. It’s just not very fun, and certainly not at all relaxing, when I’m out there concerned that one of the many boats traveling at 15 to 20 times my speed might not see me in time to avoid a collision. Every year boats are going faster. PWC also get faster every year. Because of this, NH lakes (not just Winni) are getting less and less enjoyable for paddlers. Our fears are real and our fears are mostly caused by the high speeds of some powerboaters. We can argue about these statistics all you want, but your idea of boating fun is having a very negative impact on many other boaters.

Here's New Jerseys "new and improved" regulations for boaters iin a nut shell:)

MANASQUAN, N.J. – With the ending of the 211th Legislature, the passage of boater education legislation places New Jersey’s education law amongst the strongest in the nation, according to the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey (MTA/NJ), which said Assembly Bill 2624 (Smith) was a major priority for the association.

The new boater education and safety law applies to all people age 16 years and older who operate registered vessels above 12 feet that are defined as power vessels under the law. It becomes effective over a staggered period of time. Specifically, persons born after December 31, 1978 have to take the course immediately. Persons born after December 31, 1968 and on or before December 31, 1978 have to take the course before June 1, 2006. Persons born after December 31, 1958 and on or before December 31, 1968 have to take the course before June 1, 2007. Persons born after December 31, 1948 and on or before December 31, 1958 have to take the course before June 1, 2008. All other persons need to take the course before June 1, 2009, according to the association.

This bill states that “out of state” boaters 18 years of age and older who operate a power vessel for less than 90 days in New Jersey are exempt from the safety course if they can show proof of similar education from NASBLA, the Coast Guard or other state.

This is the part of the NJ law that people have left out:

So, NJ passes a law for boater education and they provide their law enforcement agency funds to handle it. Is HB162 going to provide the same funding for Marine Patrol?

Guesstimate needed...
 

Hmmm. Is that the "Littlefield Defense", or the "Marine Patrol Defense"?

I'm wondering just how responsive a media is to "injury-accidents". (In a state dependant on out-of-staters). A kayaker was run over in the Moultonbourough area of Winnipesaukee in 2003. He was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I heard about it on WRKO-Boston, but heard nothing locally and no follow-ups at any media.

The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? :look: ("Accurate estimate" not required.) :)

You're right, I think it is very instructive. Watching that guy in the boat that got run over with his head fixed in one direction while there are several boats around shows exactly how dangerous INATTENTION can be. It also shows so called "EXPERTS" can be wrong, the CG driver obviously saw the little boat in plenty of time to AVOID a collision with a simple turn but for some reason ran the guy over. Finally once again, I doubt either boat could go over 45 mph. Maybe you could edit the video, turn down the brightness and claim now you have footage of a night accident to make it fit your agenda.

APS...

I cannot find ANY record of a kayaker being run over by a powerboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. You may have thought you heard it on WRKO, but given that we cannot find anything about it I think you were misinformed. Certainly a traumatic accident with major injury such as that would be filed somewhere! We can still find references to the Hartman/Littlefield accident and that happened in 2003. If a kayaker had been run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, given the veracity of the fight over HB-162, I am sure someone from WinnFabs would have brought up this accident as loudly as they brought up Hartman/Littlefield.

As fas as the the video you posted, I agree with you, it is VERY instructive. It shows what happens when someone does not pay attention and does not follow the rules of navigation or COLREGS. It has nothing to do with a speed limit as neither boat appeared to capable of traveling over 45 MPH. Weather wasn't an issue as it was a bright sunny day with excellent visibility. The primary cause of this collision would be operator inattention on the part of USCG boat. When he realized a collision was immenent, he violated the COLREGS by not chopping his throttle and/or throwing the boat into an emergency reverse or stop. He was also required to turn to starboard, not port as he did in the video. The USCG boat violated the COLREGS and caused a collision. Plain and simple!

Woodsy

Maybe APS is trying to plant that little seed of doubt in the minds of the senators before the big vote, just like Dan Rather before the presidential election?????????

Evenstar...

Your the one who stated you "I can certainly tell the difference betweent 45 and 70mph". When you are in a small craft such as a kayak all boats will seem like they are traveling at high speed. Its nice to see that you have conceded the point that you cannot tell how fast a boat is traveling. Boats don't change direction constantly and certainly not at high speed. However, a boat can approach your kayak from any direction, requiring you to keep your head on a swivel and maintain a proper lookout at all times.

Apparently you don't understand the Rules of Navigation. The guy in the small boat was NOT REQUIRED TO YIELD to the USCG boat. Read my post above. The USCG boat broke the rules, not the little guy, regardless of his admission of inattention. If he had seen the USCG boat, certainly he could have adjusted his course/speed and the collision could have been avoided. It still doesn't change the fact that the USCG boat was in the wrong, the little boat was the stand on boat.

Boats do collide, and the collision in the video above ocurred at speeds well below 45 MPH. The primary reason for that collision is OPERATOR INATTENTION on the part of the USCG boat. Excessive Speed had nothing to do with this accident other than both boats were on plane. If a kayaker had been in the path of either boat I am sure they would have been able to avoid the kayaker. In the video above both operators were singularly focused on what was directly ahead of them, and not any possible dangers approaching from the side.

I have no doubt that kayaking out in the Broads can be a bit nervewracking on a busy summer saturday. I really do understand that. There are quite a few boats out there and while your busy paddling the waves, you don't want to worry about getting run over. The problem is, regardless of a Speed Limit, or a Safe Passage Law, you are primarily responsible for your own safety.

The 150' Safe Passage Rule, or a Speed Limit law, or any other type of law or rule of navigation will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect you if the operator of the boat is not paying attention. If the operator of the boat is paying attention, then you are in absolutely no danger! I am sorry you can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.

Woodsy

Did they lower the bar for acceptance at UNH?

Now you are using inattentive behavior as a reason to justify HB162.

When will the spin end?

If???
 

Hey, I actually posted that: “I can certainly tell the difference between 45 and 70mph, when a boat is reasonably close to me!” I’m still standing by that statement. You’re the one who assumed that I was talking about a boat that was on a collision course with me (at a zero heading), which I wasn’t. (I even stated that in my next reply to you.)

I read your entire post, and who was at more at fault was never my point. That video shows two powerboats colliding on open water, when visibility was very good. That was my entire point. That’s what you and I were discussing earlier. How would that powerboat operator, who didn’t even see a Coast Guard vessel, have seen a much smaller boat????

Quote:

The problem is, regardless of a Speed Limit, or a Safe Passage Law, you are primarily responsible for your own safety.

And what am I supposed to do to prevent being run over by a speeding powerboat??? Believe me, I’m extremely aware of everything on the water, and when I see a powerboat heading in my direction, I make every effort to stay out of his path. But I can only paddle so fast. At my top speed of about 7 feet per second, it takes me over 2 seconds just to travel the length of my kayak, and during those 2 seconds a boat traveling at 70 mph would have covered over 200 feet. Sort of puts me at a slight disadvantage, doesn't it?

Quote:

If the operator of the boat is paying attention, then you are in absolutely no danger! I am sorry you can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.

If???

That’s the problem!

If a powerboat operator sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.

But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

(BTW: I have no problem grasping any of the “simple concepts” you guys have presented – the problem is that most of you don’t take your concepts far enough for me. You just use them as far as they support your arguments, and conveniently leave out the parts that don’t.)

A kayaker WAS run over. Who knew?
 

Remember this gem?

NO KAYAKS HAVE BEEN RUN OVER ON WINNIPESAUKEE!

From the Old Forum:

The URL:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45731

(I also think the Coast Guard's impact on the runabout was less than 20MPH—to carry its instructiveness another step).

Evenstar...

Actually you really don't get understand and unfortunately I highly doubt there is any chance that you will... You suffer from inexperience, and you need to get more seat time on Lake Winnipesaukee. Perhaps if you spent more time on the lake you would understand how safe Lake Winnipesaukee truly is. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COLLISIONS BETWEEN A POWERBOAT AND A KAYAK!

The collision in that video was the result of two powerboats on plane, in a crossing situation. The operator of the small boat was the STAND ON boat, and as such he is under NO OBLIGATION to yield to the USCG boat. The USCG boat was the GIVE WAY and as such was supposed to yield to the smaller craft. The issue here is that the USCG boat DID NOT YIELD, DID NOT CHOP HIS THROTTLES AND DID NOT TURN TO STARBOARD as REQUIRED BY the COLREGS!

A more accurate description of accident you would be concerned with is one where a boat operator is not paying attention and runs his boat into a marked hazard such as a rock. Only in your case, you can possibly squirt out of the way if YOU happen notice the other boat in time.

The possibility of a collsion between watercraft always exists, it is no different than the possibility of of an automobile collision. With the statistical exception that you are far more likely to be in an automobile collision that you are in a boat collision. In fact last year there was a collsion between a small SeaRay and a STATIONARY Pontoon Boat. The collision occured at speed much less than the proposed 45 MPH. Speed isn't the problem, its operator inattention and operator inexperience that is the root cause of most accidents. If one were to follow your theory, boats shouldn't be allowed to travel faster than headway speed..

I will stand by my statement that there is absolutely no way for you to tell the difference on the water between 45MPH and 70 MPH. What is reasonably close? 50'? 150'? 500'? 1000'? If you have no visual point of reference you cannot gauge speed. But then again maybe you have some super human vision that allows you to detect that additional 37 FPS while bobbing up and down on the waves?


Woodsy