Yuh,right...Island Lover. "Offensive" boaters meaning owners of pricey powerboats. When they leave,all that will be left is the Al Gore moonbats like you with the canoe's and kayaks, your brie and bottled water.....the restaurants,hotels and stores will dry up...and so will the jobs.Sorry to rant,but I am in business in the lakes region.We have 75 employees who rely on tourism.I've said this before on the forum and I'll say it again.These GFB owners that you dispise so much stay in our hotels,eat at our restaurants and shop at our stores...they spend a ton of money because they are wealthy and successful. The engine that drives the lakes region is small business.

You can't see kayaks lighted by the moon.:rolleye2:

First we are told that a speed limit is useless because it will not change a thing, only education and enforcement will fix the problem.

Then we are told that a speed limit will ruin the economy of the lakes region because all the high speed lovers will leave the area.

Those two arguments are mutually exclusive, which is the truth?

And please factor in all the kayak and canoe enthusiasts that will be coming to the area after the speed limit takes effect. Local merchants should stock up on brie and wine.

At the public hearings there were several local merchants that said the situation on the lake was scaring away customers.

That's a pretty broad statement. Wouldn't that depend on the color of the kayak. Lighter ones should be very visible.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
First of all I don't kayak at night. And the kayaker was certainly wrong not to have the required lighting - but that's the only law that he was breaking (based on what we know).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
But the power boat operator is also at fault, and must have to be going fast enough that kayaker wasn't able to get out of the way, and also had to be going fast enough to cut a kayak in half. Most kayaks are pretty durable, but we were not even told what type of kayak it was (plastic, fiberglass, Kevlar, wood?) or how long it was. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm amazed at the lack of information that has been released on this accident (like practically nothing officially).

And it is pretty thin argument to claim that a NH lake speed limit whould have a negitive effect on tourism - I personally believe that it would have a very positive effect - especially sice the opponents claim that only a very small percentage of boats are currently going over 45mph (plus this bill is for a state wide lake speed limit - not just for one on Winni).

IMHO, the topic has morphed because of the oft-repeated fact that "...there has never been a kayak struck by a speedboat in the history of Lake Winnipesaukee". :rolleye2:

Now there is one—though we don't know the whole story. It's otherwise pretty well documented.

But except for here, no media account mentioned the second kayak involved. :confused: Traveling together and being silent in operation, the kayakers would have been aware of the approaching peril. Did the kayaks try to defend themselves using the required sound device? (Bell, horn, whistle?) Was the second kayak lighted in order to protect both boats? Was there a Safe Passage violation of the second kayak?

How fast does a speedboat have to go to break off the bow of a kayak—totaling it? :confused:

Sound producing devices are not required on manually propelled vessels.

you provide the kayak I'll provide the boat.
 

We can test the theory out. We just have to find out, whether the kayak in question was plastic or fiberglass.

I'm reading that now—nor on unpowered sailboats—tricky wording. (And at the bottom of each page: "It's the LAW!") :emb:

Interesting exemption—which would leave a lot of boats defenseless in fog or darkness. Could they have been required in the past? I've attached a whistle to my PFDs for many years. :cool:

Ironically, I have two "unused-lately" kayaks available for a test: the frames are, respectively, wood and aluminum.

I'd want to know what propeller was used first: there are "cleavers", "choppers", and "rakers" that would make short work of kevlar and aluminum.

The BS is getting pretty thick here. To surmise that kayaks will be coming to the lake in greater numbers ,when 1 in 300 boats will no longer be traveling in excess of 45 miles per hour, is a huge stretch at the very least. I'm not a fan of the loud boats, but those loud fast boats are not what make my passengers cringe. Its just the shear numbers of boats, the vast majority traveling at speed of 20-35 miles per hours, that can be intimidating to some. The marine patrol has basically confirmed speeding boats are just not in the majority. When I see them its from a distance, and it doesn't bother me or my passengers in the least.

On the outset of this argument on speed, I thought I might be for it. But, as time goes on, and with the twisting of facts and details, those for it have really lost my respect. They obviously have a larger agenda, I feel its the noise.

How about a swimmer
 

I have to wonder how this discussion would have gone if someone swimming 1/2 mile out from shore had been hit by a boat at night ? Would we be debating the need for a nightime NWS law to protect hapless swimmers from evil speeding boaters ? Or talking about a new law, having swimmers tote along a floating light visible for 2 miles ? Or would we just accept that some things are just stupid and that every once and awhile Nature reminds us of how Darwin was right.

Again, I was talking about the overall effect on tourism - not just on Winni. The current bill, if it becomes law, will impose a speed limit on ALL NH lakes.

Squam has a speed limit - and I see way more paddlers on Squam than on Winni. And when ever I talk to other paddlers about paddling on Winni, they all say the same thing - too many fast boats there for them. So I don't see this as a stretch at all.

I also feel that your 1:300 ratio is way off. A speed limit will certainly affect way more than 1 boat in 300.

Islander wrote:
There have been a number of people questioning how fast a powerboat needs to be going to cut the bow of a kayak off. I would speculate that it was not the impact that caused the bow to be removed from the kayak, but probably the prop cutting through the fiberglass or plastic hull of the kayak.

Islander also wrote:
It's my understanding he's in prison on a negligent homicide conviction, that's a far cry from "operator inattention" wouldn't you say?

Just to clarify, one of the charges Littlefield was convicted of was in fact failure to keep a proper lookout, but obviously that is not the major conviction.

Here is a snipet from a Federal Lawsuit that Littlefield brought against his insurance company describing his conviction:
So, while Islander is correct in saying a Meredith man is in jail for failing to post a proper lookout it is certainly a misleading post because Islander failed to mention the over riding negilgent homicide conviction.

I do not believe that the Hartman boat was unlighted or that Sue15's operator was drunk or left the scene so for Islander to try to use it in this instance is a case of apples and oranges.

The swimmer is not breaking any laws.

If a boater hit and killed a swimmer 1/2 mile from shore the question would be should the boater be charged with vehicular homicide. The speed of the boat and weather conditions would certainly be a factor. And obviously if the boater was drinking.

If you think the boater gets an automatic walk because the swimmer is an idiot, then you are living in dream land.

Sue, to settle where some people are trying to drag this argument how fast were you traveling???

Seriously, if the boat was traveling that fast do you really think the kayaker would have walked away??? I think that if I hit a kayak at 25mph in my 30 footer there would not be much left of the kayak or the occupant. I doubt highly that the boat was traveling that fast.

I am sure if a few members that have chimed in would like to be the kayak test pilots there are plenty more that would drive the boat... :laugh:

There seems to be the impression that because it's hard to see at night, an operator is not responsible for what he hits at night. You are required to be in control of you vessel at all times.

It's hard to see while driving a car in a snow storm. That doesn't mean you can run over pedestrians and damage property without consequences. Certainly the conditions are an argument in your favor. The question will still be asked, did you slow down and take prudent precautions commensurate with conditions.

The same is true on the water.

Three witnesses said that the lights were on, but the judge found the standard USCG-minimum navigation lights on the 26X MacGregor sailboat were inadequate based on one different witness account. The judge was faulted for her limited knowledge of boating terms and hardware. The case is being appealed.

No one was able to pinpoint the speed of the 19' speedboat that struck it, but the sailboat was cut in half. There are probably many cases better than this one to use as an example.

I don't think the speed of the boat is important. The question is was the boat traveling to fast to be able to see an obstacle and react to prevent a collision. Even in pitch black the 360 degree white light on the power boat will light up an obstacle in front of the boat.

If you are going a speed that doesn't allow you time to see an obstacle and react, then you are just hoping that there is nothing out there. Some night your luck will run out.

Sounds like the speed limit proponents need to reduce the night speed limit to headway speed.

Interesting how 25 mph all of a sudden seems to fast; although, Island Lover confesses that the speed of the boat is not important.

What a wicked web we weave, ... :D :laugh: :laugh:

What???
 

Island Lover,

Put a lid on your agenda.

You are making absolutely no sense at all.

The purpose of the 360 degree white light is for the power boat to be seen. Anyone who expects the 360 degree light to be used to illuminate the water in front of the boat so that a small, low profile vessel should be seen has completely unrealistic expections of the design intent. It is not intended or designed to be a headlight!

I have a power boat and two kayaks. I use them all safely. I have been using both forms on Lake Winnipesaukee for over 20 years in a busy area without incident. We use common sense when boating and kayaking.

No person in their right mind would be that far from shore in a kayak, an inner tube or any other type of small boat without a good light at that time of night. And no power boater should expect that they would be there either, although the power boater must be always looking for the unexpected.

I would guess you drive a car and I would also guess that you do not expect to see someone in dark clothing crawling down or sleeping on a two lane highway at midnight. To do either is stupid and puts the person in serious risk. What happened here is worse than sleeping on the highway since cars have headlights!

In my opinion, and this is just opinion, the power boater may have seen the kayaker and turned to avoid the kayak at the last minute, That could explain the cut at the front of the kayak. A more direct contact at a "safe" night-time speed whold likely have resulted in serious injury to the kayaker.

You have brought your anti-power boating position to a new, low level. Get realistic!

Again, thank God no one was injuried which should tell anyone with any boating experience that this had to be a low speed incident.

R2B

There were two kayaks: you'd need more than hope. :rolleye1:

So how are you at sighting downed skiers and capsized windsurfers? :eek:

A reasonable boater would disavow anyone saying that they can't see somebody afloat in daylight. When a like-minded crowd all say the same thing, "We can't see kayaks", something is very wrong.

I just got a better idea: why not wait to see if a powerboat tries to cut an unlighted island in half—like Eagle Island or Camper's Island? :idea:

No, wait.... :(

Kamper-I agree with you, my comment was more directed at the comments regarding the laws around what a Kayak legally needs to do to be out at night. So yes, the operator of the boat that hit the kayak could have the commonsense of 10 people and it would not have helped, since the kayak is virtually invisible.

I kayak and I boat at night, I have not kayaked at night but if I did I don't think the one light is enough even if its legal, but yes its better than no light.

while I am at it... I will pass along that I saw a marine patrol stop two kayaks sat night, one had no lights and the other one the guy was wearing a headlamp, I guess they missed this thread. It looked like the the marine patrol was going to escort them home.

So I'm swimming across the broads alone one night and I see this:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...99IMG_6476.JPG

I have no worries because the Captain would never be going a speed that doesn't allow him to see an obstacle and react to prevent a collision. The glow from his navigation light will light me in plenty of time for him to stop.

WOW! The responses of some of you are astounding to me.

I guess some people are really so ignorant that they think if they hit something at night, that doesn't have a light, then they are 100% innocent.

GET A CLUE!


Resident 2B - Suppose you hit and kill this person sleeping on a highway in dark clothing. Do you think there will be no investigation? Do you think your car will not be impounded? Do you think you will not be tested for DUI? Do you think the state will not attempt to determine your speed?

Islander,

A) I do not drink so a DUI test is no problem.

B) I would expect to be cleared by any investigation.

C) What would you expect if you were driving the car?

R2B

I would swim fast.
 

Although she is only moving about 11mph on her night cruises. That is 300 rpm per 60"prop. I wouldn't take my chances!

Gavia immer wrote:
As I mentioned in my original post, I am not going to be digging too deeply into looking for case law and suggested others (perhaps you?) could poke around and possibly find another case to quote.

It doesn't change the fact that if the kayakers hadn't violated the lighting regulations in the first place there would have been no accident.

Canoe instead of a Kyak
 

I almost "met" 5 teenagers in a unlighted canoe one night. The canoe was seriously overloaded and sitting extremely low in the water. The boat I was driving has a maximum speed of 7-8 knots, and weighed enough that stopping it in a short distance would be impossible. Luckly a house had a spot light shining out from shore and they passed through the beam so they were silhouetted. After they passed the beam they were invisible again. I knew about where they should be and still couldn't see them. I slowed the boat and turned on a spot to find them again. I was coming along Bear Island and was out beyond Dollar Island, I escorted them into the dock at Camp Lawrence. The kids decided to try to make it by canoe from one of the other islands to Bear to visit friends. We called the MP and they came and took the kids home. Had there not been that light beam there was no way that I would see them. Even if it wasn't a law it's just plain stupid to be on the water at night without making yourself visible to passing boat traffic.

How many times have you read about some poor child running out from between cars and getting hit and killed by a car or truck. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Same thing child on bicycle. Yes, there is an investigation, and almost every time the driver is not charged. Why because it was unavoidable and not the driver fault.

At this point, Islander is acting like a child, and has lost all credibility. As I said before, I once was considering it, but give me a break, these arguements have completely changed my mind. Anyone else feel this way?

Ummm, ok - I have a question...
 

OK, for all of you that are supporting the Kyaker here, answer me this:

Would you go out, at night - and to clarify, when the sun has fully set and it is dark out, say 1:00am - in a kayak, canoe or row boat with NO lights on it what-so-ever and venture more than 5' from shore!?

Please respond with a yes or no and a reason why.

I joined both groups....
 

LR,

I was very neutral on this issue. Because of the intensity of the discussion and that being retired I had plenty of time, I decided to join two groups to see what they "felt" like from the inside.

I found that the "N" folks in general like faster boats, but were highly motivated by safe boating. The "W" group seem focused on several agendas, each limiting the full usage of particular styles of boat on our lakes. The "W" group seemed to have more political connections and a stronger PR group with better connections to newspapers and the general press. The "N" group was more focused on boater education.

I plan to continue with the "N" folks and to stay very involved with the Coast Guard Aux. here where I live, spreading the word of safe boating to rational boaters that want to do it correctly.

For the record, we have two kayaks and a Fourwinns 230 Horizon w/ 280HP I/O. Neither are GF or BL boats.

Nice to hear your rational responses.

R2B

If the driver is not charged "almost every time" that means sometimes they are charged.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you are automatically guilty if you hit something without a light at night. I'm saying you are not automatically innocent! The defense that "it didn't have a light" is not going to work in all situations.

Everyone here agrees that the kayaker was at fault, that is not in question. But the kayaker being at fault does not necessarily mean the boater is innocent.

Darkness does not negate your responsibility to operate in a reasonable and safe manner.

It was the kayak that wasn't operating in a safe and reasonable manner in this situation, lets not forget.

I love the example about someone lying in the road. The only reason I used "almost" is that I don't know everything and every situation, and never would cast as broad a statement in saying "every time". Although I'm sure alot of people do, that just not me. Please look in the your mirror and take a look at who you see. Is that person you?

The one reason I know that someone would be charged is if they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

My point should be quite clear, as a matter of practicality though.

Can I respond with a HECK NO. The reason why is that it is extremely dangerous

Who is supporting the kayaker? I just went back and read all the posts, I can't find anybody that is supporting the kayaker.

All the posters in this thread agree the kayaker was in the wrong in a big way!

Can anyone give an example of where the kayaker has been supported in this thread?

What we know for sure is that the boat struck one kayak, and could have struck both boats. We don't know what the captain saw, only that he was going fast enough to break off the bow of the one boat he struck. The lake was lighted by the moon, but he didn't see at least one of the two boats ahead of him.

Another Canadian case involves a captain using his GPS while keeping a crew member at the bow with a light. The boat struck a cliff at top speed, sending the crew member to her death on rocks. Another crew member was injured.

I fault this captain for traveling faster than his vision ahead allowed, not keeping a proper watch ahead, and compromising his own night vision with GPS. It wasn't the inadequacy of the light that caused this collision. It was his operating at a speed that didn't allow him sufficient time to take action to avoid the collision.

Gavia immer wrote:
Ahh, you're jumping to conclusions my friend.

First, and I speculate about this in an earlier post, chances are good the IMPACT did not cause the bow of the kayak to break off. In all likelihood it was the prop cutting through the plastic or fiberglass hull of the kayak. The powerboat could have been traveling at barely over headway speed and still cut that boat in half if the kayak was forced underwater when the powerboat hit it and then it came in contact with a prop turning at 1000RPMs!

Second, you continue to ignore the fact that the kayaks were out on the water in complete violation of the regulation regarding lighting configurations. A 360 degree white light is not suggested equipment for boating at night, it's required by law.

Finally, the lake was lighted by the moon? The kayaks were relying on moonlight to be their navigation lights? To keep them visible and safe from other boats?

When those kayakers left the dock on their overnight paddle they set in motion events that lead directly to the accident. Had they stayed on shore, as they were legally required to do under the circumstances, no accident would have happened.

Re: your example of the Canadian Captain running aground at night causing the death of one crewmember and injury to another, you're right on! That captain was completely negligent. However he ran aground, he didn't strike an unlighted vessel at night. As I said to Islander...Apples and Oranges.

Night time speed...
 

GI,

So what night time speed do you recommend? :confused:

R2B

Reasonable
 

Absolutely true and the reason I posed my earlier question was to debate what is "reasonable" ? So is it reasonable to expect boats to operate at such a speed that avoiding an unlit swimmer 1/2 mile off shore is the norm ? Let me change the parameters to now make it a dark, non-moonlit night.

Confessions of Winni-boaters without lights
 

Sunday night, a bowrider stopped, turned off his lights and drifted about 150 yards off my shoreline. I could hear them talking in muted tones.

It made me think back to simpler times, when "Dr. Jim" could be reached by dialing "6", and only the rich had inboards. Then I wondered if I should mention here that I have many hours of Winnipesaukee powerboating at night without lights. :confused:

Yesterday, I thought to bring up the subject with a boater who raced a Laconia Sportster (a lake-racer) on Lake Winnipesaukee, and could have even more hours without lights. I asked this long-time Winnipesaukee relative/resident about this matter yesterday while a passenger in his car. His safety credentials are impeccable. The discussion:

ApS: 'Hear about the kayak cut in half in Meredith?
Relative: Yes
ApS: What do you think?
Relative: The speedboat wasn't operating in a prudential manner.
ApS: A Prudential manner? There are insurance rules for boating?
Relative: No....The speedboat wasn't being prudent.
ApS: I agree. Have you boated on Winnipesaukee at night?
Relative: Oh, yes—from Winter Harbor to Wolfeboro—many times.
ApS: That's around seven miles one way. Did you have lights?
Relative: Fifth amendment privileges.
ApS: Why go to Wolfeboro at night?
Relative: To go to the lakeside Casino.
ApS: Wolfeboro had a Casino? To gamble?
Relative: No, it was a dance hall.
ApS: Wolfeboro had a dance hall?
Relative: With a bowling alley. It became the Pirate's Den.
ApS: You left from Camp Wyanoke, then...in a sailboat?
Relative: Yes.
ApS: You didn't have any concerns at night because there wasn't any night boating back then?
Relative: Yes.
ApS: Same here: things have changed. I'd like to mention this on the forum.
Relative: Don't mention my name.
ApS: (Raising hand with a single nod...). "Done".