Proper lookout!
 

Paugusbaby wrote that he/she was on board the powerboat...and...
So the question of where the accident actually happened continues, but from Paugusbaby it appears the skipper did post a proper lookout and that he/she was searching the water ahead of his vessel with a spotlight.

Perhaps because the kayakers were naked they decided to avoid the spotlight at the expense of safety? Not to mention that they didn't know if the approaching boat was the Marine Patrol and we've all decided the kaykers were on the water in violation of the law.

I am interested in SIKSUKRS post in which he said the kayak that the naked man was in and was struck ABANDONDED HIS BOAT just prior to the accident rather than taking evasive action.

Thoughts from the "Powerboat is always at fault crowd"?

I see a problem...
 

Okaaay...Here's what Coastal Laker wrote in this thread:
Anyway, cain't see 'em nohow: :(

Yup. Here's a moonlit Winnipesaukee.

Cain't hardly see nothin'. :rolleye2:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...chMoon1024.jpg

Very well said, unfortunatly these people will ignore your well thought out and LOGICAL response, and come up with yet another angle that defies logic to prove their point. :liplick:

[QUOTE=Acres per Second]Okaaay...Here's what Coastal Laker wrote in this thread:


Anyway, cain't see 'em nohow: :(


Yup. Here's a moonlit Winnipesaukee.

Cain't hardly see nothin'. :rolleye2:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...chMoon1024.jpg[/QUOTE


Are you going to tell me that a SUMMER night is as bright as your photochoped winter night?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sooo sorry Wildwood.My point was that this info was not just gossip form one person to another and so on.She talked directly to the operater and told me what he told her.Does this somehow change the situation for you?

With what passes for "fact" around here I would say that your story qualifies as indesputably accurate gospel. Thanks for sharing.


I wonder if ALCOHOL was involved with these naked midnight lightless kayakers?

ALCOHOL ?????no !.....can't believe that even crossed anyones minds.I thought everyone went kayaking naked,late at night.

Where was the Moon
 

If there's a point pertinent to the thread in the above, you've failed to make it seen. I'd say most full-Moonlight nights pretty much anything could be seen but it all depends. What it depends on is where the Moon is relative to the local horizon. Since I don't know where the collision occured I can't say whether the Moon was positioned to light the area in question. What I can say is that at 1:30 AM that morning the Moon was only 6.5 deg above a flat horizon in the SW sky (221 deg E of N). Perhaps this info may prove useful to the discussion, and while I know sniping from the edges is your speciality, you might want to try it (being pertinent) every so often.

What he said

It's a close as I can get till I talk to the operater one on one.I did not hear any mention of the kayakers being drunk but I'm sure most people going boating naked when sober.I know I do.

Keep twisting the words APS
 

You are helping my cause! Every time you post at least one more member sees you for exactly what you are!! Thanks again, and keep up the good work!

Could it be that this photo was set to a long exposure? You just never know with a still photo. :rolleye2:

Apology accepted -
 

I'll accept your apology and we'll leave it at that!

Neither were hypothetical. The first situation was a real Canadian collision and was the captain's fault. The five teenagers weren't hypothetical at all, but copied from "parrothead's" real experience in this thread. But the answer is the same answer that appears above.

Weirs guy writes
Perhaps, but some day your 9 year old will be a teenager.

What?
 

GI, you've got me totally confused.

Are you now saying the Canadian Captain that hit the cliff killing a crewmember and injuring a second didn't hit the cliff but instead hit a canoe full of teenagers killing one of his crew and injuring a second? :confused:

Are you now saying the above scenario that you presented was NOT a hypothetical? :offtopic:

So given the story about the naked kayakers as it has now unfolded;
Accident location unknown
Spotlight in use looking ahead of the powerboat
Unlighted kayakers presumably able to see the approaching boat
Naked kayaker jumping out of his boat leaving it unlighted, abandonded, adrift and a hazard to navigation
The abandonded unlighted kayak hit by the powerboat.

What is your take now?

Last night we went for a sunset cruise and saw an unlit single kayak at least 300 yards from any land (6 mile island and he wasn't heading towards it). The sun was down and the kayak was only a shadow against the water. We're daily kayakers but this was insanity. The boats leave Braun bay at sunset and race away. Many going exactly where the kayak was. It would be impossible to see him unless you were actively looking. I guess he doesn't read the forum!

Oh Lucky, you're relatively new here so let me explain to you how this works. You have to be extremely precise in what you write, this statement will be showing up for years as "boaters don't pay attention to where they are going." They on the other hand routinely make things up, things such as their own facts. They speak in riddles (some do) and make obtuse references to demonstrate ultra intelligence. They will resort to any type of misinformation, then swear its true or project that you are deliberately misinterpreting it. They do this because in their minds the end justifies the means. And the end is that they don't like boats bigger than 20 feet on THEIR lake.

I understood what you meant, that in order to see an unlit kayak on a dark night you need to be lucky, or you need someone on the bow of your boat sweeping vigilantly with a spot light. :)

TODAY we learn...
 

We know now that the powerboat was beaming a light across the water. We know spotlights kill the night vision of other boaters unlucky enough to be in the beam's path. :(

Swimming was the logical escape for the unseen kayakers—particularly if the powerboat was approaching at a speed fast enough to total one of their boats.

Nor was the kayaker mentioned as ticketed. Was it because the kayaker abandoned his boat for the relative safety of the depths?

While abandoning an unlighted boat in navigable waters is a chargeable offense, it would be understandable given the life-or-death circumstance. Swimming without a light is not chargeable—nor is one's state of dress while swimming or boating. :rolleye2:

Pretty far. :eek:

If you'll review your New Hampshire Boater's Guides, you'll find:

PS: The moonlit view is from Photopost—my screensaver from its first day! :)

And, the anti-speed limit side does exactly the same thing.

Whenever I, as a kayaker, have posted my reasons here (based on my actual experience on NH lakes BTW - and not some made up or exaggerated), my posts have been ripped apart and I have been personally insulted and attacked, in an attempt to discredit me.

The aniti-speed limiters' goal seems to be to protect their freedom to travel at unlimited speeds on THEIR lake - no matter how negatively this affects others. That's a pretty selfish goal in my opinion.

As I've posted here many times (yet no one seems to believe me): I have nothing against power boats - and their size isn't an issue for me. The ONLY reason that I feel that we need a speed limit, is that it is crazy to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow-moving, and hard to see boats. (BTW: the current bill will affect ALL NH lakes - not just Winni).

Of course it is wrong (dumb, suicidal, and in violation of our boating laws) to be out on any lake at night in any type of boat without the proper lighting. I haven't seen where anyone here has posted that the kayakers were not in the wrong. But I also believe that any power boat out on a lake at night should be traveling slow enough to avoid a collision with any other large floating object on the lake. So I feel that both parties were at fault.

LOL...and don't forget the mandatory night vision goggles and radar.

What "they" really need a good set of ear plugs, because its very apparent to me, "they" are trying to stop the noise. I personally tend to agree, some boats are noisy, but a speed limit is not the answer. Some are just loud no matter the speed. :coolsm:

So how slow
 

So I ask again, should the rule be that boats hold to NWS on night so as to avoid collisions with unlit vessels ? Perhaps they shouldn't even go out at night in the cases where it's really dark or if we want to protect the unlit swimmer. Why are people supporting a 25 mph limit when that's not sufficient to prevent collisons with unlit kayaks or canoes ?

And again ....
 

So again your point is ... what ? Are you saying that the spot light blinded the kayakers so they couldn't see the boat ... the one with the bright spot light ? ... the one he jumped out of the kayak to avoid ? :rolleye1:


As for swimming being the logical escape .... funny thing your logic, I can paddle much faster than I can swim. Logically if I had seen a boat bearing down on me I'd had paddled at right angles to it's course to escape. But then again I'd have had a light, 2 actually.


So in your opinion the law requires the operator to slow so as to avoid any potentially unlit vessel ? Or swimmer ? But forget what you think the law requires, what's your opinion ? What's the maximum speed at boat can travel at during a dark night so as to avoid collisions with unlit vessels of any type ... or swimmers, and thus be a responsible boater ?

To Quote Evenstar, who is an avid kayaker....
 

"The ONLY reason that I feel that we need a speed limit, is that it is crazy to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow-moving, and hard to see boats"

Even the Kayakers claim they are hard to see. So don't blame the powerboaters on this claim! Even the ones in the kayaks are willing to admit they are hard to see!:laugh:

Huh?
 

I believe the boater you're talking about is the guy who's family used to own Channel Marine? I believe he was Drinking (all day) and under the influence, hit the boat, stopped, didn't help or seek assistance, left the scene of the accident and then didn't report to a day or two later...

Different circumstances.... Doesn't take a whole lotta speed from a power boat to sever a Kayak in two.

Blinded by the light revved up like a deuce Another runner in the night
 

APS wrote:
First the accusation was the powerboat wasn't keeping a proper lookout and that was what obviously caused the collision. Now you're saying the naked kayaker was blinded by the spotlight and what? Thought it was a train? :laugh:

He probably thought it was the Marine Patrol and wanted to get away so that he wouldn't be discovered naked! Swimming away from his kayak was logical? Not if he was trying to avoid a collision. It was only logical if he didn't want to be seen.

As for the powerboat approaching at a speed fast enought to total one of their boats...I maintain it was the prop, not the speed of the boat that caused the damage.

If you hit a kayak with a boat, what happens to the kayak? It moves! They are light and would bounce off a powerboat.

Remember the Mythbuster's show that took that photo of a GFBL boat that was split in half at the bow and the caption claimed it had hit a daymarker and tried to recreate it? That was a fixed object and the GFBL boat kept bouncing off! They had to drop the boat onto the steel pole to finally get a similar effect.

So if a powerboat strikes a kayak, it doesn't split in half, it moves and in this case it probably moved under the boat and was struck by the prop because if naked kayaker "jumped ship" the kayak may have capsized when he left the boat and the abandoned hazard to navigation easily slid under the bow of the powerboat.

Nope, you're beating a dead horse with this one.

Nice pic of Winni at night in the winter. Of course the fact that the water was ice and snow covered and refecting lots of light has nothing to do with the visibility.

If you have my private e-mail address I'd love a copy of that pic!

No APS, the kayaker abandoned his kayak because of shame. Obviously a keen planner for the unexpected he and his friend left his house without clothes. Paddling thru the water guided only by the stars he saw a boat approaching from the black abyss, he was definitely startled because although he thought the lake was his alone, he didn't plan for a well prepared boater, with a spotlight no less. "What to do he wondered? Should that spot light land upon me, these strangers will surely see my inadequacy. Perhaps if I exit my craft into the chilly waters below and swim to the shore they will not find me. Yes, the chilly water may cause shrinkage, but that will be offset by the fact that objects viewed thru the water appear a third larger."

So the kayaker carried out his new plan, unfortunately he forgot to push his kayak out of the way and here we are, discussing an accident caused by a kayaker, the safest, best trained boaters out there.:D


**** for the Island speed limit folks, the statements in quotations are a reasonable facsimile of what went through the kayakers head that night. *****

Any small boat is more difficult to see than a large boat - I think that everyone here will grant me that. I personally have no problem seeing other kayaks and canoes from at least a mile away on most days - but I'm down at the same level as them - and I'm going slow, so I can see a lot more.

It's been my experience that the operators of fast-moving power boats don't always see me in time to stay out of my 150 foot space (and I'm totally basing this on their reactions - when they actually do spot me). So I do know that I can be difficult to see - even though my kayak is bright red, with a white hull - any my PFD is red - and my paddles are very bright orange.

And please don't tell me that I should have to have a bright flapping flag on a pole - because that would just tip me over (my kayak is only 23 inches wide). All people have to do is slow down - and then they will be able to see other boats in time - and be able to stay out of their 150 foot safety zone.

Mee-n-Mac: 25MPH would be the MAXIMUM night speed - a speed limit does not require that you travel at the MAXIMUM speed.

Let me try again
 

Sure, I agree but what in the conditions that night would have mandated less than 25 mph ? So far as I can it was a pretty normal night, neither the best nor the worst of conditions for boating. Short of some subpar conditions I'm not aware of, I don't see why the average joe wouldn't be doing the SL that night (were it to be in place). And yet we have people saying that pretty much any speed above NWS is irresponsible because it wouldn't give the boater enough time to see, and avoid, the unlighted kayak. Unless I've misunderstood you're saying the same thing. Either 25 mph is "safe" for the normal, expected conditions or it isn't. I don't see how people can say 25 is the proper limit and then turn around and say anything above NWS is unsafe because some fool might be out there w/o a light. Frankly if the standard is really expected to be that high (protecting the fool at our expense) then, as I've been pointing out, why not extend the same protection to the nighttime swimmer, who isn't even required to be lighted ? I don't see anyone saying that night swimmers should be, are expected to be, seen under every circumstance and thus, if one isn't seen, then it's the boater's fault. This is what's being said, as far as I can tell, about the unlit kayak.

It's an unreasonable standard to hold the boater responsible for collision with an unlit vessel, barring some condition where it could be reasonably argued that, despite the lack of lights, any boater would have seen the kayak. Boating is a co-operative venture. I'll do my part by keeping a lookout for other vessels but the other guy must also do his part by making himself visible. To blame both parties is wrong unless there's some evidence of my aforementioned conditions. To restrict the boater so as to protect the negligent party is to excuse the negligent party. In effect we're punishing the boater, restricting him from doing what otherwise would be a safe and reasonable action, because some people will be negligent and might get hurt as a result of their negligence. Sorry but I'll fight that philosophy to my end. I'll do my part but I refuse to do more that I should have to, simply to protect the stupid from the consequences of their stupidity.

Evenstar wrote in part:
My friend, and you know that I mean that, you're wrong.

If you consider what we currently understand to be the facts.

The powerboat had a proper lookout and even was using a search light (I personally never use a search light unless someone or something falls overboard, but that's another post).

The kayaker, who we all agree violated the law by even being on the water, saw the boat coming and jumped out of his kayak leaving it (probably) capsized and in the path of the oncoming powerboat.

The powerboat struck said (overturned) unlighted kayak even as he/she was using the searchlight looking ahead.

Evenstar, I know you to be a strong advocate of human powered vessels and to tell you the truth, every time I saw a kayak on Winni this summer I wondered if you were among them. That aside, the powerboat operator in this case is completely innocent and not to be held responsible in any way!

* The kayak should not have been on the water.
* The kayaker should certainly never have abandonded his unlighted boat in the path of a powerboat.
* It seems to me that the kayaker was trying to avoid being caught on the water without lights, and without clothes rather than take evasive action.
* The powerboater did everything right and yet because of the kayaker's actions the powerboat operator's judgement is being called into question because he/she was at the helm of a boat driven by a machine.

Yes, there is blame to be handed out in this case, and that blame goes completely to the kayaker. In my judgement, that kayaker should have not only been cited, he/she (both) should have been arrested.

Good to see you posting again!

Well this is obviously true


This is however faulty logic. Sitting in a kayak, your eyes are about two feet above the water, you can see less than 2 miles to the horizon. But a person standing in a small power boat, with their eyes six feet above the water can see three miles. A large cruiser with there eyes 10-11 feet high, can see 4 miles. That why fishing boats have towers, height improves distance. Speed has nothing to do with how far you can see.

This is the point I have been trying to make all along. Your statement, and the attitude it represents, is simply wrong, wrong, wrong!

By common sense, and by law, a boater is required to be in control of his vessel at all times. You are required to keep a look out at all times. If you can't see where you are going, YOU DON'T GO!

Obviously it is not possible to see everything that may be in the water, especially at night. But boating your way is Russian Roulette. Someday you are going to lose.

Then why do so many power boat operators say that they have trouble seeing kayaks - when I can see them for at least a mile away? (assuming decent weather conditions - and I obviously talking about in daylight here)

There's nothing faulty about my logic - because we're talking about visibility over relatively short distances here - like a mile or less (not several miles).

BTW your figures and calculations are way off. In a sitting position my eyes are 32 inches high - not "less than 2 feet"(I'm 6 feet tall and have a long torso). So I can see a 1-foot high kayak that is just over 3 nautical miles away. And, I can see the other person in kayak up to about 4 nautical miles away - which is equal to 4.6 miles

The formula is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles. But that's just to the horizon. You have to do the same calculation (1.17 times the square root) on the height of the other object, and then you have to ADD the two together.

And speed has a great deal with the ability to see what is nearby, as you're moving too fast to see everything. If you don't believe me, try driving a section of road at like 50 MPH, and then walk a mile or two of that same section. I guarantee that you'll see things walking that you didn't notice when you were driving. You simply have more time to see all the details.

Plus, the higher you are, and the closer you are, the more that a boat like a kayak blends in with the water around it - because you are looking down on it. I'm actually sitting slightly below the waterline - so I'm looking across the water at other kayaks and and not down at them.

Forget the earplugs.

Excuse me!!? Is a kayak not a boat? Is a kayak subject to the same navigation law as an 18' powerboat, or a 45' cruiser? YES IT IS!!!!

The kayak:The kayak was able to see the approaching vessel. The kayaker decided to abandon his boat. The kayaker PROBABLY thought the approaching boat with the spotlight was the Marine Patrol looking for unlighted kayakers in the water and rather than face a citation and fine he decided to jump out of his boat and swim away leaving his unlighted kayak floating directly in the path of an on coming boat!

The powerboater is completely vindicated. The kayaker was dead wrong, completely liable and he is lucky that he is not DEAD!

I think the earplug suggestion was a joke. But loud boats are an annoyance and should be dealt with more agressively.

Your quote is a good common sense idea. What is the source? I can find no NH law. Remember Coast Guard rules do not apply on NH lakes.

"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."

Loud exhaust save lives.;)

I would like to see an experiment on that one... I have 20/15 vision and don't think that I could see a kayak 1' high at 3 nautical miles...At that distance it would blend in with the waves/surroundings and look quite insignificant. Your visibility formula may or may not be accurate (I did not bother to investigage but will take your word on it) but it is all relative to the size of the object that you are looking at and the overall light conditions at that time.

Goodness, one of the first statements I made in my post was "we're talking about visibility over relatively short distances here - like a mile or less (not several miles)." (I guess you missed that.)

jrc was the one that brought up the height/distance relationship - all I did was produce the actual formular that you use (look it up) - and I pointed out that his calculations were off. The formular gives you the MAXIMUM distance that you can see another object across a body of water - which is based on the curvature of the earth. THAT'S IT. And that MAXIMUM distance is the furtherest you can see across water, even if you use a telescope.

My point was that I have absolutely no trouble spotting other kayakers that are over a mile away - in normal weather conditions - in the daylight. I believe that my position (at their same level) and my slow speed give me some advantage. In actual practice, I know that I can often see other kayaks that are 1-1/2 miles away. For instance, on Squam, when I leave Piper's Cove, I can usually see kayaks up until they pass between Moon Island and Bowman Island. According to my chart, that's just about 1.5 miles away.

Airwaves- You are also wrong, wrong, wrong!

We all agree the kayaker was at fault, but that does NOTHING to exonerate the power boater. In your simple view of things you have reasoned that since the kayaker was at fault, the boater did nothing wrong.

It is highly possible that BOTH parties were at fault.

Codeman, Evenstar,
I wasn't trying to give exact measurements. Just pointing out that greater height is greater visibility. I don't know what boaters have said to you but in smooth water and normal daylight, I never have problems picking out kayaks at quite a distance on the open water. Now add some heavy chop and a kayak may fall in a hole once in a while but still quite visble. As the sun fades after twilight things get a little tougher.

Boating around kayaks is really very easy. They are relatively slow and usually track a straight course. Now boating around jetskis is a lot harder. They are fast and never follow a straight course.