Only if you make stuff up. There is no evidence from any source that even hints at any wrong doing on the part of the power boater.

Well some people still believe that OJ is innocent.

Islander - GIVE IT A REST!!!! This is pathetic.

The powerboater was not charged with any wrong doing, and if he/she was you would be shouting it from the roof tops of Bear Island and beyond.

The MP's have exonerated the powerboater. It is also quite likely the kayaker or kayakers were given a citation or a least should have been, because as you point of they were in the wrong.

END OF STORY.

I'll throw my 2 cents in too. When I am boating either at night or day I make it MY responsibility to ensure the surounding boats see me and understand my intentions. With that said I expect within reason other boats will do the same. It is the law!! If you are following the law I WILL see you at night. If you are not I may run you over.

I accept the risks of hitting submerged objects, islands, rocks, floats, submarines, and anything else "unexpected". These are MY risks. I keep a vigilent lookout for them. I accept full responsibility for them. I do not however accept the risk of hitting an unlit boat, kayaker, or other MANNED craft without lights. The risk of them being run over is on THEM. I will however rely on my my vigilant lookout to help me avoid such people but I WILL NOT accept their risk.

Thank You!
 

Hopefully this will end the debate.

Tank

The debate ain't over until we know why those guys were neked. :D

At this stage after his accident Dan had not been charged with anything either. And how do we know there was no citation for the powerboater?

This accident in itself is unimportant. However it has brought to light the fact that many people boat at night expecting anything in the way to have a light.

4Fun thinks he is not responsible if he hits a boat with no lights. I hope he never has to explain his theory to a jury, because they will not be buying it.

What about a boat with a burned out light, what about children on a boat operated by an idiot. This is the typical "blame someone else" attitude that prevails by irresponsible members of our society.

Dan????
 

Lest we forget, at this stage after "Dan" had committed his felony he was still in hiding and letting his father & father's Attorney run interference.

Apples & oranges again......

Because we have heard from people that were on the boat. Duh.


And you know this because apparently you are the jury in all such cases?


Kinda like you blaming boats moving about the speed limit that doesn't exist?

Batter up. :laugh:

JUST LET IT GO!!!! AS I SAID BEFORE THIS IS JUST PLAIN PATHETIC THE WAY YOU ARE TRYING TO FORWARD YOUR OWN AGENDA. WE ALL KNOW IT.

CALL YOUR PUBLICIST. :liplick:

Hi Skip

What are the responsibilities of a boater to be able to see where he is going at night? Any laws on that. Can one assume that if there are no lights then nothing is there? Or is more diligence required?

That question is not apples and oranges, it's strait to the point.

This seems to be mostly about the boating at night and operator responsibility. Where does "agenda" come in?

Lunar visual conditions were already excellent and don't get much better. You cash in your night vision with a spotlight, and need to slow afterwards. My take now is that the moment that the spotlight is put to use looking ahead of the powerboat, that obstructions should have been seen. If obstructions aren't seen once a spotlight is put to use, that was negligence on the part of the captain for excess speed under conditions he created himself for his boat and passengers.

Gavia immer made me shake my head by writing:
A SPOTlight is just that, a high powered beam of light. It throws a focused BEAM of light. It does not turn night into day. The part of this argument that you folks who insist that the powerboaters are always wrong is that the kayker, as the operator of a boat, in addition to violating the law regarding lighting configuration, obviously SAW THE POWER BOAT COMING and chose to abandon his boat rather than take evasive action!
Give it up!

How many fairies can dance.....
 

I think it would be wise to carefully read the transcript you provided of the Littlefield (Danny) crime. In the appeal the Supreme Court makes it clear that even though a jury did not find Littlefield guilty of Negligent Homicide while Boating While Intoxicated, the jury was free to consider the ample evidence presented of Littlefield's intoxication and weigh that as an element in determining that Littlefield's intoxication was a major element contibuting to his inability to maintain a proper watch.

Several posters have repeatedly statedthat since Littlefield was not convicted of the BWI offense that he was thus "innocent". A careful reading of the transcript you provided shows just the opposite.

There has been no allegation of intoxication on the part of the operator of the power boat regarding this particular incident.

And no, there is no concrete answer as to when a person has or has not maintained a proper lookout. That is why, if the accusation is made, the person is charged with an offense and then (depending on the level of the offense) has a hearing in District Court by a Judge(misdemeanor offense) or has a jury trial in Superior Court (for a felony offense).

Any one of us is free to speculate ad nauseum about the issues surrounding this particular incident, but until any charges are brought and the issue is adjudicated we are all just taking shots in the dark, so to speak.

But back to the case in front of us....

If no charges are brought, as appears more & more to be the case, then the only safe assumption we can make is that the State has determined the facts and circumstances gathered during their investigation did not arise to a sufficient level of probable cause to effect an arrest or summons.

Many factors go in to the State's decision to pursue charges or drop a case. In this instance it appears the active investigation is winding down or completed. Once the investigation is completed a copy of the case can be reviewed by contacting the NHMP and requesting, under the State's Right-to-know law, the ability to review the same.

Only at that time can the rampant speculation be put to rest.

Utopia
 

If this was a perfect world everyone out in the dark could see everything, and everyone boating will do what they are supposed to. But come on!!! you can be the most diligent boater out there and miss something, hence this is called an accident. Accidents do happen no matter how diligent everyone is. Everyone involved took a chance that evening. The kyakers took a chance by going out at night without lights and lost. The powerboater took a chance going out at night and lost by finding the one peice of water that happened to have an unlighted kayak in it. It was an accident, and a case of everyone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The chance of this meeting would have been much smaller if the kayak had a light, or even if the kayaker had a reflective sash on instead of nothing.:) As the saying goes [stuff] happens and unfortunately it happened to this group of people. Luckily no one was hurt besides the kayak.

To comment on your comments....

I never want to hit another boat. I will do everything in my power not to do so but I will absolutely NOT be held responsible if I hit another boat with no lights. Burned out or not. Whether there are children or nuns on board is irrelevant. The blame someone else attitude is in your comment!!! If you are out there with no lights YOU are to blame not me. I will be sober, keeping a proper lookout, and going a reasonable speed( no not 50mph in the dark) . I will be following the law. You will be nearly invisible and breaking the law. This is fact. I will put this to a jury and win every time. You better retain a good lawyer if I hit your unlit boat at night and someone in my boat is hurt.

I do agree it's about time the "blame someone else" people are held accountable. Take responsibility for your own actions please. The laws you are pushing so strongly have nurtured all these idiots to get so far in life. They think the world is all warm and fuzzy since RSA1234 is there to keep them safe. We need to stop dummying down society to the lowest common denominator. There are some pretty dumb people out there and if we model our society around them we will grind to a halt.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=68561

Here is a relavent link from Long Lake in ME.
Rumor has it the boat that was hit was "star gazing" with no lights on. ( A 17' hydrostream) It is not clear how fast the 31' was going but I would guess pretty fast seeing they got thrown out and the boat made it 100 yards on shore.

This should be an interesting investigation.....

Another report with slightly different boat info...
Sorry no link...

HARRISON — Maine Warden Service divers planned to resume
their search this morning for the bodies of two people presumed
to have been killed when a cigarette-style speedboat smashed
into their 14-foot fiberglass boat Saturday night on Long Lake.

The speed of the 34-foot, high-performance boat was such that
when it hit shore moments after striking the smaller craft, it was
launched 150 feet into the woods.

The two occupants of the speedboat were thrown into the water
in the collision, but were able to swim to shore.

The warden service has launched a criminal investigation and
has been instructed by the Cumberland County District
Attorney's Office not to release the names of those who had
been in the speedboat or the couple presumed to have died in
the smaller boat, said Lt. Pat Dorian, head of search and rescue
for the warden service.

More than a dozen distraught family members and friends
gathered on the shoreline near the staging area of the search,
watching the boats, divers and a float plane scour a half-mile by
quarter-mile area. Friends in the town of Naples lamented the
loss of a local musician who had a wide circle of friends.

Investigators have not concluded whether the boats involved had
the required bow and stern lights, or if so, were using them
when the crash happened at about 9 p.m. off Bear Point on the
east side of Long Lake near the town line.

The speedboat and the recovered bow of the fiberglass boat
have been taken to the Maine State Police crime lab in Augusta
for analysis.

Police were called to the east shore of Long Lake by a resident
who heard the larger boat crash into the shore. The occupants
were found swimming to shore and were taken for medical
treatment.

It was two hours later that wardens found the flotsam of the
smaller boat, but it is unclear precisely where the collision
occurred, leaving divers with a huge search area, Dorian said.

The searchers were skimming the bottom in 30 to 45 feet of
water, with about 10 feet of visibility when the sun was shining.

A boat towing two divers was using global positioning software
to record the areas that had been searched.

The searchers were looking for the missing couple or the boat's
115 Mercury outboard motor, which sank and could help them
narrow their search, Dorian said. However, soft mud and silt at
the bottom could have buried the motor, he said.

People in Naples said one of the missing people was Raye Trott,
and that the other was presumably his girlfriend, who was not
from the area. The couple had headed out on his boat on
Saturday and had not returned to their vehicles after the crash.

Friends gathered Sunday at Bray's Brew Pub, a popular Naples
hangout where Trott often performed in a local band, in hopes
the search would bring good news. They left disappointed.

"It's obviously very disappointing for anyone who knew him,"
said Angela Roux, a waitress at the pub. "He was a great
musician, a great friend and he had a big heart."

Seth Merriam said Trott was a good friend who was fond of
riding his customized Harley-Davidson motorcycle and who had
a coarse, but warm, sense of humor.

"He tells some pretty funny jokes you wouldn't tell your
grandmother," Merriam recalled. "He was really down to earth
and funny."

Merriam said he was in Naples talking to his girlfriend on the
telephone Saturday just before the crash, and heard a cigarette
boat accelerate loudly after passing the bridge by the Naples
Causeway. He remarked about it to his girlfriend because he had
been in one for the first time earlier in the day and was amazed
at how fast it was and how much of the lake it consumed as it
roared down the narrow body of water.

Merriam guessed that Trott may have sought the dark, open
expanse of sky offered on the lake Saturday night to take in the
Perseid meteor shower, which could have been a reason to turn
off the boat's navigational lights.

Boats under way are required to have a white light on the stern
and a red and green light on the bow.

Maine law defines reckless operation as operating a watercraft to
recklessly create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to
another person. Another law defines operating to endanger as
operating a watercraft so as to endanger a person or property.

Boats also must be operated at reasonable and prudent speeds.

Violation of any of those laws is a misdemeanor.

"Speed is a factor on many of our lakes and ponds in southern
Maine," Dorian said, noting that congested lakes during the
summer are particularly dangerous.

"It's an accident waiting to happen. Those kinds of things are
compounded when you're traveling at night," he said.

Searchers planned to return to Bear Point today to continue the
search for the missing couple and for evidence.

"I don't have a doubt we'll go for days until we find the missing
victims," Dorian said.

Just what I was thinking. . .
 

Thanks Parrothead - you summed up my thoughts. This was an accident. I can't tell you how "fast" we were going, but I can say, for what it's worth, that I at no time felt unsafe, or that we were moving at an excessive speed - based on the speeds I have travelled at other times on the lake (as a passenger). My immeidate reaction when I saw the kayak in two pieces was that the prop caused the damage. Yes there was moonlight, but make no mistake that it was still dark. I just don't think, until it happens to you or you witness it, that you can place blame on the captain.

Really?
 

Was it you????

I agree that it was an accident and if you had to put blame it would be the kayak with no lights. Speed could have come into play here but if lights were on you would have to imagine steps would have been taken, even with this said, the illegal act was being on the lake at night with no lights

You'll have to read the entire thread, and when you do you'll notice the lack of response when hypothetical scenario's are discredited with common sense, logic and basic boater education knowledge. Then the poster, you know the one with the "agenda", comes back with another angle/scenario and never acknowledges that their previous hypothetical scenario was discredited with well thought out and common sense responses by many of other members of this forum.

Hows that? :D

Not very clear!

I have read the entire thread and I don't see what you are getting at. Both sides have expressed their opinion, I don't see where anyone has had their "scenario discredited".

There seems to be a difference of opinion about vision and boating in the dark. Quite frankly it has made me think about my night operation. I'm not sure where I come down on this.

But why the mystery? Who are you talking about? What is the "agenda"?

Can you give us an example

Post 234?

Good luck in your quest for speed limits(said facetiously for those how like to twist things). I've had enough of this thread and feel it should be closed. Beating a dead horse is a understatement.

Post 234 refers to post 231. However Islander was clearly talking about the responsibilities of the powerboater. Responding that a kayak is a boat has nothing to do with the statements in 231.

I think YOU are the one with the agenda. Because you don't like speed limits is no reason to bash people that do! This thread has very little to do with speed limits, I can't see where ANY proposed speed limit would have made a difference in this case.

I agree!

This accident and this thread are not about the 45/25 proposed speed limit.

It does involve the question of how fast is reasonable at night. That determination depends on the conditions. There are some instances where it is possible to go quite fast at night in reasonable safety. A lot also depends on the operators night vision and experience. A 25 mph night speed limit is a compromise at best, and 45 mph during the day is to low.

If you want to go back and read posts, check out #21 where the entire story of the accident is thought to be BS, and must therefore have been invented by people on Bear Island. That is called bashing.

Asking for a thread to be closed is a typical responses when someone's own voracity or agenda is challenged.

Island Lover wrote:
Actually post #234 that I wrote points out that a kayak is a boat and must comply with ALL the same navigation rules as an 18' bowrider or a 45' cruiser, not just SOME of them as has been continuously ignored by the kayak sympathizers!

The "powerboater is always wrong" crowd first accused the powerboater in question of not keeping a proper lookout. I am just pointing out that it was also the responsiblity of the kayker to keep a proper lookout, and based on his action of abandoning his boat it is reasonable to say he saw the approaching vessel and rather than paddle out of the way he jumped out of his boat thus taking his second action to directly cause the accident! (The first was being out on the water after midnight without proper lighting)

Of course when we found out from someone on board the powerboat that not only was there a proper lookout posted, but an active search ahead of the boat with a spotlight...well, then the argument turned to:
And there it is Aubrey....SPEED!

I tend to agree with LocalRealtor, enough is enough until someone can obtain a copy of the MP report on this case.

Is it my responsibility to bring a spare light for your craft? Is it my responsibility to make sure your kids aren't out on a boat operated by an idiot (its is my responsibility to make sure my own kids are not)? Is it my responsibility to make sure your kayak HAS A LIGHT AS REQUIRED BY LAW? If I cut down a tree and leave it floating in the lake, and you hit it, who's responsible for that? I hope its your boat that hits it so I can use your posts here in court to prove you think its both our faults.

And will know enough to not blame others for his own stupidity.

The powerboat operator is responsible for nothing more than hitting an unlighted object, period. If they hit a floating tree, dock, ect. its the same deal, they are responsible for the damage to their own craft and learn a lesson about being more vigilant in their watch. No forum threads, no news reports, no one dies or is traumatized for life. But throw in a couple of kayakers and now someone has to spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact that they almost killed someone. To shift responsibility for anything more then the damage to the powerboaters own vessel onto the powerboaters is a ridiculous attempt by the GSBQ (Go Slow, Be Quiet) crowd to shout from the hilltops about how irresponsible powerboaters are.

Now heres a great question, whos to say that capt. neckeds hasty retreat from his kayak didn't push said kayak into the powerboaters path?

I think most of us agree, 45mph is too low!

It is your responsibility to be able to see where you are going. However it seems that many people here think that this responsibility is negated by darkness.

I disagree. Darkness is a mitigating factor, just like snow, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities.

Since I am a powerboater myself, I will not blame them as a group. My boat can go 60 mph and frequently does. And several anti speed limit people are in agreement with me about night boating. Read the very logical things Silver Duck said in post 66 and 102. I agree with him 100%. I assume the only reason he was not bashed is because he opposes 25/45.

The source is the Coast Guard.

You say it's good common sense, and I agree. There needs to be more common sense used while boating at night, not entitlement and outrage.

So is boating on a dark night irresponsible
 

OK, what am I to understand from these 2 sentences;

"Obviously it is not possible to see everything that may be in the water, especially at night. "

and

"If you can't see where you are going, YOU DON'T GO!"

To me it sure sounds like nighttime boating, except for perhaps when the full moon is overhead, is verbotten in your book. Do I understand you correctly ?

Living on an island I must boat at night all the time. I have crossed to the island on many a dark rainy night. It isn't possible to see every obstacle in the water at night. One could easily run down a swimmer that had just a few inches exposed.

I believe an operator must regulate their speed to match the conditions. Even then boating at night caries risks. Like driving in a snowstorm, you need to make adjustments to match the conditions, even then accidents happen.

However many operators have taken this one step to far. They think it is the responsibility of anyone or anything on the lake at night to have a light. This is NUTS.

Someone can be out on the lake at night without any lights and not breaking any laws. If you run them down you better have a better story than they didn't have a light.

Huh II ?
 

OK, now I'm baffled. You stated that if you can't see, "you don't go" and that the responsibility to avoid unlit objects (swimmers, boats, canoes, etc) lies with the boat operator. Yet you state above you've crossed the lake many times when you could have easily run down a swimmer (assuming there had been one in your path) because "it isn't possible to see every obstacle in the water at night". So what would have been your story should such a thing have occurred to you some dark, rainy night ? What makes your unsafe speed different from the unsafe speed in this incident ?

I'm not suggesting the powerboat was going to fast. I don't know if the powerboater was at fault at all. What I disagree with is the idea that because the kayaker was at fault the powerboater is AUTOMATICALLY innocent. I also disagree with the idea that if you hit something without a light it is no problem.

Perhaps I should have said "if you can't see well enough, you don't go" it is not possible to see everything at night. This is in contrast to the "I don't see any lights, so I can go" theory I disagree with.

Give us an example, other than being tied up at a legal mooring.

I think that this whole thread has come down to degrees of "innocence" which is a word I don't like to use. There were no formal charges placed on the power boater that we have heard about, so guilt and innocence is irrelevant. I believe that we are talking more degrees of responsibility in the insurance sense. Which is somewhat relevant because in one of the posts it was mentioned that the naked people were renters and the owner of the property wanted the powerboater to replace the kayak they hit. Now in an insurance sense the kayaker is much more at fault than the powerboater. I look at it as a car accident. You are expected to keep a safe distance between all cars, and with that you have to make some assumptions about other peoples actions. So as you come to an intersection and have a green light, you don't expect the person stopped at the red to pull out 10 feet in front of your car. If they do pull out and you hit them the responsibilty for the accident is much more theirs than yours. The same logic can be used in this situation. Islander your statement that if there are no lights in front of you then you are clear is logical, otherwise you are frozen with indescision as to whether there is an unlighted object that no matter how hard you look can be unnoticed (a log a few inches under the water). So you have to take some things on faith that if there is a manned craft in front of you that they have some means to make themselves visible. A boater should operate their boat at a reasonable speed, and in this situation we really can't say that the boater was irresonsible given the information we have. What we can say is that the kayaker is much more at fault than the boater. Had the kayaker stayed in the kayak and used some means to let the boater know that they were there, most likely this would not have occured. There is always a risk of hitting an unlighted object at night. I lived on an island for many summers, and actually had to be out on a boat most nights. And the thought would never occur to me to be out on the water day or night without making myself as visible as possible to passing boats. I also wouldn't pull out of an intersection into the path of an oncoming car. You have to take somethings on faith that a thinking person would not knowing put themselves and you in harms way when it could be avoided. The kayaker put themselves and other boaters in harms way by being out at night without lights.

Confused?
 

Not sure what you mean??

This was exactly my point earlier. You have to operate your boat in a safe manor taking precautions for the unexpected. But you can not remove ALL risk from boating. If you did you would stay on land. I will do my part by taking all precautions(sober, vigilant, proceed with caution). That's why I regulate my speed accordingly. IF, I can see I go. If not, I go SLOW. It's that simple. What my point was after taking all the reasonable precautions and there is still an unlit manned object in the water that is nearly impossible to see the blame is one them in a crash.

I just want the people who think it's there right to kayak or swim without lights away from shore to understand the risk they are putting on THEMSELVES.

swimming


..

You are correct. However, don't mix up human behavior with boating laws. You cannot justify operating a boat of any kind, at night, without proper lighting. It is insane, as is swimming at night in navigable waters.

I disagree

Swimming at night in navigable waters is done all the time. A very normal thing to do.

Perhaps you mean swimming at night a long way from shore. Even then there are good sane reasons. And it is completely legal.