I found these two articles, one from the Associated Press the other from the Boston Globe, interesting and very telling for the future funding of the New Hamsphire Marine Patrol.

First the AP article from March 28:
Boatbuilding hits the rocks

Then this article today from the Globe
Boat owners struggling to jump ship

(It appears you may have to register for free in order to view the articles) There are other articles that talk about stock prices for boat manufacturers taking hits, and West Marine Q4 profits way off as well but these two articles are representative, and funny neither one mentions a speed limit as the cause or even a factor!

So, how do these stories impact the Marine Patrol? As has been mentioned a number of times on this forum, the Marine Patrol gets its funding from NH boat registrations. That is why they have been doing direct mailings recently to boat owners asking you to register directly through the Marine Parol. That way they don't have to share the revenue with the towns.

If the economic factors that are effecting the boatbuilder and Massachusetts boaters looking to get out are also being felt in New Hampshire, the Marine Patrol budget will suffer.

So now we're looking at the possibility of a new law that will require new enforcement efforts from an agency that is facing funding cuts. Since New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has told his agency heads that because of an expected $50,000,000 budget shortfall to be prepared for cuts.

Even in the unlikely event that the state does step in and level fund the Marine Patrol the need for a new series of radar patrols is still a cutback since those patrols require radar certified Marine Patrol officers (training costs) to run radar duty instead of conducting safety patrols (patrol cutbacks). Accomplishing that, to cover a lake that is 72 square miles, is going to take more than one radar boat!

Such a move would be a reduction in safety to all boaters that I strongly oppose and actually will make the lake a LESS SAFE PLACE TO BE!

Ironic, a law requiring a speed limit could actually make the lake less safe!

In another thread someone asked how opponents to the speed limit would react if there are 22 speed related deaths this summer? I will pose the same question to you. How are you going to sleep at night if, because of the required radar patrols to enforce your speed limit, a boat is involved in an accident in an area where a Marine Patrol boat would normally be but can't be because it's doing a speed trap patrol and the victim of the accident dies?

Speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee but there are problems and taking the only law enforcement on the lake and cutting their patrol time to enforce an unnecessary law is just plain stupid!

Decks, Distractions and Distorted Windshields...
 

In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).

The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1208184931

On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?

Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...NCInterior.jpg

You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...oreOnshore.jpg

I don't see the point of posting this stuff, the poster was talking about being in a boat at 110 mph...somewhere OTHER than Lake Winni.
Where were those pics taken? Were they on Lake Winni? Was the driver experienced? Was the driver in either instance perhaps impaired?

Maybe next you should post some pics of sailboat accidents that occurred somewhere around the globe.

The horror!
 

These guys must have been going more than 45!
http://www.brooklynrecord.com/archiv...25sailboat.jpg
http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...ec30/wreck.jpg

So, you never addressed YOUR experience with performance boats!? Your "racer" that you built at Brewster... was it really a 1/12 scale!? Or was it the little 10' footer I mentioned with the 15hp outboard on it!? Come on, you can tell us ;) Establish some credibility with me (and the board) here before you continue, that way we know if you know what you are talking about with regard to performance boats - and didn't just read it in a magazine.

As for the boat I was in, Cali. Delta - and the canopies only look distorted from that angle (the back seat) - they are F16 canopies that are optically correct and provide a PERFECTLY CLEAR view when sitting in either of the two front seats. (I know, I was sitting in both of them - at different times - at some point in time that day). That is a boat that you see through the canopy - it was over 1 mile down, we slowed down long before getting to it. And the GPS - who cares where that is located, it offers NO information pertaining to safe operation, it just tells you how fast you're going. Again, if you had any real experience with performance boats, you'd know that.

As for the $1mil. dollar boat that you posted a picture of above, do you know the owner and / or story behind that picture!?!? I do! What was your point in posting that...!? It happened 2,000 miles from the lake.

In fact - your point in posting any of those pics!? I can start to post pics of car accidents, plane crashes, jet skis that are smashed up - even bowriders that are wrecked... again, what's the point!?

Tell you what - again, establish some credibility for yourself in the high performance boating world, and we can have an adult conversation - now that you "are all grown up". Until then, stop posting your propaganda - 'cuz all you're doing is clouding the facts...

As far as the incident as "told to you" on the long foredeck issue, that is - at best - second-hand information, again - pure speculation, and since you were not actually there, dismissed!

always a danger
 

:laugh:yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...

This post is DEAD ON! Seriously this should be the mantra for the lake. Slow down and enjoy yourselves. However, I do not begrudge those of you who want to rip it across the broads for a little kick. I don't have a fast boat but I've been in a few and it is a real kick. All the times I've been in them I've found the operators to be among the best and most considerate boaters.

Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.

You have the freedom
 

Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

You have the right to enter the scene along with everyone else. Your choice of which freedoms to exercise will be moderated by your personal level and tolerance of fear. Suck it up. Chances are very good that you won't be hit.

I don't think last July was a long time ago.

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!

And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking. :rolleye2:

Sorry, I couldn't let that one get by.
 

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.

It is of course not appropriate to pretend it never happened. If anything, attention should be brought to any safety issues related to alcohol. No other factors can really be attributed to an accident once you determine that alcohol was a factor however. If somebody is boating under the influence, its fairly safe to assume that they are ignoring any and all appropriate laws.

Also, regarding the kayak accident, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the kayakers abandoned ship well before they were hit, at a distance such that if they had not jumped out they could have just paddled out of the way. Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened?

Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.

BI...

The accident did occur.... a powerboat struck an unlit, unmanned kayak! HOWEVER, it is not the fault of the powerboat operator. Under NH Law, USCG rules and COLREGS, the Kayak was a hazard to navigation simply by the virtue of not properly displaying a light. IF you want to go a step further, the paddler was intoxicated! I dont particulalry care that he was nude... although I do think it a bit odd and is probably related to his AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)!

Had the kayaker been sober, he probably would have been displaying the proper lighting, and the accident probably would not have happened, as the operator of the powerboat was SOBER!

Every accident scenario you post seems to have one common thread... Alcohol Intoxication!! I agree with Chmeee... anytime you have an accident and it is determined that alcohol is involved, all bets are off!

Woodsy

The "Spin" is to post that it didn't happen. I will not defend the naked/drunk/unlit idiot in the kayak. However the accident DID happen.

I don't think Lakegeezer was lying, he probably forgot that last summers accident would apply to his statement.

But don't accuse me of spin when I point out the error. If one of you had pointed out the error would that have been spin?

Woodsy-

When did I blame anyone for this accident. You are going overboard (pun intended). I posted one sentence to remind people that it did happen. After that I was responding to criticism.

There is more to this story than has been told
 

OK - maybe we can count this one as a kayak accident, but its hard to use it as a reason to impose speed limits, boat size or HP limits - as those issues don't seem to be a factor in this case. This falls into the category of freedom to take risks (boating while dark, no lights, drunk and nude). The kayakers got caught on this one. Have we seen the offical accident report? Perhaps the kayakers abandoned ship as to not get caught nude, and therefore it was not an accident involving people, but just a case of a boat hitting lake debris at night.

Evenstar...

You do lots of everyday activites "At Your Own Peril"! Driving a car, crossing a street, riding a bicycle are all everyday activities that put YOU at risk of serious injury or death! A far greater risk than you have paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee on the BUSIEST of summer days! In all of those activities above, a 2000lb+ vehicle is passing within 10' of you at speed. Everyday people get injured or killed in NH as a result of those everyday activities! No kayaker has ever been struck and seriously injured or killed on Lake Winnipesaukee... EVER!

Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports!

You need to come up with a better argument...

Woodsy

It happened, but its relevance as a data point in any way to what is being discussed here is zero. That you bring it up as a "reminder" or "argument" serves only to act as a distraction to a rational discussion.

A powerboat hit an empty, unlit kayak that was floating free in the water at night. The kayak was merely a piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person.

Wow! Now the kayak is a "piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person".

I posted my reminder to Lakegeezer because what he posted was incorrect, he has since agreed it was incorrect. However you guys have to make a mountain out of a mole hill and not let it go.

There is an unfortunate tendency on this forum to discount accidents. They are excused away for a number of reason, mostly alcohol. ALL accidents need to be considered when it comes to safety. Certainly alcohol abuse and other idiotic behavior must be taken into consideration. But an accident is still an accident.

I'm sorry if you don't like my "reminder". However in the future I will continue to post reminders whenever I think an accident is being overlooked, discounted or forgotten.

I went back to the thread on the accident. SIKSUKR knows the people in the boat. At the time he posted... "The guy saw the boat coming,bailed and swam to the shore." That doesn't sound like the kayak was a floating piece of debris. Sounds more like a close call.


The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that.

The actual statictics
 

Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report: “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”

I talked to one of the girls who was in the boat.They were traveling well under the proposed 25 mph night speed limit.There were 2 kayaks and a man and a woman operating them.They had no lighting and new the boat could not see them so they bailed out and swam to shore.The boat operaters spent some time trying to find the kayakers and finally found them on shore.They were actually hiding because of their embaressment.the boat finally took them on board and brought them to the camp they were renting.The camp owner had the nerve to try and recoup the damages from the boat operaters.This makes about as much sense as someone using this accident as an example for kayaker's fear for their safety.Pleeease.

So the kayaker did not see or hear the boat coming ahead of time? A properly lit powerboat with a gas engine? What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement.

They were not in an area where the boat was traveling at excessive speeds by any means and there has been no report to indicate otherwise. I do believe that the boater was not at fault, they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark. Had the person been in kayak I still think that a court would have a tough time finding the boater negligent.

Also, the kayakers were renting a cottage in Fish Cove and were actually in Meredith bay by Spindle Point! All kinds of AIS in those kayaks that night. I meane if you're in Fish Cove kayaking naked, stay close, maybe venture into Tommies Cove, but all the way past Spindle Point! Yea, AIS.

I will agree this was an accident. The cause of which was the 2 kayakers KUI.

Mythbusters For The Defense...
 

Because of the $2000 threshold for a NHMP report—and no injury—why would this require a report to the NHMP? Failing that—and that the CG has no jurisdiction on Winnipesaukee—will it even appear in Coast Guard statistics?

:(

Interstate analogies again....:rolleye2:

How are the salmon fishermen, fishermen at anchor, kayaks, tubers, floating debris, anchored swimmers, anchored picnickers, and the occasional errant swim float to be accounted for in any Interstate example? :confused:

I previously noted here that a week before July 4th weekend, I saw a canoe, with a kayak in tow—transporting a solitary toddler—in open water. :eek:

Not exactly a jaywalker strolling out between parked SUVs, was she?

It's not right to "project" a view of a non-participant into this incident. We don't know that to be FACT.



What is being taken for FACT...has only appeared at this forum.

The news article states, "...the kayak had no lights...".

A kayak does not need "lights". A single 360° hand-held light is sufficient. Did the reporter expect to find the "missing lights" in an overturned and abandoned kayak with several feet of its bow missing? :confused:

SIKSUKR's account (DUI, naked, no lights) was 3rd-hand; plus, we don't have any corroborating evidence from the press. The "NH Bass Foundation Nation" account (if there was one) could be parroting what appears anywhere on the Internet!

Unless there is some public document floating around, we don't "clearly know" any of that. Do we "clearly know" of a single citation being issued?

At some point after this after-dark encounter, there were one or two swimmers in the water. A swimmer anywhere on the lake after dark—and needing rescue—cannot be expected to have lights.

If "kayaks can't be seen", I will agree with Mee&Mac and Evenstar that a strobe should be allowed for after-dark kayaking.

(Even one that does not meet the on-ON criterion. And yes, we should protect the fool at our own "expense").

(Some PFDs have strobe lights.)

http://www.marisafe.com/img/items/m/104550291.jpg

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

:rolleye1:

Missing Kayaker
 

In the spirit of APS type posts,I offer this one from the WMUR website.


Searchers Look For Missing Kayaker

POSTED: 7:56 am EDT May 2, 2008
UPDATED: 10:17 am EDT May 2, 2008


ORFORD, N.H. -- Authorities are searching for a Vermont man after his empty kayak was found floating in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Lt. Todd Bogardus said 58-year-old Robert Swantak of Bradford, Vt., went out for an afternoon of kayaking and fiddlehead fern picking Thursday.

He started in the Waits River in Bradford, which joins the Connecticut River that separates Vermont and New Hampshire.

Swantak's family called police when he failed to return home.

His overturned kayak was found a few miles down river in Orford, N.H., but there was no sign of Swantak.

Authorities from both states searched until after midnight and will begin searching again Friday morning.

Bogardus said officials remain optimistic that Swantak made it to shore, but he notes that the river is at high flood level with very swift currents and cold water temperatures.

The clothes-optional visitors were operating a craft in an unsafe manner. They created the problem, not the boater. Had they been operating within the law, this incident would not have happened. Period.

Oh and regarding the alcohol-induced excess, there is already a BUI law. Enforce it.

Boy, who pulled out their Thesaurus the other day?? Quite impressed...:laugh:

This "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd does not condone naked kayaking while drunk and stupid in the dark without any navigation lights, and we do not condone alcohol related stupidity behind the wheel of a boat. We push for better education, enforcement of current laws and promoting a safe lake. We do not promote a fear based campaign full of BS and empty of facts like our opposition.

There is no rampant issue with boats traveling 3 times the proposed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, I am not sure what Winnipesaukee you live on. There is a handful at most that are capable of speeds over 100mph, nonetheless 135mph.

More statistics
 

Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.

The relative safety of the type of watercraft seems a bit off the topic of the risk to others by boats exceeding 45 MPH. Specifically, your point has been the risk to kayakers by such high speed boats. In Boating Statistics 2006, on page 27, is a chart entitled TYPES OF ACCIDENTS BY TYPE OF VESSEL. There are 3 types of accident that seem pertinent to the discussion, Collisions with other vessels, Struck by boat, and Struck by motor. For 2006 only 2 kayaks and 2 canoes had been involved in collision accidents. This is out of a total of 6753 accidents reported in the U.S. We don't know anything further about the actual speed of the collisions that occurred.

I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.

Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?

I didn't start this argument. Woodsy made false accusations about the safety of kayaks, that I refuted with some actual facts.

If you're going to lump all paddle boats together, you also need to lump all power boats together. Then do the math, and you'll see that I'm still correct.
I'm not a worrier. But I am a realist. And close calls from high-speed boats have put me in danger.

Boats on Winni that were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violate my 150 foot zone by a considate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me. And this has occurred more than once.

If lightening was striking that close, I wouldn't just sit there, waiting for the next strike . . . regardless of the statistics!

Note: I do know what 45mph looks like on the water. And I'm really good at extimating distance. If a boat is only 3 to 4 kayak lengths away from me, it is way closer than 150 feet.

Come on now
 

APS Said "Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit. "

How frequently does this happen APS that there are paddlers out at night?? I am going to leave the clothing optional part out because that is just and amusing aside. Why is it ok for a small boat to be out at night without lights?
Why are they not subject to same rules as the rest of us? Where in all of this discussion has anyone said outright that operating any motorized vehicle is ok while intoxicated. Apparently I am one of these Live-Free-or-Die" crowd and I don't believe that. I do think that as a responsible person if I decided to paddle at night I would make myself as conspicuous as possible. Reflective tape on my PFD, a 360 degree light, a flash light so if these other things didn't work I could flash it a passing boat. Maybe even an air horn to blast at the boat to let my presence known. I would not decide that it was ok to abandon my vessel and leave it adrift in the path of an oncoming vessel. Where are you coming from with this?

let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?

i'm not afraid of speeding boats because a) there aren't a lot of them and b) i've never had an issue with a speeding boat and i've got over 1,000 boating hours on this lake. If you have a fear of being hit by lightning or being run over by a speeding boat, stay inside when it rains and don't venture out on the lake when you see that boat going by your house at 130 mph (and please call me, i've yet to see that).

i don't think many boaters are afraid of the lake. i wonder what a survery would produce if you asked the question to boaters on lake winnipesaukee: are you afraid of boating on the lake? i think you'd find an over-whelming majority say they feel safe on the lake (in my opinion).

I would like to propose that a speed limit for lightning be enacted. I think a safe speed would be 45 miles per hour. This would serve multiple benefits:

First of all, most members of the population are quite frightened by lightning and the high speed that it moves at (up to 93,000 miles per second). It can be especially scary if the lightning strikes within 150 feet of a person.

Second, it would reduce noise pollution. The thunder produced by lightning is mainly due to high speed of the electricity traveling through the air. Reduced to 45 miles per hour it would be a quiet buzzing sound.

Third, it could benefit the loon population. They are quite sensitive to sound and motion, so they could get out of the area before being struck as the lightning approached at a reasonable and prudent speed.

Fourth, children's camps could operate on the water with less fear. Think about it!

:look:

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group? :)

that's easy, sunshine; it the only thing that isn't "feared" on the lake (sarcasm font applied - i don't want people thinking i'm afraid of a 46 mph boat - geeesh).

Obvious? Your posts are hardly coherent, much less obvious.