Kayak struck on Lake Sunapee
 

A 17 year old towing a water skier ran down and destroyed a kayak on Lake Sunapee yesterday morning. The kayaker jumped away and reportedly the boat passed right over him. NHMP investigating the incident, no charges filed yet.

Story can be read HERE at the Union Leader on-line.

Quick
 

That was quick thinking on the kayaker's part. Thankfully he was OK. What a moron the powerboat operator was- I can picture him now, no spotter so he did it himself. Or maybe he was texting!

Now, Where'd I Put My Whistle...?
 

Guess the skier missed him too? :eek:

Unless Lake Winnipesaukee is really rough, I go without wearing a PFD for this very reason (an emergency dive). The article reads like a "distressed" kayaker could use a sun-reflecting signaling device too. (A CD is free and very effective).

The article says he had "several people on board": A spotter can be a youthful one (and could be "texting"). :rolleye1:

I applaud those disciplined skippers who haul tubes and keep their eyes ahead at all times. :cool:

Most kayakers always wear pfd's so maybe he was too, and still had time to remove it while diving away from the motorboat. What color was his kayak? Was it a camoflage blend or a high visibility white?

Motorcycles sometimes get hit by other drivers who later claim that they never even saw the motorcycle, so could be that a small and low-to-the-water kayak is also "invisible." Good to hear that no injuries occurred, and it just destroyed the kayak with no personal injuries.

Will be interesting to see if this kayak-motorboat, close call does anything to get a state wide speed limit as opposed to a Winnipesaukee only speed limit?

While I'm sure this incident could be pimped to support any number of new nanny-state laws, I would be shocked if a water skier was being pulled at anywhere near 45MPH.

PFD and Safety
 

This may be an example where a PFD may not save a life. It will be hard to dive out of the way in time if the wearer had to take it off to dive!

If they had approved the swimmer's cap rule last year. The diver will waste valuable time donning his cap! :eek:

So much for 'nanny state' laws.....................

Capt B on Sunapee
 

What this clearly shows that slow speeds are no guarantee of "safety" (vis-a-vis collisions). You can give Capt B all the time in the world to see the hazard but if he refuses to look .... I recall that back in 2005 (or so ?) a 23' SeaRay T-boned a pontoon boat on Winni (in broad daylight) and lodged itself on top of said 'toon. At a speed under 45 MPH. So when people claim "He was going to fast to see me in time", I generally believe it's more like ;

a) he saw you and didn't care or
b) wasn't even looking.

This seems to be a case of the latter.

People have harped on how the Littlefield case demonstrates that their argument is correct. I wonder what arguments can be "proved" by this incident ? I say if there's anything that this 1 incident proves it's the old saying about how hard it is to defeat a determined fool.

No charges were filed? How can it not be reckless to run over a kayaker in broad daylight?

I guess we can expect WinnFAB to lobby for a law against water skiing.

That kayaker was a quick thinker, also lucky.

As former white water kayakers my wife and I always wear PFDs when flat water kayaking. If you end up in the water without a PFD, most likely the wind is kicking up waves and by the time you surface, the boat with PFD attached will have been blown away.

When crossing from Welch up to the forty islands we ofter encounter a boat on plane that does not appear to see us 'till pretty close. I had wondered about what to do if the collision was imminent and had concluded that exiting the boat and going under water was the only hope.

Two years ago we got manual control inflatable PFDs for general boating. As they are approved for flat water kayaking (but not white water) we use them when canoeing or kayaking on the lake. They would allow a dive prior to inflation. The auto inflating type would not be a help here.

BTW, there is also a white water situation, caught in a keeper hole, where removing the PFD and diving may be the only last resort way out (spoken form experience).

Talk about one track minds!

How does Winnfabs get slammed over an accident like this. People this accident had NOTHING to do with a SL on Winni.

I'll answer that (when I have a chance) .... but not in this thread or this forum as it'll tend to pull this thread a bit too much OT.

There, fixed it for you :D

BI is right, this is just another accident (oops sorry "collision") that had nothing to do with speed limits.

Anyone seen Texting while boating is probably filing a Float Plan which is highly encouraged....YES..?? :) :)

Where's Evanstar on this one?

<j/k>
 

Want to reopen the "We Can't See Kayaks" debate? :eek:

Couldn't any reasonable person could see that one as a dead-ender, and especially harmful to a certain group "in opposition"? :confused:

Maybe the MPs are running collision tests—using identical kayaks and ski boat?

I think the MPs are looking to buy identical kayaks to scientifically determine at what velocity this collision took place.

(But I could be wrong). ;)

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:look:

Appropriate investigation takes some time....
 

Just wanted to make it a little clearer here.

It's not that "no charges were filed" rather that barely 24 hours after the incident charges were not on file yet and the issue was still under investigation.

Simple explanation here. The New Hampshire Marine Patrol will be investigating and most likely the agency that will file charges. Directly after the collision both parties reported to the local police department, the NHMP wasn't on patrol or in the immediate area.

What will likely occur is the local responding officers will turn their investigation over to the NHMP. The NHMP will conduct a full investigation and then bring the applicable charges forward, when and where appropriate.

There are a lot of issues that could be in play here and must be answered. Was the operator of the power boat holding an appropriate license or safety certificate? Was the vessel suffering from any mechanical or safety issues? Was the water sport activity being conducted properly? Was alcohol or drugs involved, or any other physical mitigating circumstances in play?

Anyway, to be fair to all parties involved and make sure justice is served, I would expect the investigation to take an appropriate amount of time to make sure all the bases are covered.

This was a very, very serious incident that easily could have resulted in death or serious bodily injury. It begs a thorough investigation, which I am sure is fully underway.

There's MORE Than One Lesson Here...
 

I described one such event four years ago: You don't even have time to stand up. :(

I helplessly witnessed—and described—one very close call here.

Watch from your dock, as I do: You'll see that there are more than a few boats that find it fashionable to cover their windshields with paint! :eek:

In that sense, an opaque windshield is a perfect excuse to not have seen a kayak. :eek2: So it wouldn't take a "determined fool" at all! :(

If all that's being blown away is pieces of kayak, it definitely makes sense to not be wearing the PFD! :eek: (Especially on lakes where the shore—or rescue—is not far away).

You definitely need a "warning-CD" to reflect the sun! Your small-boat safety isn't fun-'n-games any longer. :(

CDs are fragile, but I'm using epoxy to glue two CDs "back-to-back" now for sturdiness. :)

Huh?
 

Just wondering where ES has been.Usually shows up only for a couple of discussions.Apparently you think you can you read minds now?

How about reading the article?
 

Did anyone actually read the article and the comments? Here's what one of the first responders said:

"I expected to hear about some flagrant abuse by another idiot boat driver but instead what I heard was driving in a straight line at under 25 mph, bright morning calm weather, no cell phones or ipods on board and at least two adults and driver was not only licensed but experienced, not drunk or high. Only thing I could fault the guy for was not wearing sunglasses as the explanation for no one seeing the kayaker until the last second as he was in the sun glare and the middle of the channel".

Seems to me that if everyone on this thread would get the data first, it would reduce the speculation immensly?

I read the article, and avoided the comments. Thanks for pointing that one out. We went out last night, very hazy after 5. It was far easier to see in the haze than in the direct sunlight we have getting out of our bay. I typically avoid the straight route for this reason, and choose to cut starboard and take the cut at an angle away from the direct sunlight.

Boats in general are hard to see in the low, direct sunlit background. Last year, on a bright evening about 2 hours before sunset, I encountered a kayaker in the middle of the bay, directly in line with the cut to the big lake. I was only putting along, and I could see he stopped paddling for a bit. I idled over towards him just to make him aware. I said that his boat was very hard, and at time, nearly impossible to see while in the direct line of the sun. I don;t think he believed me, so I asked him to look towards the cut and see. (A 25' boat had entered the NWZ ahead of me. He was shocked, that even at his low height above water, he could not really make out the boat 300 yards ahead, nor the other two coming this way). :eek:

He got the point. I generally try to wear my hat in such situations as well to shade my eyes a bit more.

Last week after work, I was on my PWC heading in a southwest direction. This was one of the bright, sunny days, no clouds or haze. Anyway, there was a real strong glare, and I could see 3 kayakers in the middle of the river pretty far away. As I got closer, they almost disappeared from my sight. Obviously I changed course and slowed down. I was never close at all, but was surprised at how hard they were to see. One was even in a yellow kayak, the other two were red. Had I not been paying attention way down river, I would have come up on them pretty fast.

I agree. One solid charge should have been filed with a followup for any other charges. The kayak wasn't dropped from the sky and wasn't always in the sun.

Proper operation vs improper
 

And I think you've demonstrated GI's point (above). The kayak was there to be seen before the ski-boat presumably lost it in the glare. How long would you continue to run at the same course and speed into such glare ? Obviously given the above, "Not long" is the (correct) answer. You were paying attention and so the ski-boat operator should have been as well.

[url='http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/Why_I_never_kayak.JPG'][img]

photo shopped I HOPE

not photoshopped but no Winnipesaukee

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/sharkkayak.asp

Reminds me of the guy who thought the grizzly bears were his friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell

FLL might be right (yikes, did I say that!!) Depending on the color of the Kayak and the glare of the sun I could see how someone could miss it. Can't speak for the driver of the boat, who knows what they were doing or thinking.

Blue-Gray...
 

FWIW, I learned yesterday that the kayak pieces (including the biggest chunk—the bow) are being examined by NHMP. (Forgot to ask where, though). :o

The kayak's color is blue-gray.

Depending on the weight of the skier and the number of skis used, you can waterski at half that speed.

For a full-sized adult, it's "work", but it's still done and enjoyed by thousands. In considering the full history of the sport, perhaps enjoyed by millions! :look: :)

I think most recreational skiers go around 25 mph to 35 mph. I really don't see your point above. I assumed BRK was pointing out that most do not ski near 45 mph. Unnecessary drama?

Wow, that's an expensive kayak
 

The NHMP are investigating ?!? Hmmmm, somewhere I heard that these things weren't investigated unless the damage was over $2000. Musta been one expensive kayak. :rolleye1:

Waterskiing at 22-MPH...
 

Many have waterskied happily behind just 20-HP; conversely, nobody needs 700-HP to waterski. (But oversized boats are seen waterskiing a little too often inside Lake Winnipesaukee's bays and coves—impacting shorelines, paddlers, and sailing craft).

A nice Cailou, a kayak I considered briefly, costs $7000.

An Old Town Canoe today costs $7500! :eek:

A recent law change means damage must exceed $2000 before a report must be filed with the NHMP. While this change has reduced NHMP paperwork, it also has the effect of reducing collision statistics to the USCG. In other words, through a stroke of the NH Legislature's pen, the U. S. Coast Guard has instantly made NH lakes "much safer" as no $2000+ kayaks have been struck for years. :rolleye2:

Why this case was reported seems clear; however, among the possibilities are that the waterski-boat sustained damage also (pushing the damage beyond $2000), the kayak (only) is valued at over $2000 or that something bad happened.

I remember skiing behind a friend's 16' aluminum boat with an 18 hp Evinrude. Larger people need hydrofoils to get up, or ski off the dock.

I rarely see high HP boats doing watersports, occasionally, but very rare. Some pocket cruisers go tubing, and yes, their wakes at lower speeds can get pretty large. I must admit, I haven't seen a GF boat pulling a skier.

Are you saying boat sizes should be limited for skiing?



So before this law changed, there were a lot of collisions being reported on the lake? Since this was a "recent" change, there must be tons of stats from prior years.

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm

I'm not being argumentative here APS, I just haven't seen anything that supports your cause. :confused::confused::confused:

Originally posted by VtSteve
And you point about lack of support would be? :look:

1) Watersports are probably far more popular on Lake Winnipesaukee than on Lake Champlain. (Plus, we don't have Lamprey eels hanging onto our boats here. :eek:).

2) I don't mind seeing oversized boats pulling tubers from town to town, as anyone can see on the Broads any weekend. The constant wake environment there sure beats repeatedly crossing their own wakes in our inlets and bays.

3) Boat sizes should be self-limiting as to where they visit: it's common sense.

4) Is a new BAJA ~36' a "high HP" boat? :confused:

In my view, it is a "high HP" GFBL: One visited here for several days. The prop it had was awful for skiing. Even if it had been quiet, the view would have annoyed most savvy observers. FWIW, I'll take photos of them next season.

Who's to know? A close call is bad enough. Longtime readers here will recall that none other than Bill Marriott nearly ran my kayak down—in reverse!

My BIL tells of a neighbor's all-white GFBL nearly backing over their kayak when they were close to shore.

Excepting Evenstar, how do kayakers report their near-misses except to other kayakers or newspapers? Similar instances will appear in our local NHLakes and Mountains newspapers. (Most complain through a letter).

Another boater more savvy than I am said it much better than I have, but let's not go there. :cool:

In other words APS
 

You want a pond? Seriously, I agree that a 36' Baja (with a speed prop) is a bad choice for watersports. Not to mention the huge wake it leaves forever towing a tube :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:


Lampreys are far less visible now that they actually did something about them. You actually have to bite the bullet and work at it, just as with millfoil and all that.

Look, I know accidents happen, just like stupidity happens. I also know you can't cure stupid. I'm all for safety and common sense APS, believe me. I also am not a bif fan of boats lower than planing speed roughing me up from their wakes (my bot is 22', not 36'). I have experienced the Mad Wakes before, trust me on this.

If there are kayaks being run over, in reverse no less, I'd blame the captain, not the boat. You like to sail, and I have to trip over many a large sailboat just to get out of my bay. I don't begrudge them their right to sail on a great sailing lake. That's the difference between you and me. One of many I presume. It's not your friggin lake, and if you have legitimate gripes, by all means, report them. Including the noisy boat that broke the laws.

BTW, I reported a Montreal Sailboat that dumped his tanks heading Northboud out on the main lake here to the Coast Guard. I would have preferred to either impound his boat, or send a missile his way. But alas, I didn't have either at my disposal. If we banned sailboats here, life would be pristine, quiet, serene, and far easier. But somehow, we persevere. Thorughout all od this, we've had several fun runs and many fast boats (100 mph plus) sharing the lake with no issues. I'd take a dozen more of them over these absolute idiots in bowriders towing tubers through a beach area.

You of little facts, have a great day.

Originally posted by VtSteve
But then it gets really odd...APS links to Les Hall's comments from what appears to be an out of state cruiser forum talking about speed limits.
What has that got to do with pulling a water skiier? Anything to muddy the waters heh APS?

but, butttttt, APS has an in here. He may be waay out there and FOS, but he still gets posted.

Another theory that doesn't pan out
 

IOW you have no idea as to how the raising of the $$ limit has, or hasn't, affected the reporting of boat/boat or boat/kayak collisions. As far as near misses go, there is no $$ damage done (it's that whole miss thing) and so there hasn't, now or years ago, been any compulsory reporting of them. And as far as the non-misses goes, can you imagine the victim not reporting the incident (assuming they thought they were guilt free) ? So the stats on the lake aren't skewed by the change.

So what limit does Les Hall think would be worse that the present 45 MPH ? Would it be so low as to preclude ... waterskiing ? Hey mebbe that should be applied on Sunapee. Seems they have a problem. Or might it just be that speed isn't the real problem ... naaaah can't be that. :rolleye1:

Near-Miss?
 

Maybe, or possibly I just found "Cap'n B" himself. :laugh:

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

A good way to avoid argument is to not discuss statistics.

1) It concerns a peril to kayakers: waterskiing isn't mentioned.

2) Hall is a permanent resident of NH and resides only a few miles from Lake Winnipesaukee.

3) You'd dismiss Hall's boating credentials? :confused: :eek:

1) As only one person, I can bring only my own experience to the forum. I've never frequented, nor seen, the fabled "NHMP Logbook".

2) This particular thread started with the headline of a kayak split up by a powerboat. (With a near-miss of the kayaker).

I've advised of two unreported near-misses in my own Lake Winnipesaukee neighborhood.

But I do know of two kayak-collisions on Winnipesaukee: one on the radio (reported Medivac'd to D/H hospital with broken bones), and one other (a Meredith crushed kayak and a near-miss of two Vermonters reported here), but—to borrow a Mee-n-Mac expression...
http://www.realchristiansingles.com/...rse_smiley.gif

44 posts in this thread...

Fox TV-Boston just had a report about a 20-something guy who hit & run while DUI a Boston College woman causing serious injuries.

He also has a New Hampshire offense for hitting a kayak while boating this past summer.

Is it the same person that's in this thread?

From WCVB - Channel 5 - Boston - thebostonchannel.com

emphasis added

Wow!
 

Thank goodness he didn't kill someone either time, although the injuries to the young woman sound very serious. Let's hope he doesn't get a third try. I don't remember, was alcohol a factor in the kayak incident? Binge drinking by teens and college students is a huge problem in this country and way too many parents just look the other way. This guy blew .18 to .20. The authorities need to do more than just take his license and throw him in rehab. Some jail time might sober this guy up to the fact that he's on a path to complete self destruction. I have little doubt, his actions have permanently altered this young woman's life. He needs to be held accountable for that.