Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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

The swimmer is not breaking any laws.

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

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

[codeman671]

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

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

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

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

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

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

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

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

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

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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

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

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

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

What a wicked web we weave, ...

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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

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

Island Lover,

Put a lid on your agenda.

You are making absolutely no sense at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R2B

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

"...If you are going a speed that doesn't allow you time to see an obstacle and react, then you are just hoping that there is nothing out there..."

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

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...But What possesses someone to go out with no lights at night? Beyond that a kayak is so low in the water that they are hard to see in the daylight...!"

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

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

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...you provide the kayak I'll provide the boat..."

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

No, wait....

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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

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

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



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

[WeirsBeachBoater]

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

[Airwaves]

Gavia immer wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Gavia immer wrote: As I mentioned in my original post, I am not going to be digging too deeply into looking for case law and suggested others (perhaps you?) could poke around and possibly find another case to quote. It doesn't change the fact that if the kayakers hadn't violated the lighting regulations in the first place there would have been no accident.

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

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

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

[Airwaves]

Gavia immer wrote:

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

Ahh, you're jumping to conclusions my friend.

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

You agree that the captain was completely negligent in striking the cliff at top speed at night. Now change the struck cliff to striking "five teenagers in a seriously overloaded, unlighted canoe sitting extremely low in the water". Your legal defense of unsafe night operation would turn five teenagers into roadkill.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

You agree that the captain was completely negligent in striking the cliff at top speed at night. Now change the struck cliff to striking "five teenagers in a seriously overloaded, unlighted canoe sitting extremely low in the water". Your legal defense of unsafe night operation would turn five teenagers into roadkill.

The problem with the scenario presents above is the cliff was likely on the chart, and wasn't required to have a light to keep a vessel from striking it. On the other hand, in your example, the canoe with 5 kids on board at night, would have been required to display a light for their own safety. While likely to be killed, its also likely that the operator of the vessel that struck them wouldn't be charge with negligence or any wrong doing. Keep twisting it, and someone will come along and keep knocking your ridiculous scenarios out of the park.

As an aside, my boat will only go above 45 mph at full throttle, although it's not likely to happen, as I don't abuse my stuff, nor can I afford to waste money like that.

[ApS]

Here's a quote from our recent past:

"I use radar for nighttime navigation and it works the best. I can see all the boats around me, even the ones without lights..."

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&postcount=14

[jrc]

Maybe radar should be mandatory?

I suggest, no boats on the lake without radar, GPS, Chartplotters and night vision gogles. If you don't do everything you can to prevent a collision, then you are obviously negligent. We can't let lack of a few dollars prevent safety, can we put a price on a human life?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by jrc

Maybe radar should be mandatory?

I suggest, no boats on the lake without radar, GPS, Chartplotters and night vision gogles. If you don't do everything you can to prevent a collision, then you are obviously negligent. We can't let lack of a few dollars prevent safety, can we put a price on a human life?

Don't worry, the transponders we'll be forced to carry in a few years will also solve this problem ! Slightly more seriously (but only slightly) you could use a much cheaper (than radar) set of electronics to help in avoiding such collisions but it would require people to be co-operative. In this case where the kayakers didn't bother with lights or PFDs (or clothes even), I can't imagine any such system helping this .... hmmm ... cognitively challenged couple.


And FWIW: I still like the idea of the "all around" light being strobish in nature but on - ON vs on - off.

[Airwaves]

Islander asked:

If the boat was...

"navigating to come out of Sally's gut and they were looking for the last marker"

Then the boat was inside Sally's gut when they hit the kayak.

The kayakers should have had a light and life jackets. But this was not the "out in the middle of the lake" situation we have been talking about.

Of course if the accident happened inside Sally's Gut it also means the powerboat was only traveling at headway speed when it collided with the kayak!

My question about the kayak(s) not taking evasive action or posting a proper lookout are still unanswered by "The powerboat is always at fault" group...of course now we know what the kayakers WERE looking at!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Here's a quote from our recent past:


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&postcount=14

Lets post the entire sentence for clarity:

"I can see all the boats around me, even the ones without lights, landmasses, marks, and rain squalls, even the ducks."

I think what WD was stating is that they can pick up almost everything on radar. This does not mean that the unlit boats are in the middle of the broads. They could be on a mooring close to shore. Your partial post gives a feeling that this is common for boaters to be out without lights. If so, maybe a certain boat in Meredith did not have lights on after all???

[SIKSUKR]

It turns out I know these people that own the boat that struck the kayak.I just heard straight from the occupants themselves.I've known this family for 30+ years and can assure you that they are VERY responsible and courteous people.These bonehead kayakers (2) had no lights,were totally naked,not even life preservers.The boat was navigating to come out of Sally's gut and they were looking for the last marker when they heard a small bump.They were not sure they even hit anything but stopped and turned around to look.They found one kayak floating with nobody aboard.They looked around and and finally found these two near shore and offered to help.They did not want to get on the boat because they had no clothes.The guy saw the boat coming,bailed and swam to the shore.Eventually they did and when asked where they were staying,they said they really were not sure.They were renting a place nearby and it was soon found and they were dropped off.
Here's the best part.The next day the lady that owns the house they were renting called the people that owned the boat and wanted them to pay for a new $500 kayak that "they" destroyed!With that kind of logic I'll bet she's a member of a certain anti-speed limit group.Wow!!

Remember Caddyshack? "Hey,you scratched my anchor"

[Islander]

I must ask

If the boat was...

"navigating to come out of Sally's gut and they were looking for the last marker"

Then the boat was inside Sally's gut when they hit the kayak.

The kayakers should have had a light and life jackets. But this was not the "out in the middle of the lake" situation we have been talking about.

[Island Lover]

So the operator of the boat is looking at the naked woman in kayak #1 when he hits kayak #2. I'd call that justifyable.

But why naked in two, one man kayaks. Naked in one, two man kayak is different.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

.. But why naked in two, one man kayaks. Naked in one, two man kayak is different.

I think we've already established that "they ahnt too smaht."

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

I must ask

If the boat was...

"navigating to come out of Sally's gut and they were looking for the last marker"

Then the boat was inside Sally's gut when they hit the kayak.

The kayakers should have had a light and life jackets. But this was not the "out in the middle of the lake" situation we have been talking about.

In this case it is quite possible that the kayakers were in the shadows and harder to see than in the middle of the lake on a bright moonlit night, and most likely the boat was traveling at slow speeds. They should not have been out there and are lucky. And certainly should have been clothed...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Lets post the entire sentence for clarity:

"I can see all the boats around me, even the ones without lights, landmasses, marks, and rain squalls, even the ducks...Your partial post gives a feeling that this is common for boaters to be out without lights..."

Okaaay...Here's what Coastal Laker wrote in this thread:

"...my husband and I have both noticed an increased number of boats operating at night with either no bow lights or no stern light. It's beginning to get scary.

Anyway, cain't see 'em nohow:

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...a kayak is so low in the water that they are hard to see in the daylight..! "

Yup. Here's a moonlit Winnipesaukee.

Cain't hardly see nothin'.

[MAINLANDER]

[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'.

[/QUOTE


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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Okaaay...{snip}

Yup. Here's a moonlit Winnipesaukee.

Cain't hardly see nothin'.

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.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

and while I know sniping from the edges is your specialty, you might want to try it (being pertinent) every so often.

What he said

[SIKSUKR]

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.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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!

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

The problem with the scenario presents above is the cliff was likely on the chart, and wasn't required to have a light to keep a vessel from striking it. On the other hand, in your example, the canoe with 5 kids on board at night, would have been required to display a light for their own safety. While likely to be killed, its also likely that the operator of the vessel that struck them wouldn't be charge with negligence or any wrong doing. Keep twisting it, and someone will come along and keep knocking your ridiculous scenarios out of the park.

As an aside, my boat will only go above 45 mph at full throttle, although it's not likely to happen, as I don't abuse my stuff, nor can I afford to waste money like that.

Whether the cliff had a light or not, and whether the cliff was on a chart or not, the captain's responsibility to his boat and passengers is not to collide with anything.

Not being charged with any criminal wrongdoing is small comfort. In this case, as many as five families could bring civil lawsuits against the operator of the powerboat.

[Airwaves]

My friend Gavia immer since you appear to enjoy hypothetical situations to real life, let me run this past you and see what you think. I'll change only the outcome of the situation we're discussing.

Say the powerboat had spotted the kayaks 3 feet from his port bow as he was looking for the final marker to get out of Sally's Gut, and turned hard to avoid the now abandonded (according to SIKSUKR's post) kayak, and the powerboat ran up on the rocks at the StoneDam.

One of his passengers suffered a fractured arm, another had several teeth knocked out, a broken jaw and the boat suffered a hole in the starboard bow below the waterline.

Who would you say would be liable for medial bills and boat repair?

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

My friend Gavia immer since you appear to enjoy hypothetical situations to real life, let me run this past you and see what you think. I'll change only the outcome of the situation we're discussing.

Say the powerboat had spotted the kayaks 3 feet from his port bow as he was looking for the final marker to get out of Sally's Gut, and turned hard to avoid the now abandonded (according to SIKSUKR's post) kayak, and the powerboat ran up on the rocks at the StoneDam.

One of his passengers suffered a fractured arm, another had several teeth knocked out, a broken jaw and the boat suffered a hole in the starboard bow below the waterline.

Who would you say would be liable for medial bills and boat repair?

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.

It was his operating at a speed that didn't allow him sufficient time to take action to avoid the collision.

Weirs guy writes

I'm not trying to pick on the guy, but my 9 year old knows better then to be out after dark in a kayak with no lights.

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

[Airwaves]

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?

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

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?

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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?

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

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?

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.

[Airwaves]

Gavia immer made me shake my head by writing:

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.

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!

[Lucky2Bhere]

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!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Lucky2Bhere

.... It would be impossible to see him unless you were actively looking. ........

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.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...I've yet to hear anything that says the powerboater wasn't doing his part..."

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.

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

"...News did not say that the operator of the speed boat was ticketed for anything..."

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.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...How far do you think this responsibility goes...?"

Pretty far.

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

Excessive Speed

Collision accidents are the major cause of personal injury and property damage on the water. Speeding is a serious violation and boaters should be aware of those conditions which constitute violations of these laws. The laws regarding speeding are as follows:
1) The operation of a vessel at such a speed as to endanger by collision the life, limb, or property of another.

2) The operation of a vessel at such a speed that it causes a wake or wash hazardous to life, limb, or property of another.

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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.

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 ?


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.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Pretty far.

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

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 ?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

....... Was it because the kayaker abandoned his boat for the relative safety of the depths? ..........

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.


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

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

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.

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.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

{snip} 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.

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 ?

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by ITD

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.

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.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"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!

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

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.

Forget the earplugs.

"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."

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Whether the cliff had a light or not, and whether the cliff was on a chart or not, the captain's responsibility to his boat and passengers is not to collide with anything.

Not being charged with any criminal wrongdoing is small comfort. In this case, as many as five families could bring civil lawsuits against the operator of the powerboat.

In the first instance, the boater would clearly be negligent in the collision with the cliff.

In the second instance, while clearly small comfort, the families would have a difficult time proving negligence.

Keep trying though, I give you credit for tenacity.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Whether the cliff had a light or not, and whether the cliff was on a chart or not, the captain's responsibility to his boat and passengers is not to collide with anything.
{snip}

How far do you think this responsibility goes ? A cliff or other inanimate object can't have any responsibility, it (they) aren't alive. Thus the sole responsibilty lies with the captain. This isn't the case where other people are involved. They have the responsibilty to do their part, mostly by being visible. The captain's responsibilty is to see and avoid them. I brought up the question of a swimmer, extended to a dark Moonless night, to illustrate this. I think we can all agree that under such conditions the swimmer is invisible. If you want to argue the point, I'll have the swimmer swimming underwater. So what's a boat captain to do. If he has the sole responsibility to avoid such a swimmer then he better stay at the dock because I can pose the hypotheticals such that a collision is unavoidable. Most people would consider such restrictions to be unreasonable and that's what it comes down to. We have a 150' from shore, NWS rule because (in part) we expect there to be swimmers in that area. We don't extend that NWS rule to the entire lake to cover every possible swimmer because that's unreasonable. A snorkler could surface just in front of your boat and at any speed onplane and below HB162 speeds, you might hit him. Yes he's supposed to display a dive flag but if he doesn't ... why it's like boating w/o a light at night. Does this mean because such a hypothetical situation might arise that no boats should be onplane anywhere on the lake ? That any captain onplane is not being responsible because of such a hypothetical ?

You have the responsibility to not hit things (people, other cars, etc) when you're driving. Yet there's always the chance that someone may cross the lines and enter your lane causing a collision. Does your responsibilty to avoid a collision mandate that you pull to the side of the road everytime there's an oncoming car ? No, because that's unreasonable.

In this case the kayakers didn't do their part. I've yet to hear anything that says the powerboater wasn't doing his part. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't but I'm giving him the same benefit I gave to the Hartman's when they said their lights were on. The kayakers did something stupid and almost paid dearly. End of story.

[Bear Islander]

Mee-n-Mac

That is the best emoticon I have ever seen.

[Excalibur]

I think everyone is aware that when travleing at night on the lake there could always be a log floating, a broken down boat without any lights on or just some foolish people.
From reading all the posts, it makes me certain of one thing. There are a lot of conscientious people on the lake that are trying there best to keep it safe for everyone and care about it like I do.

More people should wave and enjoy just being out on , " the beautiful water in a high place",we all share.

This site makes for enjoyable reading during my lunch at the office.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

How far do you think this responsibility goes ? A cliff or other inanimate object can't have any responsibility, it (they) aren't alive. Thus the sole responsibilty lies with the captain. This isn't the case where other people are involved. They have the responsibilty to do their part, mostly by being visible. The captain's responsibilty is to see and avoid them. I brought up the question of a swimmer, extended to a dark Moonless night, to illustrate this. I think we can all agree that under such conditions the swimmer is invisible. If you want to argue the point, I'll have the swimmer swimming underwater. So what's a boat captain to do. If he has the sole responsibility to avoid such a swimmer then he better stay at the dock because I can pose the hypotheticals such that a collision is unavoidable. Most people would consider such restrictions to be unreasonable and that's what it comes down to. We have a 150' from shore, NWS rule because (in part) we expect there to be swimmers in that area. We don't extend that NWS rule to the entire lake to cover every possible swimmer because that's unreasonable. A snorkler could surface just in front of your boat and at any speed onplane and below HB162 speeds, you might hit him. Yes he's supposed to display a dive flag but if he doesn't ... why it's like boating w/o a light at night. Does this mean because such a hypothetical situation might arise that no boats should be onplane anywhere on the lake ? That any captain onplane is not being responsible because of such a hypothetical ?

You have the responsibility to not hit things (people, other cars, etc) when you're driving. Yet there's always the chance that someone may cross the lines and enter your lane causing a collision. Does your responsibilty to avoid a collision mandate that you pull to the side of the road everytime there's an oncoming car ? No, because that's unreasonable.

In this case the kayakers didn't do their part. I've yet to hear anything that says the powerboater wasn't doing his part. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't but I'm giving him the same benefit I gave to the Hartman's when they said their lights were on. The kayakers did something stupid and almost paid dearly. End of story.

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.

[Resident 2B]

GI,

So what night time speed do you recommend?

R2B

[parrothead]

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

[jrc]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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

How quick can she stop at 11mph?

[Airwaves]

Island Lover wrote:

The question is should a boat be operated AT ALL TIMES in a manner to prevent hitting unlit objects like kayaks, rafts and logs?

So your position is that only powerboats need to be operated in a manner to avoid collisions at night, right? Or is it that you believe a kayak not a boat and not subject to the same navigation rules as other boats?

I have not heard any of "The powerboat is to blame" crowd ask the question, did the kayaker, who was on the water in violation of the law, take any evasive action to avoid the accident?

Evasive action is also the kayaker's responsibility and presumably the kayakers would have been able to see the lighted powerboat (on a clear moonlit night) coming in their direction long before the accident, unless of course they were not maintaining a proper lookout!

[SIKSUKR]

I've been on vaca at the lake this past week and have just now read this thread.I can't believe even the pro speed limit side would stoop so low as to turn this incident into the power boat having fault.Where did you people learn comman sense?I grew up all of my 49 years on the lake and can only cringe at the thought of going out on the water in a human powered craft without lights with power boats around.I was raised on a small NH lake(Baboosic) where there was very little night traffic but canoeing or kayaking without lights in powerboat traffic areas is insane,nevermind on a big lake like Winni!My boat is a PWC and I can't use that at night.I would never think that I did go out at night and someone hit me, that that craft would have any fault at all.Come on,give me a break with this crap.
The pro speed limit people are really losing credibility with arguments on this one.My instincts on agendas are usually right and it's becoming glaringly apparent on this one also.I really can't believe what I just read in this thread.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I've been on vaca at the lake this past week and have just now read this thread.I can't believe even the pro speed limit side would stoop so low as to turn this incident into the power boat having fault.Where did you people learn comman sense?I grew up all of my 49 years on the lake and can only cringe at the thought of going out on the water in a human powered craft without lights with power boats around.I was raised on a small NH lake(Baboosic) where there was very little night traffic but canoeing or kayaking without lights in powerboat traffic areas is insane,nevermind on a big lake like Winni!My boat is a PWC and I can't use that at night.I would never think that I did go out at night and someone hit me, that that craft would have any fault at all.Come on,give me a break with this crap.
The pro speed limit people are really losing credibility with arguments on this one.My instincts on agendas are usually right and it's becoming glaringly apparent on this one also.I really can't believe what I just read in this thread.

SS: I think we have to file this one under the: "Throw enough crap at the wall and sooner or later some of it will stick" department. Their arguments and positions are getting more and more rediculous by the month. After the speed limits they will try to ban nighttime driving, mark my words. I can only believe that by now the powers that be have finally understood their smoke and mirror tactics. What a joke.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I've been on vaca at the lake this past week and have just now read this thread.I can't believe even the pro speed limit side would stoop so low as to turn this incident into the power boat having fault.Where did you people learn comman sense?I grew up all of my 49 years on the lake and can only cringe at the thought of going out on the water in a human powered craft without lights with power boats around.I was raised on a small NH lake(Baboosic) where there was very little night traffic but canoeing or kayaking without lights in powerboat traffic areas is insane,nevermind on a big lake like Winni!My boat is a PWC and I can't use that at night.I would never think that I did go out at night and someone hit me, that that craft would have any fault at all.Come on,give me a break with this crap.
The pro speed limit people are really losing credibility with arguments on this one.My instincts on agendas are usually right and it's becoming glaringly apparent on this one also.I really can't believe what I just read in this thread.

I agree 100%, and its my insticts as well that have made me come back to this thread time and time again. They (islander/S.H. and company) have really lost all credibilty at this point by continuing. Its really got my back up now. I can't stand when people act this way.

On a side note: there was a kayaker last season that got stopped just after dusk for having no light by the marine patrol while he was traveling back from Lil Bear island to Long Island. It turned out this guy had one too many beers that night and was arrested for boating under the influence.

He was traveling faster than headway speed too. LOL. Winfabs how can you spin this one?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by jrc

How quick can she stop at 11mph?

The part of your question that is tough is, Stopped as in the props are stopped? Or as in the entire ship is at a stop?

Because to stop the props, takes some time, then shift to reverse and restart props to stop momentum takes a lot longer! You must remember the Mount has no transmissions. It is a direct reversing powerplant, so it goes Forward, All stop, then reverse.

At top speed you are talking almost a 1/4 mile to stop all forward motion.

[Islander]

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

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

The same is true on the water.