Kayaks in Meredith Bay

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Expressways, like route 93, were built with federal subsidies for the specific (we could say "express") purpose of high speed vehicle traffic. They are an alternate to the many surface roads that will get you there just the same, but at a slower pace.

Winnipesaukee is a (essentially) naturally occurring body of water that the state has declared a general-use waterway. If you were arguing about restricting kayaks near locks on the ICW, I could relate to your analogy.

I used the highway comparison/analogy strictly from a common sense point of view. Obviously someone at some bureaucratic level felt it necessary to restrict bikes, horses and the like from these roadways for specific reasons, but the fundamental reason was that they felt it was dangerous. Which is exactly my point. What is so wrong with requiring a kayak to have a flag for visibility? Same reason that lights are required by any vessel (motorized or non-motorized) at night - so they can be seen by other boaters. These kayaks are difficult to see on sunny days and/or in choppy water. Therefore, they should be required to do something that improves their visibility to other boaters.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I used the highway comparison/analogy strictly from a common sense point of view. Obviously someone at some bureaucratic level felt it necessary to restrict bikes, horses and the like from these roadways for specific reasons, but the fundamental reason was that they felt it was dangerous. Which is exactly my point. What is so wrong with requiring a kayak to have a flag for visibility? Same reason that lights are required by any vessel (motorized or non-motorized) at night - so they can be seen by other boaters. These kayaks are difficult to see on sunny days and/or in choppy water. Therefore, they should be required to do something that improves their visibility to other boaters.

Show me the data where people in Kayaks were either injured or killed by any motorized power vessel and then we can talk about what a Kayak should be required to do.
Also is there data that the MP has that shows close calls between a Kayak and a motorized vessel that would require some new laws to be developed.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I used the highway comparison/analogy strictly from a common sense point of view. Obviously someone at some bureaucratic level felt it necessary to restrict bikes, horses and the like from these roadways for specific reasons, but the fundamental reason was that they felt it was dangerous. Which is exactly my point. What is so wrong with requiring a kayak to have a flag for visibility? Same reason that lights are required by any vessel (motorized or non-motorized) at night - so they can be seen by other boaters. These kayaks are difficult to see on sunny days and/or in choppy water. Therefore, they should be required to do something that improves their visibility to other boaters.

If a power boater can't see a 17' kayak why would they be able to see a 1' flag? And a flag will clearly make it at least a little harder to right an overturned kayak. People down in kayaks quite regularly.

I will agree that anybody that goes out in a navy blue kayak wearing a navy blue life jacket is a moron. However there are many ways to increase conspicuity other than flags.

Kayaks do not not have the same right to be anywhere on the lake that power boats do. They have MORE right to be on the lake than power boats. If there really is a safety conflict between power boats and kayaks it is the power boat that needs to be restricted.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If a power boater can't see a 17' kayak why would they be able to see a 1' flag? And a flag will clearly make it at least a little harder to right an overturned kayak. People down in kayaks quite regularly.

I will agree that anybody that goes out in a navy blue kayak wearing a navy blue life jacket is a moron. However there are many ways to increase conspicuity other than flags.

Kayaks do not not have the same right to be anywhere on the lake that power boats do. They have MORE right to be on the lake than power boats. If there really is a safety conflict between power boats and kayaks it is the power boat that needs to be restricted.

Why do they have MORE right to be on the lake than power boats? Sorry, I'm sticking to my argument that kayakers have some burden to make themselves visible to other boaters. I don't believe they have the majority of burden, but they should have some. A kayak sits just inches above the water, and is arguably difficult to see due to a number of factors. A flag, on the other hand, would sit feet above the water and would be required to be of a color visible from a distance. I think hunter orange would be an appropriate color for a flag.

Speaking of hunters, maybe we could use that as an analogy as well. The State mandates that hunters wear orange so they can be seen, even though common sense would say that they would wear it regardless. Why is the argument with kayaks any different? I just don't understand all of the resistance to something so simple, yet so beneficial. Could it be that kayakers don't like the State breathing down their backs and imposing rules? I wonder???

[RailroadJoe]

Hunters in New Hampshire DO NOT need to wear orange. Only in good old Massachusetts is it mandatory.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I used the highway comparison/analogy strictly from a common sense point of view. Obviously someone at some bureaucratic level felt it necessary to restrict bikes, horses and the like from these roadways for specific reasons, but the fundamental reason was that they felt it was dangerous. Which is exactly my point. What is so wrong with requiring a kayak to have a flag for visibility? Same reason that lights are required by any vessel (motorized or non-motorized) at night - so they can be seen by other boaters. These kayaks are difficult to see on sunny days and/or in choppy water. Therefore, they should be required to do something that improves their visibility to other boaters.

The restriction was necessary because the highways were built specifically for high speed travel. In most cases even for the vehicles that ARE allowed on the highway there is a minimum speed as well. Those roadways are purpose-built.

The lake is not purpose built. It's not safe or logical to assume that some or all portions of it are restricted to only certain kinds of traffic. Part of operating on this lake is the understanding that you could come across power boats, sail boats, kayaks, swimmers, etc. essentially anywhere.

If you can't maneuver your boat around kayaks and keep a lookout for them, you probably shouldn't be boating. As BI pointed out, the kayakers should also take care to not accidentally dress in what is essentially water camouflage.

ALL users of the lake should consider it a basic duty to watch out for other users, but that doesn't mean imposing oddball safety requirements.

[jeffk]

I don't think it matters whether something was created for a purpose or not.

The greater the discrepancy between the speeds (and size, etc.) of various users, the more likely there is to be problems. Highways are built to allow fast travel with traffic only coming in at designated places and with lanes built to allow them to accelerate to highway speed before they enter traffic. Walkers, bikers, and horses are a distraction, travel at much slower speeds, and are prone to sudden unpredictable maneuvers. They don't mix well with highway traffic and cannot cope well with a high speed impact, i.e. they will be killed.

With roads we have the luxury and ability to build to accommodate different modes of travel and even to avoid mixing incompatible modes.

With water we don't have that luxury. Everyone uses the same resource. That means that different users have to assume responsibility to be aware and deal with different modes of water use. Why should the onus be solely on powerboat users? Powerboat users already know that close to the shore (150 ft.) they have to be going slow. There are likely to be waders, floaters, swimmers, non power boaters, and paraphernalia. These other users have a valid, heightened expectation of safety in this area. But as you venture out further from shore, especially in heavily used power boating lanes, these other classes of users would be prudent and wise to recognize an increased possibility of danger AND to take responsibility to do whatever they can to mitigate that danger. It is certainly the responsibility of a power boat to avoid them. But doing things to increase your visibility, bright colors, reflective strips?, flags, are not an unreasonable burden on the other users to minimize their own danger. THEY are the ones they are going to be worse off in a collision.

Pontificating about their rights to use the lake doesn't increase safety. Their rights to use the lake are not superior in essence to any one else's. The rules are not there to say one lake user is superior to another. They are there to attempt to improve safety for all. The rules are also not meant to be all that you should be aware of when using the water. Common sense about your personal situation can help keep you safe.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by jeffk

With water we don't have that luxury.

Correct, so then it becomes somewhat of a least-common-denominator factor. I too disagree that kayakers have MORE of a right to the lake. Everyone has equal rights, and everyone has a duty/burden to be aware of other users of the lake.

If you are worried about your ability to spot a kayak, which is MUCH larger and brighter colored than various debris in the water that you should also be on the lookout for (for the safety of yourself and your passengers), then get off the lake or slow down.

I'm pretty sure you can spot a kayaker at headway speed (if you can't you REALLY shouldn't be piloting a boat). As you operate at higher speeds, you assume a responsibility to be more aware of your surroundings.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Correct, so then it becomes somewhat of a least-common-denominator factor. I too disagree that kayakers have MORE of a right to the lake. Everyone has equal rights, and everyone has a duty/burden to be aware of other users of the lake.

If you are worried about your ability to spot a kayak, which is MUCH larger and brighter colored than various debris in the water that you should also be on the lookout for (for the safety of yourself and your passengers), then get off the lake or slow down.

I'm pretty sure you can spot a kayaker at headway speed (if you can't you REALLY shouldn't be piloting a boat). As you operate at higher speeds, you assume a responsibility to be more aware of your surroundings.

Very well said Brk! I couldn't agree more!

Dan

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Correct, so then it becomes somewhat of a least-common-denominator factor. I too disagree that kayakers have MORE of a right to the lake. Everyone has equal rights, and everyone has a duty/burden to be aware of other users of the lake.

If you are worried about your ability to spot a kayak, which is MUCH larger and brighter colored than various debris in the water that you should also be on the lookout for (for the safety of yourself and your passengers), then get off the lake or slow down.

I'm pretty sure you can spot a kayaker at headway speed (if you can't you REALLY shouldn't be piloting a boat). As you operate at higher speeds, you assume a responsibility to be more aware of your surroundings.

Points well taken. However, if a flag adds that extra layer of visibility and safety, then what's the problem? Isn't being more visible a better thing? I just don't understand why anyone would object to this? Can someone please explain?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Points well taken. However, if a flag adds that extra layer of visibility and safety, then what's the problem? Isn't being more visible a better thing? I just don't understand why anyone would object to this? Can someone please explain?

Because a flag on a kayak looks stupid.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Because a flag on a kayak looks stupid.

Ha! Good one Rusty! That's a knee slapper for sure. But seriously, isn't it better to look stupid, but at the same time be safe? I wish someone would give a serious response, because I am having trouble understanding why anyone would object to a simple flag. Please - someone?

[HellRaZoR004]

I don't think anyone is objecting a flag would add a little extra visibility...if one choses....however, making a law requiring all kayaks have one is a little much.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Ha! Good one Rusty! That's a knee slapper for sure. But seriously, isn't it better to look stupid, but at the same time be safe? I wish someone would give a serious response, because I am having trouble understanding why anyone would object to a simple flag. Please - someone?

Kayaks can roll over quite easily. One must then use the paddle to right the kayak before you drown. I remember many years ago a man drowned in Wolfboro Bay while practicing righting his kayak. A flag would make it more difficult to right an overturned kayak. You can argue that the flag is not much of an impediment but I would disagree. Any impediment when life is on the line is a serious problem.

You are correct however that any safety conscious kayaker should have taken some steps to make themselves visible before leaving shore. I have a lime green kayak and my life jackets are red and yellow for this very reason. I have read that a study found orange paddle blades help with conspicuity because they are usually moving.

[tis]

I agree with you on colors, BI, the color of a kayak is important too. Blue kayaks are pretty but often hard to see. I think orange is an easier color to see.

[Seaplane Pilot]

It seems to me that the benefits of a flag far outweigh the risks. This company makes a flag with a breakaway feature, so rollover should not be an issue:

http://www.touringkayaks.com/gear.htm

I see people with fishing poles and other types of paraphernalia attached to their kayaks, so what's the problem with a flag? Maybe they should come up with method whereby the flag just rests loose into the base. That way, if a rollover occurs, then the flag just falls out when the kayak is upside down. There goes $29.95, but if it's that much of a concern that it can cause an impediment to rollover, it should be worth the price.

I am still confused as to why kayakers reject this idea. I think the State should mandate these flags for any kayak that is 150' from shore - period.

[whalebackpoint'r]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Because a flag on a kayak looks stupid.

Well stated.

A flag on a kayak...it just goes against the grain. No Thanks! If I have to have a flag on my kayak, I'll give up using it.