Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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!

Any small boat is more difficult to see than a large boat - I think that everyone here will grant me that. I personally have no problem seeing other kayaks and canoes from at least a mile away on most days - but I'm down at the same level as them - and I'm going slow, so I can see a lot more.

It's been my experience that the operators of fast-moving power boats don't always see me in time to stay out of my 150 foot space (and I'm totally basing this on their reactions - when they actually do spot me). So I do know that I can be difficult to see - even though my kayak is bright red, with a white hull - any my PFD is red - and my paddles are very bright orange.

And please don't tell me that I should have to have a bright flapping flag on a pole - because that would just tip me over (my kayak is only 23 inches wide). All people have to do is slow down - and then they will be able to see other boats in time - and be able to stay out of their 150 foot safety zone.

Mee-n-Mac: 25MPH would be the MAXIMUM night speed - a speed limit does not require that you travel at the MAXIMUM speed.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Mee-n-Mac: 25MPH would be the MAXIMUM night speed - a speed limit does not require that you travel at the MAXIMUM speed.

Sure, I agree but what in the conditions that night would have mandated less than 25 mph ? So far as I can it was a pretty normal night, neither the best nor the worst of conditions for boating. Short of some subpar conditions I'm not aware of, I don't see why the average joe wouldn't be doing the SL that night (were it to be in place). And yet we have people saying that pretty much any speed above NWS is irresponsible because it wouldn't give the boater enough time to see, and avoid, the unlighted kayak. Unless I've misunderstood you're saying the same thing. Either 25 mph is "safe" for the normal, expected conditions or it isn't. I don't see how people can say 25 is the proper limit and then turn around and say anything above NWS is unsafe because some fool might be out there w/o a light. Frankly if the standard is really expected to be that high (protecting the fool at our expense) then, as I've been pointing out, why not extend the same protection to the nighttime swimmer, who isn't even required to be lighted ? I don't see anyone saying that night swimmers should be, are expected to be, seen under every circumstance and thus, if one isn't seen, then it's the boater's fault. This is what's being said, as far as I can tell, about the unlit kayak.

It's an unreasonable standard to hold the boater responsible for collision with an unlit vessel, barring some condition where it could be reasonably argued that, despite the lack of lights, any boater would have seen the kayak. Boating is a co-operative venture. I'll do my part by keeping a lookout for other vessels but the other guy must also do his part by making himself visible. To blame both parties is wrong unless there's some evidence of my aforementioned conditions. To restrict the boater so as to protect the negligent party is to excuse the negligent party. In effect we're punishing the boater, restricting him from doing what otherwise would be a safe and reasonable action, because some people will be negligent and might get hurt as a result of their negligence. Sorry but I'll fight that philosophy to my end. I'll do my part but I refuse to do more that I should have to, simply to protect the stupid from the consequences of their stupidity.

[Airwaves]

Evenstar wrote in part:

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.

My friend, and you know that I mean that, you're wrong.

If you consider what we currently understand to be the facts.

The powerboat had a proper lookout and even was using a search light (I personally never use a search light unless someone or something falls overboard, but that's another post).

The kayaker, who we all agree violated the law by even being on the water, saw the boat coming and jumped out of his kayak leaving it (probably) capsized and in the path of the oncoming powerboat.

The powerboat struck said (overturned) unlighted kayak even as he/she was using the searchlight looking ahead.

Evenstar, I know you to be a strong advocate of human powered vessels and to tell you the truth, every time I saw a kayak on Winni this summer I wondered if you were among them. That aside, the powerboat operator in this case is completely innocent and not to be held responsible in any way!

* The kayak should not have been on the water.
* The kayaker should certainly never have abandonded his unlighted boat in the path of a powerboat.
* It seems to me that the kayaker was trying to avoid being caught on the water without lights, and without clothes rather than take evasive action.
* The powerboater did everything right and yet because of the kayaker's actions the powerboat operator's judgement is being called into question because he/she was at the helm of a boat driven by a machine.

Yes, there is blame to be handed out in this case, and that blame goes completely to the kayaker. In my judgement, that kayaker should have not only been cited, he/she (both) should have been arrested.

Good to see you posting again!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

....Boating is a co-operative venture. I'll do my part by keeping a lookout for other vessels but the other guy must also do his part by making himself visible...

This is the point I have been trying to make all along. Your statement, and the attitude it represents, is simply wrong, wrong, wrong!

By common sense, and by law, a boater is required to be in control of his vessel at all times. You are required to keep a look out at all times. If you can't see where you are going, YOU DON'T GO!

Obviously it is not possible to see everything that may be in the water, especially at night. But boating your way is Russian Roulette. Someday you are going to lose.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

This is the point I have been trying to make all along. Your statement, and the attitude it represents, is simply wrong, wrong, wrong!

By common sense, and by law, a boater is required to be in control of his vessel at all times. You are required to keep a look out at all times. If you can't see where you are going, YOU DON'T GO!

Obviously it is not possible to see everything that may be in the water, especially at night. But boating your way is Russian Roulette. Someday you are going to lose.

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

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

and

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

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

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

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

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

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

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

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

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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

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

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

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

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

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

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

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Islander

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

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

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

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

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Islander

Someone can be out on the lake at night without any lights and not breaking any laws.

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

[Islander]

Originally Posted by NightWing

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

swimming


..

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Islander

swimming


..

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

[Islander]

Originally Posted by NightWing

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

I disagree

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

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

[Airwaves]

Originally Posted by Islander

Someone can be out on the lake at night without any lights and not breaking any laws.

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

.

Islander:
swimming

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

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

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

Maybe I misunderstood the question, I thought Nightwing's post was about an unlighted boat being on the water at night and legal not an idot swimming, you know, something actually germain to the topic.

If, God forbid, I was out at night (at 1:30 in the morning) and struck a swimmer that was more than 150 feet from shore I seriously doubt there is a jury in the world, or even NH, that would find me at fault.

BTW, I did respond to the question regarding post 234 in post 265 (I think it is 265 but the numbers aren't listed in the "write mode"), it was delayed in posting due to moderator. Not a critical comment, just fact.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

.





Maybe I misunderstood the question, I thought Nightwing's post was about an unlighted boat being on the water at night and legal not an idot swimming, you know, something actually germain to the topic.

If, God forbid, I was out at night (at 1:30 in the morning) and struck a swimmer that was more than 150 feet from shore I seriously doubt there is a jury in the world, or even NH, that would find me at fault.

BTW, I did respond to the question regarding post 234 in post 265 (I think it is 265 but the numbers aren't listed in the "write mode"), it was delayed in posting due to moderator. Not a critical comment, just fact.

I believe the topic is the responsibility of a boater with respect to hitting unlit objects (or people).

Operating an unlit boat is not much of a topic, you are an idiot and you are breaking the law.

What if that swimmer was 50 feet from a properly lighted boat at anchor?

What if their canoe, with a light, had overturned and they a waiting for rescue.

What if instead of just laying there they were kicking their feet to rise out of the water, waving their arms and screaming at you at the top of their lungs. And they are 151 feet from shore.

Still sure about that jury? What about the testimony that you had three beers at dinner? That you were looking back and talking to your passengers? That you didn't have a current chart on board?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Islander

What if that swimmer was 50 feet from a properly lighted boat at anchor?

What if their canoe, with a light, had overturned and they a waiting for rescue.

What if instead of just laying there they were kicking their feet to rise out of the water, waving their arms and screaming at you at the top of their lungs. And they are 151 feet from shore.

Darwin rules apply in most of these situations. You take on additional risk by going out at night. A swimmer 50 feet from their properly lighted boat is taking a risk that they can hear a boat coming and get back in time. An overturned canoe at night is already in the running for a Darwin award, and hopefully their luck will turn so no boats run them over. Same thing with the person who is waving arms and screaming. They are hoping for a break and most will be lucky. If they get run over, its a bad day for all. We all take risks. Some more than others. What is a high risk for one may be a calculated risk for another.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Darwin rules apply in most of these situations. You take on additional risk by going out at night. A swimmer 50 feet from their properly lighted boat is taking a risk that they can hear a boat coming and get back in time.

One problem with that example, if the swimmer was 50' away from a properly lit boat at night and got hit than a 150' rule would have been broken by the offending boat. Not the swimmers fault in this case.

[Islander]

Why is the lighted canoe that tips over up for a Dawin Award? They were not breaking any laws or doing anything stupid. The canoe may have tiped because of the wake of a GFBL.

Anyway the question was would the boat operator be in any trouble. And in any of those instances the operator is going to be asked some very tough questions. Could you see where you where going? If you had trouble seeing why didn't you slow down? Why couldn't you hear them screaming?

If you tell the jury "I didn't see a light so I gave it the gas" you are going to end up in a very small room.

[Airwaves]

BTW who said there was alcohol involved in this incidnet?
Islander:

What about the testimony that you had three beers at dinner? That you were looking back and talking to your passengers? That you didn't have a current chart on board?

Give it a break! No booze, no speed, but a bonehead kayaker that has changed the lives of innocent boaters on Lake Winnipesaukee! And yet he/she is your hero!
It's over!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

Why is the lighted canoe that tips over up for a Dawin Award? They were not breaking any laws or doing anything stupid. The canoe may have tiped because of the wake of a GFBL.

Anyway the question was would the boat operator be in any trouble. And in any of those instances the operator is going to be asked some very tough questions. Could you see where you where going? If you had trouble seeing why didn't you slow down? Why couldn't you hear them screaming?

If you tell the jury "I didn't see a light so I gave it the gas" you are going to end up in a very small room.

So what do you think the Mount's Captain would say ? I seem to recall that vessel out and about on some dark nights where a swimmer or overturned canoe could not be expected to be visible. For that matter what would you say if, on one of the dark rainy nights going to your island where you couldn't see the aforementioned people, you ran over them ?

D/A : So it was dark and raining and you were headed to your island that night ?
Islander : Yes sir but I was proceeding at no wake speed.
D/A : Yes but you admit you couldn't, didn't see the person in the water.
Islander : It isn't possible to see every obstacle in the water at night.
D/A : So why did you go out that night ?
Islander : {insert answer here}

The point being that there are circumstances we can imagine, however unlikely, that will lead to the boat overrunning the person in the water no matter how cautious the boater may be. You either believe you can boat responsibly under these conditions or you believe that you must stay at the dock, no matter how unlikely you think the possible circumstance may be.

[Island Lover]

Not the swimmers fault in any case. The swimmer has just as much right to be on the lake, day or night, as the boat.

It is incredible that there are people who think they can run over a swimmer!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Not the swimmers fault in any case. The swimmer has just as much right to be on the lake, day or night, as the boat.

It is incredible that there are people who think they can run over a swimmer!

It's called chum when the swimmer encounters the five-blade rollas.

Hey, the fish have to eat too - variety is the spice of life...

[Rose]

Okay, so kayakers and canoeist and swimmers apparently want certain concessions from powerboaters. How about some from the human-powered mode of transportation? I propose that swimmers, kayakers and canoeist must remain within 150' of shore at night.

You all are in such trouble when I become empress of the universe.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

{snip} It is incredible that there are people who think they can run over a swimmer!

I don't see people are saying you can run over swimmer willy nilly but rather that a swimmer is taking a known risk. When Islander says "It isn't possible to see every obstacle in the water at night" and "One could easily run down a swimmer that had just a few inches exposed", I believe them to be true statements. Moreover there's no speed a boat can travel at and avoid all such potential tragedies. So is it moral and responsible to boat on a dark night, knowing that there might, maybe an unlit swimmer out there in the middle of the Broads ?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"The canoe may have tiped because of the wake of a GFBL." Islander

There is that agenda again......It must be those Scary boats again!

I hope the Reps in Concord are following this saga.... I know it has been pointed out to them.

This incident will never fit the mold you keep trying to put it in... you know the We need a speed limit to get rid of these GFBL's we don't like mold.

PS: Fact: GFBL's produce less wake at speed !

[Airwaves]

The topic, as I understand it is, who is responsible, liable, for this accident?

The responsibility of ALL boaters is to keep a proper lookout and have the required lighting at night. If you'd like to visit the USCG Navigation rules site they do have an FAQ section in which they point out that even a ONE PERSON vessel, including an 18 foot boat or kayaks and canoes, have to adhere to Navigation Rules.

To the best of my knowledge, NH has adopted the USCG Navigation rules as law. The USCG Nav site also has a FAQ about kayaks and canoes and the response is that, based on the NAV RULES, they are treated like a small sailboat.

Let's review:

The kayaker(s) went out at night without lights.
The kaykers(s) eventually found themselves in the path of a lighted underway vessel.
The kayker abandonded his boat leaving the (probably) overturned kayak, unlighted, unmaned, and in the direct path of the powerboat.

The powerboat went out at night with required navigation lights on and functioning.
The powerboat found itself in a position that it required a spotlight to find the next navigation marker
The powerboat, with a spotlight in use, struck an abandonded, capsized boat (kayak) in the water.

As I posted many many many posts ago. I have had personal experience in coming across an unlighted boat at night. The boat I nearly hit was a fully loaded 21 foot pontoon boat. They had lots of lights on the boat, but not a stern light. I came up from behind and nearly hit them because I didn't see them.

Both of our boats were going at barely above headway speed. I swung around the pontoon boat to come along side to apologize about what I had almost done, and to my utter horror, when I came up behind it again, the boat, THAT I HAD IN MY SIGHT AND WAS WATCHING! disappeared from view. The area where I knew there was a boat, it was invisible, no boat, nothing but black!

We're not talking about on Winnipesaukee somewhere out in the Broads, we're not talking about off the coast of Newburyport where folks crowd into the mouth of the river to get home. I am talking about the Merrimack River in LOWELL! We were headed out for the fireworks so both sides of the river were well lighted! And still, even knowing where the boat was after I almost hit it and lots of light from both shores, NOTHING BUT BLACK!
So, I pulled up along side the pontoon boat to talk to the owner. When I told him what happened, he understood and repositioned his stern light so that instead of lighting the deck of his boat it actually was useful for other boats to see.

Bottom line. An unlighted boat on the water, whether it's a 21 foot pontoon boat or a kayak, is INVISIBLE AT NIGHT!
If it is unlighted it is at fault for any accident. Period.

A swimmer is not covered by the Navigation laws. If you're stupid enough to be swimming after dark in an area where there is boat traffic then you stand a good risk of being killed.

A kayak IS required to follow ALL navigation rules.

Islander wrote:
Operating an unlit boat is not much of a topic, you are an idiot and you are breaking the law.
What if that swimmer was 50 feet from a properly lighted boat at anchor?
What if their canoe, with a light, had overturned and they a waiting for rescue.

Let's say the kayak had overturned in front of the on coming powerboat, do you think the kayker would have swum away or called attention to himself?

If the powerboat hit a swimmer 50 feet from shore the powerboat operater is totally at fault.

The powerboater in this case hit an unmanned, unlighted hazard to navigation and you folks are trying to place the blame on the skipper of the powerboater? It was not the powerboaters fault in any way shape or form! The naked kayakers should have been charged!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Any small boat is more difficult to see than a large boat - I think that everyone here will grant me that.

Well this is obviously true

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...but I'm down at the same level as them - and I'm going slow, so I can see a lot more.

This is however faulty logic. Sitting in a kayak, your eyes are about two feet above the water, you can see less than 2 miles to the horizon. But a person standing in a small power boat, with their eyes six feet above the water can see three miles. A large cruiser with there eyes 10-11 feet high, can see 4 miles. That why fishing boats have towers, height improves distance. Speed has nothing to do with how far you can see.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

This is however faulty logic. Sitting in a kayak, your eyes are about two feet above the water, you can see less than 2 miles to the horizon. But a person standing in a small power boat, with their eyes six feet above the water can see three miles. A large cruiser with there eyes 10-11 feet high, can see 4 miles. That why fishing boats have towers, height improves distance. Speed has nothing to do with how far you can see.

Then why do so many power boat operators say that they have trouble seeing kayaks - when I can see them for at least a mile away? (assuming decent weather conditions - and I obviously talking about in daylight here)

There's nothing faulty about my logic - because we're talking about visibility over relatively short distances here - like a mile or less (not several miles).

BTW your figures and calculations are way off. In a sitting position my eyes are 32 inches high - not "less than 2 feet"(I'm 6 feet tall and have a long torso). So I can see a 1-foot high kayak that is just over 3 nautical miles away. And, I can see the other person in kayak up to about 4 nautical miles away - which is equal to 4.6 miles

The formula is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles. But that's just to the horizon. You have to do the same calculation (1.17 times the square root) on the height of the other object, and then you have to ADD the two together.

And speed has a great deal with the ability to see what is nearby, as you're moving too fast to see everything. If you don't believe me, try driving a section of road at like 50 MPH, and then walk a mile or two of that same section. I guarantee that you'll see things walking that you didn't notice when you were driving. You simply have more time to see all the details.

Plus, the higher you are, and the closer you are, the more that a boat like a kayak blends in with the water around it - because you are looking down on it. I'm actually sitting slightly below the waterline - so I'm looking across the water at other kayaks and and not down at them.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Then why do so many power boat operators say that they have trouble seeing kayaks - when I can see them for at least a mile away? (assuming decent weather conditions - and I obviously talking about in daylight here)

There's nothing faulty about my logic - because we're talking about visibility over relatively short distances here - like a mile or less (not several miles).

BTW your figures and calculations are way off. In a sitting position my eyes are 32 inches high - not "less than 2 feet"(I'm 6 feet tall and have a long torso). So I can see a 1-foot high kayak that is just over 3 nautical miles away. And, I can see the other person in kayak up to about 4 nautical miles away - which is equal to 4.6 miles

The formula is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles. But that's just to the horizon. You have to do the same calculation (1.17 times the square root) on the height of the other object, and then you have to ADD the two together.

And speed has a great deal with the ability to see what is nearby, as you're moving too fast to see everything. If you don't believe me, try driving a section of road at like 50 MPH, and then walk a mile or two of that same section. I guarantee that you'll see things walking that you didn't notice when you were driving. You simply have more time to see all the details.

Plus, the higher you are, and the closer you are, the more that a boat like a kayak blends in with the water around it - because you are looking down on it. I'm actually sitting slightly below the waterline - so I'm looking across the water at other kayaks and and not down at them.

I would like to see an experiment on that one... I have 20/15 vision and don't think that I could see a kayak 1' high at 3 nautical miles...At that distance it would blend in with the waves/surroundings and look quite insignificant. Your visibility formula may or may not be accurate (I did not bother to investigage but will take your word on it) but it is all relative to the size of the object that you are looking at and the overall light conditions at that time.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I would like to see an experiment on that one... I have 20/15 vision and don't think that I could see a kayak 1' high at 3 nautical miles...At that distance it would blend in with the waves/surroundings and look quite insignificant. Your visibility formula may or may not be accurate (I did not bother to investigage but will take your word on it) but it is all relative to the size of the object that you are looking at and the overall light conditions at that time.

Goodness, one of the first statements I made in my post was "we're talking about visibility over relatively short distances here - like a mile or less (not several miles)." (I guess you missed that.)

jrc was the one that brought up the height/distance relationship - all I did was produce the actual formular that you use (look it up) - and I pointed out that his calculations were off. The formular gives you the MAXIMUM distance that you can see another object across a body of water - which is based on the curvature of the earth. THAT'S IT. And that MAXIMUM distance is the furtherest you can see across water, even if you use a telescope.

My point was that I have absolutely no trouble spotting other kayakers that are over a mile away - in normal weather conditions - in the daylight. I believe that my position (at their same level) and my slow speed give me some advantage. In actual practice, I know that I can often see other kayaks that are 1-1/2 miles away. For instance, on Squam, when I leave Piper's Cove, I can usually see kayaks up until they pass between Moon Island and Bowman Island. According to my chart, that's just about 1.5 miles away.

[jrc]

Codeman, Evenstar,
I wasn't trying to give exact measurements. Just pointing out that greater height is greater visibility. I don't know what boaters have said to you but in smooth water and normal daylight, I never have problems picking out kayaks at quite a distance on the open water. Now add some heavy chop and a kayak may fall in a hole once in a while but still quite visble. As the sun fades after twilight things get a little tougher.

Boating around kayaks is really very easy. They are relatively slow and usually track a straight course. Now boating around jetskis is a lot harder. They are fast and never follow a straight course.