Teen hurt in two boat accident on Winni 7-22-10
 

From the: Manchester Union Leader Friday 7-23-2010.

MOULTONBOROUGH – A 15-year-old Wolfeboro boy was injured last night when two boats collided on Lake Winnipesaukee.

According to the New Hampshire Marine Patrol, a 24-foot Four Winds piloted by Mark Noel, 55, of Epsom, and a 26-foot Sea Ray operated by Fenton Varney, 53, of Tuftonborough, hit head-on at 9:15 p.m. near the southerly end of Long Island.

The Wolfeboro teen was one of eight passengers on Varney’s boat. He was treated for facial lacerations and released from Huggins Hospital.

No one else was injured.

"Each operator states he did not see the navigational lights of the other vessel until the last second," a news release from New Hampshire Marine Patrol states. "This caused both operators to swerve to the left."

Both boats had "significant contact damage" and were towed to Marine Patrol headquarters in Gilford for collision analysis.

Alcohol was not a contributing factor in the accident, according to the news release. Noel and Varney estimated they were traveling between 20 and 25 mph, Noel in a southerly direction and Varney in a northerly direction. Noel had one passenger aboard his vessel.

The accident remains under investigation.


Fortunately there was no serious injury. Another reminder to boat safely and be overly cautious particularly at night.

They were all very lucky.

"Swerve Left", not usually a good gut reaction.

Saw it on the news. The 26 foot Sea Ray involved appears to have a radome installed. I wonder if it was operating.

Fenton Varney is the high end carpenter/builder from Moultonborough for what it is worth. I'd guess he is an experienced boater having lived right on the lake for years.

Wow that's unfortunate. Thankfully one injury which seem as described to be pretty minor is all that was suffered. Just goes to show that accidents do occur even with the most seasoned captain at the helm.

Geesh didn't take long for the comments section of that article on the union leader to turn into a speed limit mud throwing contest. :rolleye2:

It's always the same people that have to stir the pot.

Luckily there were no serious injuries...

LOL yeah no kidding!!



Probably the reason why the injuries sustained were minimal was the fact both boats were nearly identical in size. Had that been a 18 footer versus a 26 footer the outcome would have been quite different.

I think it's extremely tough to navigate at night and at times it's terribly hard to pick up another boat by their nav lights especially when on a head to head bearing. Good reason why I avoid it. It almost seems like there could be a better way to illuminate a boat at night...

There will ALWAYS be accidents whether by boat, auto, motorcycle, etc, etc. Humans make mistakes! There does not always have to be a reason, (I.E. alcohol related). The only thing that can be done is to learn by our and others mistakes and bring awareness and reminders about safety to minimize these accidents. This is where organizations like S.B.O.N.H. serve their best purpose IMHOP, by reminding us we are not infallible and help spread safety awareness to all boaters.

I am glad no one was seriously hurt in this "accident". It could have been much worse!

Dan

Out of curiosity what was the weather like up there last night?

This is unfortunate, I am glad to hear that they boy was released from the hospital.

Accidents unfortunately do happen, luckily both operators took some avassive action to make sure it wasn't as bad as it could have been.

Severe clear, it was a beautiful night. I was near there around 8:30, not many boats around. I suspect a little bit of "big lake" collision avoidance theory may have played a part here.

I have thousands of hours flying airplanes and the toughest situations spotting other traffic is when it's coming right at you. What normally catches your attention is later movement i.e. something coming across your vision from the side. Shen the airplane (or boat) is coming right at you there isn't lateral movement. The object just gets bigger.

And planes like boats I bet can be tough to pick out on a clear night with a star filled sky as a backdrop. The one thing visually planes do have is blinking lights which boats do not have.

Guess you don't want to play chicken at night with a UFO huh? :emb:

I am glad to hear the injuries were minor. When looking at the amount of boating hours per year on the lake accidents are going to occur. Any activity has some adherent risks. It doesn’t matter if one is driving a car, playing golf or going for a hike there are dangers to any activity. The best we can do is to try and limit ones exposure. The best way to do this is through education and employing best practices. Even by doing everything right, accidents are going to happen.

My concern here is that there might be a knee-jerk reaction by some to legislate changes designed to prevent accidents like this from happening again. No amount of laws will ever prevent accidents from happening. I have heard rumblings over the past few years about limits on size and horsepower on the lake and once again today on the Union Leader. This should concern us all. Taking reasonable risks are part of life. If you drove to work today, you took a calculated risk. If you took a shower this morning, you put yourself at risk…you get the idea.

Short of making the entire lake boat free, there is no way to make the lake safe from boating accidents.

Even when the lake is boat free, we will have tragic accidents, such as drowning and falling in the lake.

The lake by its very nature is risky and dangerous.

Just another example of a night time accident on the lake. Boating at night can be difficult, especially when alcohol is involved although that does not seem to be the case with this one.

The bulk of all severe accidents on the lake have been at night- Blizzard, Littlefield, kayak hit by Sally's Gut, other island crashes, etc. It seems to me that laws should be kept more stringent on night time boating then daytime. I am not trying to spin this into a SL debate because honestly these days I could care less either way.

Codeman, you have hit the nail squarely on the head, boating at night is difficult. As many hours as I have logged, rarely go out at night and when I do I try my best to stay away from everyone. I am always more vigilant in my look out techniques and everything. I think quite often people don't realize all the difficulties of navigating at night, and don't know how to kick in a extra level of situational awareness.

I am not implying that either capt in this case was at all negligent... just say that night time boating requires a entire different level of awareness.

Nighttime requires more
 

Quoted for truth ! The "problem" with boating at night is that there's very little visual cues as to how far away a boat is. During the daytime a glance is sufficient to know if another boat is danger close and to assess it's general heading. At night all you have are points of light that must be observed for a period of time to get the above. I'm curious, it was written that both parties didn't see the other's lights until the "last second". That's a bit different from seeing them and not realizing they were too close. While I agree it may be harder to pick out a boat heading directly towards (or worse, directly away from) you, I've found the red/green sidelights standout pretty well from the background of cabin and house and other lights. Also both boats "swerved to the left" ??? Given the damage shown on WMUR's vid, I'll take that to mean each turned to port which is a bit odd (depending on the circumstances of course). I wonder just where btw Sandy and L Bear Is this happened ? That's an open stretch of water w/o obstructions.

ps - I was told in no uncertain terms that the Littlefield "accident" (all by itself) was proof positive that a 25 mph speed limit was needed. I wondered then what would happen when we had one at less than that speed. So ... time for a 15 mph limit ? Or shall "we" start determining the root causes and address them instead ?

Nah, too hard, much easier to knee jerk and legislate! Almost cocktail time!!

Using the middle of the road.
 

Not all that familiar with the area between Little Bear and Sandy, but I have had situations in Alton Bay where I am coming in the bay at night,and has someone going out the bay. I try to come into the bay down my right side (west side) and go out the east side.

It was just about dusk a few weeks ago, and between Little Mark and Echo point, just about below the rte 11 scenic view, I spotted a boat coming out of the bay and heading right for me. I did alter my course to the right and shortly afterward, so did the other boat. We passed well clear of one another, and as I looked back at it, it appeared to be heading all the way out the bay.

It was definitely difficult to see, but I did notice his bow lights and then noticed his white light. It may not have been an issue if it had been closer to the east side of the bay, but then again, it is everyone's lake and we need to watch carefully, and share.

Essentially, keep your eyes moving at all times, especially at night, and be the very defensive driver.

The UL comments most of the time are absolutely disgusting. There is zero moderation, and people can say anything, true or not. Sometimes the comments can be "fun" to read, but mostly it just bugs me, so I don't even bother reading them anymore.

Lighting regs redux
 

Thanks for not being one of those channel/bay/passage hogs that has to go the shortest straight line distance btw "here" and "there" leaving no room for others. If more people just segregated themselves into inbound and outbound lanes there would be less anxiety all around. (Dang, where are my meds ;) )

Anyway we're back to back to that old topic of whether (and how) the lighting regs could be changed to help. I've already bored people with the on-ON-on-ON all around (white) light ; could, should something be done with the sidelights ?


Funny to think that in prolly 20 years this will all be a moot point. GPS and RFID type transponders will alert anyone to other boats in their vicinity. Heck if we weren't such a litigious society I'd even engineer, make and sell the system myself.

Maybe we need better lights on our boats for boating at night?

Seasoned captain
 

I have boated on large lakes, oceans and inter coastals. Lake winnipesaukee has very very few seasoned captains that have a clue how to navigate at all. It is especially true with the guys with the over sized boats on this lake 30+ feet cabin cruisers. We should all be thankful that most of these people just stay on their docks and very few venture out at night.

Its great that nobody got seriously hurt in that minor collision. Accidents happen everywhere in life.

Usually people post more than once before they succeed in offending 100s of forum participants with a single generalization. I wish we could welcome you under more favorable circumstances.

My boat came with a single bow light. I replaced it with lights mounted on either side. I think it makes it far easier to spot head on.

Just a thought ....
 

A few weeks ago I was driving home late at night and came up behind a motorcycle. It really stuck out. What he had done was illuminate the engine and undercarriage with one of those neon-ish glowing lights (ala the Fast 'n' Furious crowd). Normally I think these look dumb but the patch of pavement illuminated by the lights really aided in it's visibility. So take that idea to the water and shine a "dim" light down the hull sides and onto the water (color appropriate to the side). Don't have it blind anyone. No doubt illegal per the regs but ...

Underwater lights.
 

I've seen cruisers with underwater stern lights. They do stand out and it looks pretty cool. Maybe we should regulate the underwater lights?

Collision Event...
 

"Accident"..."event"..."incident"..."severe accident"..."collision"... Which is the operative term here? :confused: To the injured Wolfeboro victim this would be "severe". (And "a collision").

None could be blamed on the absence of neon lights. :rolleye2:

1) This Union Leader report references at least one "boat" error and omits important "boating" details. :rolleye1:

2) Were these two boats following the same GPS waypoints—but in opposite directions? :confused:

what you are referring to are LED lights. They were actually started in fishing boats to attract fish towards the boat. They make it especially easy when catching bait fish in a net.

They have expanded over the past 5 years to be included on most any type of boat. People seem to like them on cruisers when sitting on the back, and I have even seen them as an option of some very top end performance boats. There was even an episode on ship shape tv on installing them.

I do not believe they are "regulated"....... But give it time... :eek::laugh:

I think both operators were not totally competent. You are supposed to reduce speed and turn to the RIGHT to avoid a collision.

Yup, supposed to be the case in head ons.

Think about which way you would turn if the angle were a little less then 180 degrees. Say the person coming at you was slightly to your port side, would you still turn to the starboard?

None us us were on on either of the boats that collided. We really can't see the visual picture they saw and then had fractions of a second to respond.

I've read in a number of books that the color WHITE, e.g., white fairing and white helmet is the easiest for the drivers to spot, register as a motorcycle, and accurately judge the speed and closing distance of.

I guess the boating equivalent would be two lights mounted where docking lights would be, but pointed down and back, with the V of the boat. Who knows...somebody try it. It's worth a shot.

Just remember
 

If you take away the SEAB and the 1, what do you have left.

Exactly....

For the record, and once again, in case anyone was wondering, none of the Union Leader posts came from me, fatlazyless. Someone for their own reasons, likes to post some very opinionated comments using F L Less as a name, but it's not from me. Interesting, now there's at least one Union Leader post using my real first name, from Meredith, and that's not me either.

It just tells you that you should take internet comments coming from anonymous originators with a built-in filter of skepticism.

Does anyone know if the front damage was port or starboard? Struggling with the rule of turning right even if it makes the collision worse.

I'd struggle with that too RG, turn the best way to avoid a collision, there are many situations where a right turn would make things worse. Many times I've been on the lake where a boater will be a half mile to my right, see me, turn, crossing my path, so they can pass me on the right, only to turn back to the left after they pass me. Of course, during their manuevering, I, being the give way boat, have to slow down or alter course, where had the other boat just passed starboard to starboard, we would have been a half mile apart. Not very bright in my book, but what can you do?

There was one boat at the Marine Patrol docks yesterday that I saw that had minor bow / starboard damage. Both boats were there Friday but i did not get a good look at them at that time.

Dan

There's a video @ WMUR's site. From that it appeared there was some damage on the forward and starboard sides of each. Since both did the same thing ("swerve left") I'll guess that's what looked best. A few feet less offset and there would have been a lot more injuries.

http://www.wmur.com/news/24364939/detail.html

The question remains as to how both didn't see the other until the last second.

I wonder
 

If they had maintained course. If they had made it.

In days of old. Most skippers 'maintain course' like they are suppose to do. Signal by hand or horn their intent to change course. Or 'stand down' if the other boat is in the 'danger zone'.

Today there are so many boneheads, that I just 'slow down' and let them pass. Swerving right or left is asking for trouble.

Speed?
 

I know it's not exact, but just remember that when you head on collide with another boat, car or whatever, it's equivalent to your speed plus the speed of the other vehicle, so in this case 40 - 50 mph. Not a lot of reaction time. Both operators seemed to do a good job of avoiding serious injury.

A lot of light pollution around the lake
 

When boating this past Saturday night, heading into the Meridith town docks, it was very difficult to see a lonely slow moving white stern light on a boat. I found the best approach was to keep to the far right of the bay where the least amount of light pollution impaired my vision to pick out stern lights. Then at the end of the bay turn left and go in to the no wake zone.

There was one condo complex with big spot lights shinning facing out into the bay that totally obscured that area. Trying to find a small white stern light in that light pollution would be near impossible. I guess the condo complex wanted to make sure no one ended up on there beach. :cool:

I believe that with all the development on the lake and so many white lights out there, its sometimes hard to tell if its a boat or a house light. Maybe its time to look at the law for the congested inner waters and change the stern light to a strobe. Its time for the law to adjust for the 21st century. Aircraft use strobes and maybe its time for boats on congested inland waterways to do so also.

50-year old eyes
 

Interesting that both boat operators were over 50. As everyone knows, night vision deteriorates rapidly and significantly for people over 45; I wonder how much that was a factor in this incident?

But, another thing bothers me too -- with 8 people aboard, you would think that one of them would have seen the other boat coming, and commented on it? I don't know about the rest of you, but I always have someone else looking out too when I'm boating, especially at night. I'm just surprised 8 pairs of eyes missed the oncoming boat.

"A Few Feet"...
 

While looking up "Rule-5" for a different thread, I found some sketches detailing a similar night-collision between two comparable boats. The sketches support how a decision—and a few feet—can make a very big difference in outcomes.

http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=4231

Excellent link. I thought the report was well done. It's worth reading.
Thanks for sharing ApS

Swerving left "generally" is not advised. That was a great accident investigative report. Pointed out the Vessel B did not stop to avoid either. Vessel A made tons of errors, and it was mazing nobody was hurt in the smaller boat, probably because of seated positions, unlike the CC boat. Textbook case of why the original accident in this thread was also avoidable.

Also a very nice summation of all the rules and navigation regs that were broken.

Nobody saw nothing
 

You think someone would have seen something wouldn't you ? :confused: That's what bothers me about this case, both captains claim they didn't see the other guy until the last second (not that they misjudged the distance). I suppose both could have been distracted, perhaps by their passengers (akin to talking on the cellphone). Could be a bit of CYA by both parties ? In a head on (or nearly) situation there's every advantage to see the other boat. The R/G sidelights should* be visible and more easily distinguished from the background than the white all-around. People tend to look where they're going (straight ahead). Age can certainly reduce the amount of light getting to your retina(s) but if you can see colors then there's plenty of light intensity. I still make out the colors of lights at distance on the lake and I'm over 50. So what can, could be done ? In time technology will fix this problem but in the meanwhile I'm not sure what else to do. More stringent requirements on those going out at night ?


*I have noted that on some boats, where the sidelights are in a combo unit on the bow, that the R and G can "merge" into a whitish/yellowish (like an old dim auto headlight) point of light when viewed head on. Maybe this occured and the now "white" light was lost in the background ? Maybe sidelights should really be on the sides ?

One of them saw something. From the report.

"At the same time there was a 20-ft. 2006 Sea Hunt center-console fishing boat (Vessel B) operating in the same sector of the ICW and going west with four people aboard. The operator (Sea Hunt Passenger No.1) stated that when he first saw the oncoming boat, he discerned it at about 10º on his port bow. He immediately made a turn to starboard (right) and this put him on a collision course with the Bayliner, which made an incorrect turn to the left. In his second interview with the investigating officer he assessed his turn to the right as a “half turn” of the steering wheel."

and a non-involved witness

"The only non-passenger witness was the above-mentioned mullet fisherman aboard his own vessel. He was heading west close to the Sea Hunt, at about the same speed, which he estimated at between 20 and 22 mph. He saw the oncoming boat and witnessed the collision, immediately stopping to help the survivors. Every person making a statement agreed that both vessels had their navigation lights ON.
"

Here not there ... I think
 

I was referring to the collision that happened on Winni. I thought T'n'T was also, though I'm not so sure now. :confused: Rereading the WMUR report it appears there were a total of 11 people in both boats on Winni. In the case of the ICW collision it appears the capt of the CC saw the other guy sifficiently ahead of time and took appropriate action but the other moron turned to port. APS likes to talk about "guided missiles" ... in this case it's a good analogy.

EDIT: not sure if this post went through on try #1.

Both accidents took place at minor speed, so very slow missiles. But both accidents took place because of pilot error. One has been documented very, very well, the Winni accident not so well, so far.

Government "Trends" Restrictive—Union Leader, Less So...
 

The newest regulation affecting the Coast Guard's use of cellphones:

Bogus Union Leader comment:

Somebody copied my "handle" from last year's Citizen, and posted an incorrect statement at The Union Leader. :mad:

It was only the sentiment that was similar to something I might have written :rolleye1: but the bogus comment was used for a "sock puppet" response :eek2: by the only apparent authority on New Hampshire boating safety. :rolleye2: