Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith

[Airwaves]

Paugusbaby wrote that he/she was on board the powerboat...and...

We were not coming out of Sally's Gut at the time of the collision, but the captain did have the spotlight out looking for markers. I do not know the lake well enough to say where we were exactly.

So the question of where the accident actually happened continues, but from Paugusbaby it appears the skipper did post a proper lookout and that he/she was searching the water ahead of his vessel with a spotlight.

Perhaps because the kayakers were naked they decided to avoid the spotlight at the expense of safety? Not to mention that they didn't know if the approaching boat was the Marine Patrol and we've all decided the kaykers were on the water in violation of the law.

I am interested in SIKSUKRS post in which he said the kayak that the naked man was in and was struck ABANDONDED HIS BOAT just prior to the accident rather than taking evasive action.

Thoughts from the "Powerboat is always at fault crowd"?

[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'.

[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.

[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?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by wildwoodfam

SIKSUKR STATED: It turns out I know these people that own the boat that struck the kayak.I just heard straight from the occupants themselves.

Now you say - You actually got your info from your sister - was your sister an occupant or was she speaking to "David" and she relayed the info to you? You in turn passed it along to the forum - sorta like "Telephone" when we were kids - the story never ends the way it begins!

Sooo sorry Wildwood.My point was that this info was not just gossip form one person to another and so on.She talked directly to the operater and told me what he told her.Does this somehow change the situation for you?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Sooo sorry Wildwood.My point was that this info was not just gossip form one person to another and so on.She talked directly to the operater and told me what he told her.Does this somehow change the situation for you?

With what passes for "fact" around here I would say that your story qualifies as indesputably accurate gospel. Thanks for sharing.


I wonder if ALCOHOL was involved with these naked midnight lightless kayakers?

[SAMIAM]

ALCOHOL ?????no !.....can't believe that even crossed anyones minds.I thought everyone went kayaking naked,late at 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.

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Sooo sorry Wildwood.My point was that this info was not just gossip form one person to another and so on.She talked directly to the operater and told me what he told her.Does this somehow change the situation for you?

I'll accept your apology and we'll leave it at that!

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

[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 ?

[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!

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Islander

WeirsBeachBoater and Paugus Bay Resident are sniping. Looking through the posts of people they don't like in hopes of finding something they can make into an attack.

The boat had gone from Meredith Bay to Bear Island and was headed back. If it was moving it had a speed, we just don't know what that speed was.

We do know they couldn't see an obstacle in their path before it was to late. Therefore they were going TO fast.

A Meredith resident is in prison right now. He was convicted of operator inattention because he hit another boat at night.

I believe the boater you're talking about is the guy who's family used to own Channel Marine? I believe he was Drinking (all day) and under the influence, hit the boat, stopped, didn't help or seek assistance, left the scene of the accident and then didn't report to a day or two later...

Different circumstances.... Doesn't take a whole lotta speed from a power boat to sever a Kayak in two.

[Airwaves]

APS wrote:

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.

First the accusation was the powerboat wasn't keeping a proper lookout and that was what obviously caused the collision. Now you're saying the naked kayaker was blinded by the spotlight and what? Thought it was a train?

He probably thought it was the Marine Patrol and wanted to get away so that he wouldn't be discovered naked! Swimming away from his kayak was logical? Not if he was trying to avoid a collision. It was only logical if he didn't want to be seen.

As for the powerboat approaching at a speed fast enought to total one of their boats...I maintain it was the prop, not the speed of the boat that caused the damage.

If you hit a kayak with a boat, what happens to the kayak? It moves! They are light and would bounce off a powerboat.

Remember the Mythbuster's show that took that photo of a GFBL boat that was split in half at the bow and the caption claimed it had hit a daymarker and tried to recreate it? That was a fixed object and the GFBL boat kept bouncing off! They had to drop the boat onto the steel pole to finally get a similar effect.

So if a powerboat strikes a kayak, it doesn't split in half, it moves and in this case it probably moved under the boat and was struck by the prop because if naked kayaker "jumped ship" the kayak may have capsized when he left the boat and the abandoned hazard to navigation easily slid under the bow of the powerboat.

Nope, you're beating a dead horse with this one.

Nice pic of Winni at night in the winter. Of course the fact that the water was ice and snow covered and refecting lots of light has nothing to do with the visibility.

If you have my private e-mail address I'd love a copy of that pic!

[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 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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[Airwaves]

Islander wrote:

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

Excuse me!!? Is a kayak not a boat? Is a kayak subject to the same navigation law as an 18' powerboat, or a 45' cruiser? YES IT IS!!!!

The kayak:

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.

The kayak was able to see the approaching vessel. The kayaker decided to abandon his boat. The kayaker PROBABLY thought the approaching boat with the spotlight was the Marine Patrol looking for unlighted kayakers in the water and rather than face a citation and fine he decided to jump out of his boat and swim away leaving his unlighted kayak floating directly in the path of an on coming boat!

The powerboater is completely vindicated. The kayaker was dead wrong, completely liable and he is lucky that he is not DEAD!

[jrc]

I think the earplug suggestion was a joke. But loud boats are an annoyance and should be dealt with more agressively.

Your quote is a good common sense idea. What is the source? I can find no NH law. Remember Coast Guard rules do not apply on NH lakes.

"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."

[MAINLANDER]

Loud exhaust save lives.

[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.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Excuse me!!? Is a kayak not a boat? Is a kayak subject to the same navigation law as an 18' powerboat, or a 45' cruiser? YES IT IS!!!!

The kayak:The kayak was able to see the approaching vessel. The kayaker decided to abandon his boat. The kayaker PROBABLY thought the approaching boat with the spotlight was the Marine Patrol looking for unlighted kayakers in the water and rather than face a citation and fine he decided to jump out of his boat and swim away leaving his unlighted kayak floating directly in the path of an on coming boat!

The power boater is completely vindicated. The kayaker was dead wrong, completely liable and he is lucky that he is not DEAD!

Airwaves- You are also wrong, wrong, wrong!

We all agree the kayaker was at fault, but that does NOTHING to exonerate the power boater. In your simple view of things you have reasoned that since the kayaker was at fault, the boater did nothing wrong.

It is highly possible that BOTH parties were at fault.

[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.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Islander

....

It is highly possible that BOTH parties were at fault.

Only if you make stuff up. There is no evidence from any source that even hints at any wrong doing on the part of the power boater.

Well some people still believe that OJ is innocent.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

Airwaves- You are also wrong, wrong, wrong!

We all agree the kayaker was at fault, but that does NOTHING to exonerate the power boater. In your simple view of things you have reasoned that since the kayaker was at fault, the boater did nothing wrong.

It is highly possible that BOTH parties were at fault.

Islander - GIVE IT A REST!!!! This is pathetic.

The powerboater was not charged with any wrong doing, and if he/she was you would be shouting it from the roof tops of Bear Island and beyond.

The MP's have exonerated the powerboater. It is also quite likely the kayaker or kayakers were given a citation or a least should have been, because as you point of they were in the wrong.

END OF STORY.

[4Fun]

I'll throw my 2 cents in too. When I am boating either at night or day I make it MY responsibility to ensure the surounding boats see me and understand my intentions. With that said I expect within reason other boats will do the same. It is the law!! If you are following the law I WILL see you at night. If you are not I may run you over.

I accept the risks of hitting submerged objects, islands, rocks, floats, submarines, and anything else "unexpected". These are MY risks. I keep a vigilent lookout for them. I accept full responsibility for them. I do not however accept the risk of hitting an unlit boat, kayaker, or other MANNED craft without lights. The risk of them being run over is on THEM. I will however rely on my my vigilant lookout to help me avoid such people but I WILL NOT accept their risk.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Islander - GIVE IT A REST!!!! This is pathetic.

The powerboater was not charged with any wrong doing, and if he/she was you would be shouting it from the roof tops of Bear Island and beyond.

The MP's have exonerated the powerboater. It is also quite likely the kayaker or kayakers were given a citation or a least should have been, because as you point of they were in the wrong.

END OF STORY.

Hopefully this will end the debate.

Tank

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Tank151

Hopefully this will end the debate.

Tank

The debate ain't over until we know why those guys were neked.

[Islander]

At this stage after his accident Dan had not been charged with anything either. And how do we know there was no citation for the powerboater?

This accident in itself is unimportant. However it has brought to light the fact that many people boat at night expecting anything in the way to have a light.

4Fun thinks he is not responsible if he hits a boat with no lights. I hope he never has to explain his theory to a jury, because they will not be buying it.

What about a boat with a burned out light, what about children on a boat operated by an idiot. This is the typical "blame someone else" attitude that prevails by irresponsible members of our society.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...At this stage after his accident Dan had not been charged with anything either...

Lest we forget, at this stage after "Dan" had committed his felony he was still in hiding and letting his father & father's Attorney run interference.

Apples & oranges again......

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

How do we know there was no citation for the powerboater?

Because we have heard from people that were on the boat. Duh.

Originally Posted by Islander

4Fun thinks he is not responsible if he hits a boat with no lights. I hope he never has to explain his theory to a jury, because they will not be buying it.

And you know this because apparently you are the jury in all such cases?

Originally Posted by Islander

What about a boat with a burned out light, what about children on a boat operated by an idiot. This is the typical "blame someone else" attitude that prevails by irresponsible members of our society.

Kinda like you blaming boats moving about the speed limit that doesn't exist?

Batter up.

JUST LET IT GO!!!! AS I SAID BEFORE THIS IS JUST PLAIN PATHETIC THE WAY YOU ARE TRYING TO FORWARD YOUR OWN AGENDA. WE ALL KNOW IT.

CALL YOUR PUBLICIST.

[Islander]

Hi Skip

What are the responsibilities of a boater to be able to see where he is going at night? Any laws on that. Can one assume that if there are no lights then nothing is there? Or is more diligence required?

That question is not apples and oranges, it's strait to the point.

[Aubrey]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Because we have heard from people that were on the boat. Duh.

And you know this because apparently you are the jury in all such cases?

Kinda like you blaming boats moving about the speed limit that doesn't exist?

Batter up.

JUST LET IT GO!!!! AS I SAID BEFORE THIS IS JUST PLAIN PATHETIC THE WAY YOU ARE TRYING TO FORWARD YOUR OWN AGENDA. WE ALL KNOW IT.

CALL YOUR PUBLICIST.

This seems to be mostly about the boating at night and operator responsibility. Where does "agenda" come in?

[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!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Hi Skip

What are the responsibilities of a boater to be able to see where he is going at night? Any laws on that. Can one assume that if there are no lights then nothing is there? Or is more diligence required?

That question is not apples and oranges, it's strait to the point.

I think it would be wise to carefully read the transcript you provided of the Littlefield (Danny) crime. In the appeal the Supreme Court makes it clear that even though a jury did not find Littlefield guilty of Negligent Homicide while Boating While Intoxicated, the jury was free to consider the ample evidence presented of Littlefield's intoxication and weigh that as an element in determining that Littlefield's intoxication was a major element contibuting to his inability to maintain a proper watch.

Several posters have repeatedly statedthat since Littlefield was not convicted of the BWI offense that he was thus "innocent". A careful reading of the transcript you provided shows just the opposite.

There has been no allegation of intoxication on the part of the operator of the power boat regarding this particular incident.

And no, there is no concrete answer as to when a person has or has not maintained a proper lookout. That is why, if the accusation is made, the person is charged with an offense and then (depending on the level of the offense) has a hearing in District Court by a Judge(misdemeanor offense) or has a jury trial in Superior Court (for a felony offense).

Any one of us is free to speculate ad nauseum about the issues surrounding this particular incident, but until any charges are brought and the issue is adjudicated we are all just taking shots in the dark, so to speak.

But back to the case in front of us....

If no charges are brought, as appears more & more to be the case, then the only safe assumption we can make is that the State has determined the facts and circumstances gathered during their investigation did not arise to a sufficient level of probable cause to effect an arrest or summons.

Many factors go in to the State's decision to pursue charges or drop a case. In this instance it appears the active investigation is winding down or completed. Once the investigation is completed a copy of the case can be reviewed by contacting the NHMP and requesting, under the State's Right-to-know law, the ability to review the same.

Only at that time can the rampant speculation be put to rest.

[parrothead]

If this was a perfect world everyone out in the dark could see everything, and everyone boating will do what they are supposed to. But come on!!! you can be the most diligent boater out there and miss something, hence this is called an accident. Accidents do happen no matter how diligent everyone is. Everyone involved took a chance that evening. The kyakers took a chance by going out at night without lights and lost. The powerboater took a chance going out at night and lost by finding the one peice of water that happened to have an unlighted kayak in it. It was an accident, and a case of everyone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The chance of this meeting would have been much smaller if the kayak had a light, or even if the kayaker had a reflective sash on instead of nothing. As the saying goes [stuff] happens and unfortunately it happened to this group of people. Luckily no one was hurt besides the kayak.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Islander

At this stage after his accident Dan had not been charged with anything either. And how do we know there was no citation for the powerboater?

This accident in itself is unimportant. However it has brought to light the fact that many people boat at night expecting anything in the way to have a light.

4Fun thinks he is not responsible if he hits a boat with no lights. I hope he never has to explain his theory to a jury, because they will not be buying it.

What about a boat with a burned out light, what about children on a boat operated by an idiot. This is the typical "blame someone else" attitude that prevails by irresponsible members of our society.

To comment on your comments....

I never want to hit another boat. I will do everything in my power not to do so but I will absolutely NOT be held responsible if I hit another boat with no lights. Burned out or not. Whether there are children or nuns on board is irrelevant. The blame someone else attitude is in your comment!!! If you are out there with no lights YOU are to blame not me. I will be sober, keeping a proper lookout, and going a reasonable speed( no not 50mph in the dark) . I will be following the law. You will be nearly invisible and breaking the law. This is fact. I will put this to a jury and win every time. You better retain a good lawyer if I hit your unlit boat at night and someone in my boat is hurt.

I do agree it's about time the "blame someone else" people are held accountable. Take responsibility for your own actions please. The laws you are pushing so strongly have nurtured all these idiots to get so far in life. They think the world is all warm and fuzzy since RSA1234 is there to keep them safe. We need to stop dummying down society to the lowest common denominator. There are some pretty dumb people out there and if we model our society around them we will grind to a halt.

[4Fun]

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=68561

Here is a relavent link from Long Lake in ME.
Rumor has it the boat that was hit was "star gazing" with no lights on. ( A 17' hydrostream) It is not clear how fast the 31' was going but I would guess pretty fast seeing they got thrown out and the boat made it 100 yards on shore.

This should be an interesting investigation.....

Another report with slightly different boat info...
Sorry no link...

HARRISON — Maine Warden Service divers planned to resume
their search this morning for the bodies of two people presumed
to have been killed when a cigarette-style speedboat smashed
into their 14-foot fiberglass boat Saturday night on Long Lake.

The speed of the 34-foot, high-performance boat was such that
when it hit shore moments after striking the smaller craft, it was
launched 150 feet into the woods.

The two occupants of the speedboat were thrown into the water
in the collision, but were able to swim to shore.

The warden service has launched a criminal investigation and
has been instructed by the Cumberland County District
Attorney's Office not to release the names of those who had
been in the speedboat or the couple presumed to have died in
the smaller boat, said Lt. Pat Dorian, head of search and rescue
for the warden service.

More than a dozen distraught family members and friends
gathered on the shoreline near the staging area of the search,
watching the boats, divers and a float plane scour a half-mile by
quarter-mile area. Friends in the town of Naples lamented the
loss of a local musician who had a wide circle of friends.

Investigators have not concluded whether the boats involved had
the required bow and stern lights, or if so, were using them
when the crash happened at about 9 p.m. off Bear Point on the
east side of Long Lake near the town line.

The speedboat and the recovered bow of the fiberglass boat
have been taken to the Maine State Police crime lab in Augusta
for analysis.

Police were called to the east shore of Long Lake by a resident
who heard the larger boat crash into the shore. The occupants
were found swimming to shore and were taken for medical
treatment.

It was two hours later that wardens found the flotsam of the
smaller boat, but it is unclear precisely where the collision
occurred, leaving divers with a huge search area, Dorian said.

The searchers were skimming the bottom in 30 to 45 feet of
water, with about 10 feet of visibility when the sun was shining.

A boat towing two divers was using global positioning software
to record the areas that had been searched.

The searchers were looking for the missing couple or the boat's
115 Mercury outboard motor, which sank and could help them
narrow their search, Dorian said. However, soft mud and silt at
the bottom could have buried the motor, he said.

People in Naples said one of the missing people was Raye Trott,
and that the other was presumably his girlfriend, who was not
from the area. The couple had headed out on his boat on
Saturday and had not returned to their vehicles after the crash.

Friends gathered Sunday at Bray's Brew Pub, a popular Naples
hangout where Trott often performed in a local band, in hopes
the search would bring good news. They left disappointed.

"It's obviously very disappointing for anyone who knew him,"
said Angela Roux, a waitress at the pub. "He was a great
musician, a great friend and he had a big heart."

Seth Merriam said Trott was a good friend who was fond of
riding his customized Harley-Davidson motorcycle and who had
a coarse, but warm, sense of humor.

"He tells some pretty funny jokes you wouldn't tell your
grandmother," Merriam recalled. "He was really down to earth
and funny."

Merriam said he was in Naples talking to his girlfriend on the
telephone Saturday just before the crash, and heard a cigarette
boat accelerate loudly after passing the bridge by the Naples
Causeway. He remarked about it to his girlfriend because he had
been in one for the first time earlier in the day and was amazed
at how fast it was and how much of the lake it consumed as it
roared down the narrow body of water.

Merriam guessed that Trott may have sought the dark, open
expanse of sky offered on the lake Saturday night to take in the
Perseid meteor shower, which could have been a reason to turn
off the boat's navigational lights.

Boats under way are required to have a white light on the stern
and a red and green light on the bow.

Maine law defines reckless operation as operating a watercraft to
recklessly create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to
another person. Another law defines operating to endanger as
operating a watercraft so as to endanger a person or property.

Boats also must be operated at reasonable and prudent speeds.

Violation of any of those laws is a misdemeanor.

"Speed is a factor on many of our lakes and ponds in southern
Maine," Dorian said, noting that congested lakes during the
summer are particularly dangerous.

"It's an accident waiting to happen. Those kinds of things are
compounded when you're traveling at night," he said.

Searchers planned to return to Bear Point today to continue the
search for the missing couple and for evidence.

"I don't have a doubt we'll go for days until we find the missing
victims," Dorian said.

[Paugusbaby]

Thanks Parrothead - you summed up my thoughts. This was an accident. I can't tell you how "fast" we were going, but I can say, for what it's worth, that I at no time felt unsafe, or that we were moving at an excessive speed - based on the speeds I have travelled at other times on the lake (as a passenger). My immeidate reaction when I saw the kayak in two pieces was that the prop caused the damage. Yes there was moonlight, but make no mistake that it was still dark. I just don't think, until it happens to you or you witness it, that you can place blame on the captain.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Paugusbaby

Thanks Parrothead - you summed up my thoughts. This was an accident. I can't tell you how "fast" we were going, but I can say, for what it's worth, that I at no time felt unsafe, or that we were moving at an excessive speed - based on the speeds I have travelled at other times on the lake (as a passenger). My immeidate reaction when I saw the kayak in two pieces was that the prop caused the damage. Yes there was moonlight, but make no mistake that it was still dark. I just don't think, until it happens to you or you witness it, that you can place blame on the captain.

Was it you????

I agree that it was an accident and if you had to put blame it would be the kayak with no lights. Speed could have come into play here but if lights were on you would have to imagine steps would have been taken, even with this said, the illegal act was being on the lake at night with no lights

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Aubrey

This seems to be mostly about the boating at night and operator responsibility. Where does "agenda" come in?

You'll have to read the entire thread, and when you do you'll notice the lack of response when hypothetical scenario's are discredited with common sense, logic and basic boater education knowledge. Then the poster, you know the one with the "agenda", comes back with another angle/scenario and never acknowledges that their previous hypothetical scenario was discredited with well thought out and common sense responses by many of other members of this forum.

Hows that?

[Aubrey]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

You'll have to read the entire thread, and when you do you'll notice the lack of response when hypothetical scenario's are discredited with common sense, logic and basic boater education knowledge. Then the poster, you know the one with the "agenda", comes back with another angle/scenario and never acknowledges that their previous hypothetical scenario was discredited with well thought out and common sense responses by many of other members of this forum.

Hows that?

Not very clear!

I have read the entire thread and I don't see what you are getting at. Both sides have expressed their opinion, I don't see where anyone has had their "scenario discredited".

There seems to be a difference of opinion about vision and boating in the dark. Quite frankly it has made me think about my night operation. I'm not sure where I come down on this.

But why the mystery? Who are you talking about? What is the "agenda"?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

You'll have to read the entire thread, and when you do you'll notice the lack of response when hypothetical scenario's are discredited with common sense, logic and basic boater education knowledge. Then the poster, you know the one with the "agenda", comes back with another angle/scenario and never acknowledges that their previous hypothetical scenario was discredited with well thought out and common sense responses by many of other members of this forum.

Hows that?

Can you give us an example

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Can you give us an example

Post 234?

Good luck in your quest for speed limits(said facetiously for those how like to twist things). I've had enough of this thread and feel it should be closed. Beating a dead horse is a understatement.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Post 234?

Good luck in your quest for speed limits(said facetiously for those how like to twist things). I've had enough of this thread and feel it should be closed. Beating a dead horse is a understatement.

Post 234 refers to post 231. However Islander was clearly talking about the responsibilities of the powerboater. Responding that a kayak is a boat has nothing to do with the statements in 231.

I think YOU are the one with the agenda. Because you don't like speed limits is no reason to bash people that do! This thread has very little to do with speed limits, I can't see where ANY proposed speed limit would have made a difference in this case.

[Islander]

I agree!

This accident and this thread are not about the 45/25 proposed speed limit.

It does involve the question of how fast is reasonable at night. That determination depends on the conditions. There are some instances where it is possible to go quite fast at night in reasonable safety. A lot also depends on the operators night vision and experience. A 25 mph night speed limit is a compromise at best, and 45 mph during the day is to low.

If you want to go back and read posts, check out #21 where the entire story of the accident is thought to be BS, and must therefore have been invented by people on Bear Island. That is called bashing.

Asking for a thread to be closed is a typical responses when someone's own voracity or agenda is challenged.

[Airwaves]

Island Lover wrote:

Post 234 refers to post 231. However Islander was clearly talking about the responsibilities of the powerboater. Responding that a kayak is a boat has nothing to do with the statements in 231.

Actually post #234 that I wrote points out that a kayak is a boat and must comply with ALL the same navigation rules as an 18' bowrider or a 45' cruiser, not just SOME of them as has been continuously ignored by the kayak sympathizers!

The "powerboater is always wrong" crowd first accused the powerboater in question of not keeping a proper lookout. I am just pointing out that it was also the responsiblity of the kayker to keep a proper lookout, and based on his action of abandoning his boat it is reasonable to say he saw the approaching vessel and rather than paddle out of the way he jumped out of his boat thus taking his second action to directly cause the accident! (The first was being out on the water after midnight without proper lighting)

Of course when we found out from someone on board the powerboat that not only was there a proper lookout posted, but an active search ahead of the boat with a spotlight...well, then the argument turned to:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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.

And there it is Aubrey....SPEED!

I tend to agree with LocalRealtor, enough is enough until someone can obtain a copy of the MP report on this case.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

What about a boat with a burned out light, what about children on a boat operated by an idiot. This is the typical "blame someone else" attitude that prevails by irresponsible members of our society.

Is it my responsibility to bring a spare light for your craft? Is it my responsibility to make sure your kids aren't out on a boat operated by an idiot (its is my responsibility to make sure my own kids are not)? Is it my responsibility to make sure your kayak HAS A LIGHT AS REQUIRED BY LAW? If I cut down a tree and leave it floating in the lake, and you hit it, who's responsible for that? I hope its your boat that hits it so I can use your posts here in court to prove you think its both our faults.

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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

And will know enough to not blame others for his own stupidity.

The powerboat operator is responsible for nothing more than hitting an unlighted object, period. If they hit a floating tree, dock, ect. its the same deal, they are responsible for the damage to their own craft and learn a lesson about being more vigilant in their watch. No forum threads, no news reports, no one dies or is traumatized for life. But throw in a couple of kayakers and now someone has to spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact that they almost killed someone. To shift responsibility for anything more then the damage to the powerboaters own vessel onto the powerboaters is a ridiculous attempt by the GSBQ (Go Slow, Be Quiet) crowd to shout from the hilltops about how irresponsible powerboaters are.

Now heres a great question, whos to say that capt. neckeds hasty retreat from his kayak didn't push said kayak into the powerboaters path?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

and 45 mph during the day is to low.

I think most of us agree, 45mph is too low!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Is it my responsibility to bring a spare light for your craft? Is it my responsibility to make sure your kids aren't out on a boat operated by an idiot (its is my responsibility to make sure my own kids are not)? Is it my responsibility to make sure your kayak HAS A LIGHT AS REQUIRED BY LAW? If I cut down a tree and leave it floating in the lake, and you hit it, who's responsible for that? I hope its your boat that hits it so I can use your posts here in court to prove you think its both our faults.



And will know enough to not blame others for his own stupidity.

The powerboat operator is responsible for nothing more than hitting an unlighted object, period. If they hit a floating tree, dock, ect. its the same deal, they are responsible for the damage to their own craft and learn a lesson about being more vigilant in their watch. No forum threads, no news reports, no one dies or is traumatized for life. But throw in a couple of kayakers and now someone has to spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact that they almost killed someone. To shift responsibility for anything more then the damage to the powerboaters own vessel onto the powerboaters is a ridiculous attempt by the GSBQ (Go Slow, Be Quiet) crowd to shout from the hilltops about how irresponsible powerboaters are.

Now heres a great question, whos to say that capt. neckeds hasty retreat from his kayak didn't push said kayak into the powerboaters path?

It is your responsibility to be able to see where you are going. However it seems that many people here think that this responsibility is negated by darkness.

I disagree. Darkness is a mitigating factor, just like snow, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities.

Since I am a powerboater myself, I will not blame them as a group. My boat can go 60 mph and frequently does. And several anti speed limit people are in agreement with me about night boating. Read the very logical things Silver Duck said in post 66 and 102. I agree with him 100%. I assume the only reason he was not bashed is because he opposes 25/45.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by jrc

Your quote is a good common sense idea. What is the source? I can find no NH law. Remember Coast Guard rules do not apply on NH lakes.

"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."

The source is the Coast Guard.

You say it's good common sense, and I agree. There needs to be more common sense used while boating at night, not entitlement and outrage.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Paugusbaby]

Originally Posted by AC2717

Was it you???

Not sure what you mean??

[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.

[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]

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!

[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 !