Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith [Archive]

idigtractors

07-28-2007, 12:09 PM

A guy at Shep Brown's told me a kayak was cut in half last night at 1:30 am by a power boat. The kayak was supposedly out with no lights. The powerboat didn't stop. No one was injured, the kayak couple was over at Shep's this morning looking for the boat. I'm thinking they should be renamed to Mr and Mrs Bonehead if they were out on a kayak at night with no light, lucky to be alive.
That bolded, underlined word is a very large word. It could also say the kayak supposedly had lights on it. :rolleye1:

B R

07-28-2007, 03:18 PM

That bolded, underlined word is a very large word. It could also say the kayak supposedly had lights on it. :rolleye1:

do you really think they had a legal stern light? i think it's at least safe to say they didn't have "legal" lights. red/green and stern light 3' (?) above
the largest occupants head? probably not.

if you look at all the accidents and deaths this year, canoes and kayaks certainly top the list in "most dangerous/unsafe boating vessel".

Gavia immer

07-28-2007, 03:55 PM

It was cut in half by a powerboat.....with no injuries? Was it occupied or adrift?

SteveA

07-28-2007, 04:24 PM

It was cut in half by a powerboat.....with no injuries? Was it occupied or adrift?

This story dosn't seem right. Dosn't pass "it could be possible" test

1) " A guy at Shep Brown's told me a kayak was cut in half last night at 1:30 am by a power boat." What guy...?

2) " Noone was injured, the kayak couple was over at Shep's this morning looking for the boat. I'm thinking they should be renamed to Mr and Mrs Bonehead if they were out on a kayak at night with no light, lucky to be alive."

If their kayak was "cut in half" ... how did noone get injured, how did they get to shore? And.... after that drama... why did they decide to go to Shep Browns looking for the villian..instead of the MP or Police?

3) Who in their right mind is on the lake.. power boat or kayak at 1.30 am..?

Story sounds fishy to me. No offense intended ITD This one misses the smell test..

I just looked at the Citizen website.. ( and they report "cat up a tree") no mention of a kayak cut in half.

idigtractors

07-28-2007, 04:31 PM

do you really think they had a legal stern light? i think it's at least safe to say they didn't have "legal" lights. red/green and stern light 3' (?) above the largest occupants head? probably not.
This is a question and no I do not know the answer being the reason for asking. Do small craft such as a row boat, kayak need lights or can the operator just us a flash lite? I have on many occasions gone fishing with a row boat and a electric motor and used just the small lite on the motor as my lites. That is not saying I was in the right, that is the reason for the question. And before you ask, no you did not need to register the boat with an electric motor at the time. That tells ya how long ago it was.

NightWing

07-28-2007, 04:37 PM

A canoe, kayak or rowboat (no motor) would only need to display a white light, visible 360° around the horizon for a distance of two miles.

ITD

07-28-2007, 06:24 PM

This story dosn't seem right. Dosn't pass "it could be possible" test

1) " A guy at Shep Brown's told me a kayak was cut in half last night at 1:30 am by a power boat." What guy...?

2) " Noone was injured, the kayak couple was over at Shep's this morning looking for the boat. I'm thinking they should be renamed to Mr and Mrs Bonehead if they were out on a kayak at night with no light, lucky to be alive."

If their kayak was "cut in half" ... how did noone get injured, how did they get to shore? And.... after that drama... why did they decide to go to Shep Browns looking for the villian..instead of the MP or Police?

3) Who in their right mind is on the lake.. power boat or kayak at 1.30 am..?

Story sounds fishy to me. No offense intended ITD This one misses the smell test..

I just looked at the Citizen website.. ( and they report "cat up a tree") no mention of a kayak cut in half.

Wouldn't try to fool ya Steve, just telling what the guy at Shep's told me, I didn't see it, I wasn't there, hence the supposedly, we'll see, if it did happen some crack reporter will eventually find the story.

As for who would be on the lake at 1:30 am , you're kidding right?

SteveA

07-28-2007, 07:43 PM

LOL :) :) :) :)

Guess it's been too long for me to be on the lake that late.... sigh.. stinks getting old! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If we wait for crack reporters here in the LR... you'll be too old to be on the lake @ 1.30AM :D :D :D :D :D

dan

07-28-2007, 10:25 PM

One went by our house about 10:30. No lights. Bright moon allowed us to see it going by. They are out there.

ApS

07-29-2007, 04:35 AM

"...just telling what the guy at Shep's told me, I didn't see it, I wasn't there, hence the supposedly, we'll see, if it did happen some crack reporter will eventually find the story...".
I don't think so. The last time a kayaker was reported struck on this lake, it rated only a brief blurb (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28829&postcount=83) on a Boston radio station.

If the kayak is valued at less than $2000, and no injuries resulted, a report to the Marine Patrol isn't required (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=51210&postcount=32) either.

One went by our house about 10:30. No lights. Bright moon allowed us to see it going by. They are out there.
Not just bright, the moon would have been directly overhead at that hour and would have been a full moon.

With or without a handheld lamp, there should have been enough danger heard and sighted to have enabled a kayaker to paddle out of harm's way: been there, done that (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=64330).

Lakegeezer

07-29-2007, 05:40 AM

SAMIAM

07-29-2007, 08:00 AM

I agree with Steve that the story is a little fishy.Things get exaggerated when the story gets retold.I'd want a first hand account before I would buy into a boat being cut in half while no one was injured.
Unless,of course it was a 1000HP Baja doing 90 mph.....we'd all believe that for sure.

NightWing

07-29-2007, 08:18 AM

The Big Kahuna

07-29-2007, 08:31 AM

Going kayaking in the moonlight is one of the special moments you can have on the lake. While you should take a light with you, turning it on ruins the mood and visibility. Taking risks is one of the spices of life. I am all for the spice of life and taking the big risks, good for you to voice your opinion and say to hell with playing it safe. Having said that my spice of life is riding around the lake in a rather good size power boat. Should our paths cross enjoying what we both agree is a zest for life, I hope we will be able not occupy the same space at the same time, and we will both continue to enjoy the lake at special times in our own seperate ways.

Kamper

07-29-2007, 04:04 PM

... There is never an excuse that makes it "OK" for a boater to hit something in the water. Even at night, you need to watch what is in front of you.

Even in daylight people hit debris. I think your statement is over-broad and not realistic. Unless you run with dock lights, on or continously using a spot light you are not going to able to see much in the water at night, probably not even at headway speed. If you meant it's "never ok to ram another boat" I'd have to agree with that.

An unlighted kayak blends in with the water unless it's silhouetted by another light. I've almost hit one myself coming into a private dock. I believe you dont have to have a light turned on when operating a muscle powerred vessel at night but it does have to be accessibe so you can make your presence known.

As for hitting something major and not stopping, I think that was defintly wrong-doing on the part of the motor-boat operator. I'm sure it would be more noticible than a large wake. If they simply didnt realise at that time there was another craft involved it would have been prudent to inspect for damage to their own boat and drive. I hope they find the operator. Someone defintly needs some clarification on how to behave on the water.

MAINLANDER

07-29-2007, 04:54 PM

No word of it in any news outlet, no one at sheps herd such a story, I call bs.
Bear Island resident maybe???

macshpman

07-29-2007, 05:58 PM

Just watched news nine and they talked about it happening last night

NightWing

07-29-2007, 06:41 PM

I believe you dont have to have a light turned on when operating a muscle powerred vessel at night but it does have to be accessibe so you can make your presence known.

Sorry, the light must be displayed and visible for 360° around the horizon for a distance of 2 miles.

Skip

07-29-2007, 06:53 PM

Just watched news nine and they talked about it happening last night

As stated above, the AP has reported the story but with very few initial details.

Once again you can peruse the short article HERE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_KAYAKER_CLOSE_CALL_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-07-29-10-59-50) on today's on-line edition of the Union Leader.

By the way, love or hate the editorial slant of the Union Leader they are by far the best and most accurate source of breaking news here in New Hampshire!

IMHO ;)

ITD

07-29-2007, 07:11 PM

Ah vindicated, I didn't think the Shep's guy was BSing. Apologies accepted:D :D :D

Kamper

07-29-2007, 07:32 PM

Sorry, ...

http://boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/lights.htm

You are correct. I have a mental picture of a rowboater waving a lantern that must have come from a safety course I took many many years ago. The current rule is smarter.

Skip

07-29-2007, 07:42 PM

http://boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/lights.htm

You are correct. I have a mental picture of a rowboater waving a lantern that must have come from a safety course I took many many years ago. The current rule is smarter.

As Nightwing correctly stated, the vessel in question should have been displaying a single white light visible for two miles in all directions.

Here is the applicable Administrative Rule:

Saf-C 403.16 Lights on Non-Power Boats.

(a) Boats propelled by oars, paddles or other human or natural device except sails, operated on any public water, shall, between sunset and sunrise, display one white light in a conspicuous position, so placed as to show all around the horizon.

The two mile requirement is found in a subsection of the preceding rule that basically states white lights shall be visible for two miles and all other colored navigation lights (if required) visible for one mile.

Silver Duck

07-29-2007, 07:59 PM

The 1:30 AM timing is not surprising; I've seen boats going in and out of the town docks at all hours of the night and in all kinds of weather (even thunder storms :eek: ).

Actually, I can't wait for the MP to start enforcing the 25 mph night time limit on Wednesday. From what I've seen over the years, it should be easy pickings for them.

As for the bonehead in the kayak, I'm glad he wasn't injured, but I hope the MP wrote him a jumbo ticket for his idiocy.

Silver Duck

wildwoodfam

07-29-2007, 08:06 PM

Going kayaking in the moonlight is one of the special moments you can have on the lake. While you should take a light with you, turning it on ruins the mood and visibility. Taking risks is one of the spices of life.

Having a BIGGER boat cut your kayak in half - and - seriously injuring and/or killing its occupants.

THAT - well - yeah - it'd be a buzz kill for sure and would ruin the mood.

THINK Geezer - C'MON!!!!!!

wildwoodfam

07-29-2007, 08:10 PM

do they KNOW that for sure? It would suggest that they have the powerboat(er) in question. I am quite sure the kayaker wasn't counting feet as they sliced his kayak!

I am amazed that nobody was injured!:eek:

Harkens back to mey earlier post - PAY ATTENTION!!!!:rolleye2:

Gavia immer

07-29-2007, 08:27 PM

I hope they find the operator. Someone defintly needs some clarification on how to behave on the water.
Behaving on the water means maintaining a proper watch. Suppose the kayak was within 150 feet of shore, he wouldn't be earning a ticket to my thinking.

jrc

07-29-2007, 08:44 PM

Kamper, you would be right in coast guard controlled waters but NH has a stricter rule.

Rule 25 in part:
...
A vessel under oars may exhibit the lights prescribed in this rule for sailing vessels, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision.
...

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/nr_pics/nr_Rule25d2.gif

Gavia, there is no provision to allow dark running near shore, two wrongs...

WeirsBeachBoater

07-29-2007, 09:23 PM

Actually, I can't wait for the MP to start enforcing the 25 mph night time limit on Wednesday. From what I've seen over the years, it should be easy pickings for them.They will only be enforcing that 25 mph at night in the specified zones. Also there is a lot of people that are misinformed telling boaters that there is in fact already a speed limit. Which is not true at all. I have heard from two different individuals that were at establishments in Meredith and Wolfeboro.

Kamper

07-29-2007, 10:09 PM

... Suppose the kayak was within 150 feet of shore, he wouldn't be earning a ticket to my thinking.

The kayak in your scenario is still a boat covered by boat regs any time it's in the water. The MP might ignore a pool toy in daylight, close to shore but if you take an inner tube that far out you can expect negative attention if you don't have a PFD. A kayak, canoe, rowboat, or any boat without adequate lights, might as well be a mine. Just another hazard to navigation.

Not all factory installed lights are adequate either (imo). Boaters should leave their lights on at the dock some night and walk off a bit. Those little dime-size green/red lights aren't the attention getters you might want them to be.

Also, it looks like I implied there was only one person needing a talking to but I'm not overly sympathetic to the kayaker either. I'm glad no one got hurt but that was luck. He might as well have been playing Russian Roulette.

Rule 25 in part: ... which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision. ... As I remembered it, the woman was rowing and the guy was smiling as he waved the lantern!

Island Life

07-29-2007, 10:14 PM

Not all factory installed lights are adequate either (imo). Boaters should leave their lights on at the dock some night and walk off a bit. Those little dime-size green/red lights arent the attention getters you ight want them to be.

Can't agree more. I was following a white light last night, not quite knowing which direction he was going because he appeared to have no bow lights. Only when I got pretty close did I see a faint green light. I've always assumed my own were sufficient but now I will check. Can you have brighter bow lights retrofitted?

NightWing

07-29-2007, 11:23 PM

The visibility requirement for red/green bow lights is 1 mile.

ApS

07-30-2007, 04:15 AM

"...By the way, love or hate the editorial slant of the Union Leader they are by far the best and most accurate source of breaking news here in New Hampshire...!"
From the article:
"Spitzer's kayak had no lights."
Does the reporter know if the kayak wasn't equipped with lights, or that Spitzer didn't have a light displayed?

Dang reporters....:confused:

SteveA

07-30-2007, 05:28 AM

Ah vindicated, I didn't think the Shep's guy was BSing. Apologies accepted:D :D :DI will never question you again! :)

Lakegeezer

07-30-2007, 05:50 AM

Having a BIGGER boat cut your kayak in half - and - seriously injuring and/or killing its occupants.

THAT - well - yeah - it'd be a buzz kill for sure and would ruin the mood.

THINK Geezer - C'MON!!!!!!You probably don't want to be out where boats are zipping by without having the proper illumination available. Staying in protected coves or within 150 from shore should keep you fairly safe with enough time to reach shore if you see Captain Bonehead or the MP coming. Yes, it is an infraction, but then so is going 75 on route 93.

wildwoodfam

07-30-2007, 07:12 AM

and I promise I won't go 75 on 93!:rolleye2: At least when we are goin in the southbound direction (that's headed for home) - :laugh:

codeman671

07-30-2007, 08:16 AM

I have heard a rumor that the kayaker was naked??? Anyone else hear this? I was told that it was mentioned on WOKQ this morning.

You have got to be kidding me...A naked white butt, although it may be visible up to two miles away is no replacement for a white navigation light. :laugh:

Kamper

07-30-2007, 09:00 AM

... Can you have brighter bow lights retrofitted?

Yes. You should be able to find compatible lights in any boat catalog or boat part store. Some of them are plain and some are fancy. I changed mine myself.

Good luck!

SAMIAM

07-30-2007, 09:11 AM

You are vindicated......saw it on channel 9 this a.m......sorry I doubted you.

Fish

07-30-2007, 11:21 AM

[QUOTE=Silver Duck]
Actually, I can't wait for the MP to start enforcing the 25 mph night time limit on Wednesday. From what I've seen over the years, it should be easy pickings for them.

According to the Citizen the PILOT program will not be starting until later in August.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN

Old Hubbard Rd

07-30-2007, 11:23 AM

MEREDITH, N.H. -- A kayaker from Vermont had a terrifying close call when a boat sliced his kayak in two on New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee this weekend.

The Marine Patrol said Stephen Spitzer, 46, of Brattleboro, was kayaking around 1 a.m. Saturday when a 27-foot powerboat ran over him, cutting the front part of the kayak off.

Spitzer's kayak had no lights. No one was hurt.

WeirsBeachBoater

07-30-2007, 11:55 AM

I am sure that the operator was TERRIFIED to see a kayak in front of him with no lights... I guess I just have a problem that the powerboater seems to be written up as the bad guy. We can all agree that all boaters have to keep a proper lookout, but a kayak out admittedly at night with no light! Again I think the article shouldn't have the slant that the boater is to blame. Shame on the kayak operator, and thank goodness no one was hurt. Why can't the article read A boater on lake winni had a terrifying close call when he struck a kayak at 1 am???? The kayaker was operating illegally with no lights, thankfully no one was injured.

Weirs guy

07-30-2007, 12:02 PM

Stephen Spitzer to earn a Darwin Awards Honorable Mention? 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.

Excalibur

07-30-2007, 12:07 PM

I have to admit, I have been out on moonlit nights in the canoe with the lights off. I know I am taking a risk and sometimes do bonehead things every so often. But I try to hide in the shallows within 25 ft of shore and behind some large boulders for protection. There are a lot of nice portable lights out there for small craft and with the new LEDs they are very bright and use low power.

I have one that has both red and green led lights and a white stobe. Even though its made in China, its a great thing to have on board, even as a backup.

http://store.seattlesportsco.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=68&idproduct=139

NightWing

07-30-2007, 01:39 PM

pmj

07-30-2007, 02:16 PM

NightWing said:The law requires "proper" lighting for the type of vessel it is displayed on. Neither red/green nor a strobe light are proper lighting for your boat.

Nightwing: Are you saying that portable lights are not legal?? If I have a dead battery and I use portable r/g light afixed to my bow and a white portable afixed to my stern then I am not legal? Why wouldn't these be proper? I wasn't aware of this.

Irrigation Guy

07-30-2007, 02:20 PM

Aquadeziac

07-30-2007, 02:30 PM

On the 11pm news last nite there was a pic of the offending kayak. It wasn't cut in half actually,more like a couple feet lopped off one end. The passenger compartment looked intact. It looked in the pic like it was just a one passenger kayak.

Aquadeziac

07-30-2007, 02:37 PM

Overton's and West Marine both have replecement LED lights for red, green and white marker lights. They are advertised as many times brighter than regular marker lights.
heres an example:
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/62663/377%20710%201604/0/Exterior%20/Primary%20Search/mode%20matchallpartial/0/0?N=377%20710%201604&Ne=0&Ntt=Exterior%20&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial&page=CategoryDisplayLevel1&isLTokenURL=true&storeNum=null&subdeptNum=null&classNum=null

NightWing

07-30-2007, 03:44 PM

NightWing said:

Nightwing: Are you saying that portable lights are not legal?? If I have a dead battery and I use portable r/g light afixed to my bow and a white portable afixed to my stern then I am not legal? Why wouldn't these be proper? I wasn't aware of this.

I didn't say that portable lights are not legal. I said that the light unit described did not represent proper lighting for his canoe.

A canoe need display a white light that is visible for 360° around the horizon for 2 miles. That is the requirement for a manually powered vessel. Red and green are navigation lights for a power boat. In no case is a white strobe light considered proper lighting.

As a point of interest, those short, suction cup mounted white lights are not adequate because they do not show above the operator and therefore are not visible for 360° around the horizon. If you must use one, mount it on a pole and keep fresh batteries on hand.

The act of gliding along in the dark with your fanny at water level in an unlit boat is absolutely insane. If you want to stargaze in the dark, do it from shore. If you want peace and tranquility in dark water, run a bath and soak by candlelight. The chances of getting run over by a 300 horsepower meat cleaver on shore or in your tub are very small indeed.

I almost hit a canoe operated by a husband and wife several years ago. The canoe was dark green to blend in with everything. They were wearing dark clothing and were crossing a river, perpendicular to shore. Pitch dark, no moon, nothing to indicate they were there. They didn't even call out as a warning, just kept paddling along to cross right in front of me.

When I finally saw them, they were probably 5 feet in front of me. I slammed into reverse so fast I took half the river over the transom. They looked at me and continued to paddle to shore.

I won't go into great detail about what happened after, but I gave them a verbal Boating Ed lesson that they probably heard in the next county.

They didn't even have the decency to offer bathroom tissue so I could clean up..................................:rolleye2:

Don't drive a boat at night without proper lights.....................please.

Mink Islander

07-30-2007, 03:56 PM

I beleive nightwing was referring to a canoe or kayak in the quote. The red/green on the bow and all around white above the red/green are appropriate for a power driven boat and sailboat under auxilliary power.

I think you're confusing what is appropriate with the "minimum required by law"

Per the Boat-ed website for NH:

If less than 23.0 feet (7 meters) long, these vessels should:

If practical, exhibit the same lights as required for unpowered vessels less than 65.6 feet in length. (Mink Islander: meaning have the typical required lighting of bow lights and white stern light that you see on a sailboat)
If not practical, have on hand at least one lantern or flashlight shining a white light as shown in Figure 3.

Of course the rules may be different if you're butt naked in your vessel -- or perhaps should be. Maybe a "flashing" white light would be appropriate after all.....

Mink Islander

07-30-2007, 04:01 PM

You raise a great point about the height of stern lights. I replaced the one on my old whaler Montauk two years ago because the one it came with (used), was only a couple feet higher than the gunwales and just higher than the top of the center console. Legal, but barely, I suspect. Problem is that my boat has a dodger that when raised, was nearly as high as the center console and I was concerned that my stern light was not visible from the front in all situations. So I replaced it with a 4 ft one.

I saw a small boat this weekend whose stern light was not visible when approaching it head on. Made me think I made a good decision....

Lin

07-30-2007, 04:09 PM

This is a question and no I do not know the answer being the reason for asking. Do small craft such as a row boat, kayak need lights or can the operator just us a flash lite? I have on many occasions gone fishing with a row boat and a electric motor and used just the small lite on the motor as my lites. That is not saying I was in the right, that is the reason for the question. And before you ask, no you did not need to register the boat with an electric motor at the time. That tells ya how long ago it was.

We have two canoes and four kayaks and we all have the stern and bow lights. They have the extention for 3'. Have had them for years, usually we don't use them as we are back in shore on time. However, if we have gone on an extended paddle, we toss them in, just in case we get back after dusk. I think in about ten years we've only had to use them maybe 3x. I agree kayaks are low in the water and sometimes hard to see but we love them. We usually stay pretty close within the 150' rule of land,(just so we don't conflict with power boats we choose to follow the shoreline mostly over rocks and shallower water) however we oftentimes have to cross over a bay and attempt to do it at it's narrowest point and usually pick a time when there aren't a parade of boats traveling through. I'm not going to blame everyone out there but I have to say, that even being within the 150' or a no wake zone with the canoe or kayak, we've had some scary moments with fast boats and large wakes ignoring the rules.

Coastal Laker

07-30-2007, 04:16 PM

I don't know if any of you feel the same way we do... 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.

On Friday night, we drove from Meredith to the Weirs to watch the fireworks. A boat passed us that had no all-around light. As soon as we couldn't see the green light anymore, the boat vanished. With the lights ahead at the Weirs, my husband did all he could to keep track of where that boat went as he could barely make out the reflection of the boat's wake. He kept his eye on the boat's wake while I kept an eye out for the rest of the boat traffic.

Then on Sat night we went out for dinner on the lake and saw a jet boat doing donuts 30 ft from the docks and it had no stern light either. Fed up, we called the MPs and they did indeed come and stop the offending boat. They were caught some distance out from shore and were escorted back in. No sympathy here for the MPs ruining their evening. They could have ruined plenty more.

If a boat is out on the lake and loses it's lights, has no spare bulbs, or otherwise can't get them working, someone should shine a light on the boat so it can be seen with either a good flashlight or spot light... and NOT drive down the middle of the bay full sprint around other boats. UGH!

If they people in the kayak were truly without lights, they are lucky to be alive.

NightWing

07-30-2007, 04:44 PM

I think you're confusing what is appropriate with the "minimum required by law"

Per the Boat-ed website for NH:

If less than 23.0 feet (7 meters) long, these vessels should:

If practical, exhibit the same lights as required for unpowered vessels less than 65.6 feet in length. (Mink Islander: meaning have the typical required lighting of bow lights and white stern light that you see on a sailboat)
If not practical, have on hand at least one lantern or flashlight shining a white light as shown in Figure 3.

Of course the rules may be different if you're butt naked in your vessel -- or perhaps should be. Maybe a "flashing" white light would be appropriate after all.....

We were talking about canoes and kayaks.

Saf-C 403.16 Lights on Non-Power Boats.

(a) Boats propelled by oars, paddles or other human or natural device except sails, operated on any public water, shall, between sunset and sunrise, display one white light in a conspicuous position, so placed as to show all around the horizon.

Silver Duck

07-30-2007, 06:47 PM

Fish & WeirsBeachBoater

Sorry, I read the story about the delay after I posted. And, yes I'm aware that the limit is only in two areas of the lake.

As I've stated many times, I'm not in favor of a daytime speed limit, but a night time limit is a diferent story. I boat at night a lot, and my slip is close to the Lovejoy Sands public docks, so I get to see a great many boats going, IMHO, way too fast for the prevailing conditions (unless the operators somehow acquired Superman's X-ray vision! :D ).

I wouldn't at all mind having the MP slow a few folks down a bit after dark (personally, I never go on plane after dark and wouldn't unless there was a medical emergency aboard!)

By the way, does anybody know where the collision occurred (other than just "Meredith"?)

Silver Duck

Gavia immer

07-30-2007, 08:22 PM

I am sure that the operator was TERRIFIED to see a kayak in front of him with no lights
A wayward swim raft would also have no lights.

Except for the length of his 27' boat, there's a lot we don't know about this operator. How fast would a big powerboat need to be travelling to chop through only one end of a kayak? Was he impaired? Did he leave because he was impaired? Was he navigating by GPS? That night had calm water, low traffic, a full moon and very clear visibility.

NightWing

07-30-2007, 08:48 PM

A wayward swim raft would also have no lights.

Except for the length of his 27' boat, there's a lot we don't know about this operator. How fast would a big powerboat need to be travelling to chop through only one end of a kayak? Was he impaired? Did he leave because he was impaired? Was he navigating by GPS? That night had calm water, low traffic, a full moon and very clear visibility.

The wayward swim raft normally wouldn't be occupied, would be close to shore and wouldn't be required by law to display proper lighting.

Regardless if the water was calm, traffic low, a full moon and clear visibility, the fact remains that a vessel was operating during the hours of darkness, between sunset and sunrise, without displaying proper lighting. The operator was at extreme risk of being killed.

WeirsBeachBoater

07-30-2007, 09:24 PM

A wayward swim raft would also have no lights.

Except for the length of his 27' boat, there's a lot we don't know about this operator. How fast would a big powerboat need to be travelling to chop through only one end of a kayak? Was he impaired? Did he leave because he was impaired? Was he navigating by GPS? That night had calm water, low traffic, a full moon and very clear visibility.

I was curious as to how the boater was found. They mentioned the size of the boat, so I did some digging, and as I suspected, the media is not telling the whole truth. As I understand it, there was no hit and run, in fact the boater assisted the kayaker, and brought them to shore, leaving with them their complete info. As the damage to the kayak was well under the needed amount to create a reason for MP to get involved, they were notified after the fact. So basically in a nutshell, reckless Kayaker, scared boater, did the right thing, glad no one was hurt, end of story.

Mink Islander

07-30-2007, 09:46 PM

We were talking about canoes and kayaks.

Saf-C 403.16 Lights on Non-Power Boats.

(a) Boats propelled by oars, paddles or other human or natural device except sails, operated on any public water, shall, between sunset and sunrise, display one white light in a conspicuous position, so placed as to show all around the horizon.

But it doesn't say you can't have bow nav lights on Kayaks or Rowboats or canoes in addition. In fact and the Boat-Ed quote I gave you is straight from the training -- something Joe Q boater is far more likely to be familiar with than line and literal verse of the RSA. It's pretty plain English and also seems to be common sense. I can't imagine an MP citing you for a violation if you had full bow and stern nav lights on a kayak, rowboat or canoe, can u? Geez.

jrc

07-30-2007, 10:32 PM

Just please don't put a strobe on your kayak. I'm going to thinks it's a flashing light for naviagtion. :eek:

Skip

07-30-2007, 10:49 PM

But it doesn't say you can't have bow nav lights on Kayaks or Rowboats or canoes in addition. In fact and the Boat-Ed quote I gave you is straight from the training -- something Joe Q boater is far more likely to be familiar with than line and literal verse of the RSA. It's pretty plain English and also seems to be common sense. I can't imagine an MP citing you for a violation if you had full bow and stern nav lights on a kayak, rowboat or canoe, can u? Geez.

Just to clarify a few misconceptions here.

While the Boat-Ed courses are great they are very generic in detail and the NH course has a number of errors in it. What Joe Q. boater needs to be familiar with is the Administrative Rules & RSAs that govern his boating conduct as these are the regulations that a law enforcement officer will be utilizing on a stop. Trust me, a response of "but that's not what they told me at Boater's ED" isn't going to get you very far out on the water!

Secondly, the Administrative Rule cited, Saf-C 403.16 contains a key legal phrase...."shall, between sunset and sunrise, display one white light in a conspicuous position, so placed as to show all around the horizon."

The operative legal word here is "shall". Therefore, if any other lights are displayed that are considered navigational lights, in particular red/green bow lights, then you are in violation of this Administrative Rule and can be cited for same. The defense of "it doesn't say I can't have extra lights" will not apply here because of the distinct legal phrasing!

Common sense tells me that there are very distinct and rational reasons why different classifications of vessels are required to display different combinations of navigational lights, to help operators of other vessels determine what's out on the water around them. Therefore you are very likely to be cited if you draw enough attention to yourself to be stopped for a violation and are discovered to be displaying a combination of navigational lights that you think is in your best interest but does not comply with applicable regulations.

Of course you could always tell the nice MP officer that you got the idea from the great folks over at Winnipesaukee.com , I'm sure that will let you off the hook! ;)

Kamper

07-31-2007, 06:52 AM

Just please don't put a strobe on your kayak. I'm going to thinks it's a flashing light for naviagtion. :eek:

Right. Nav lights have accepted and specific meanings. Strobes are special purpose indicators. Misusing a type of light can be confusing and result in a hazardous situation just like using no lights or inadequate lights.

Here are some of the strobe meanings that I am aware of. This list might not be complete and may not be completely accurate.

Yellow/amber - Surfaced submarine.

Blue - Police function.

Red -- Fire safty function.

White - Man-Overboard beacon. PFD strobe. Life-Raft/Life-Boat beacon.

Additionally, some bouys use these same colors. Aviaton collision safety beacons near water may also cause some confusion.

Getting back to the kayak... It looks like we have more details. Does any one have link with the updated story?

Mink Islander

07-31-2007, 07:14 AM

I looked at 3 different sites that claim to explain the boating req's in NH. Skip, I agree that 2 of these are general sites and use common language that suggest they're just copying Coast Guard req's. However, the site noted below (and in my earlier post) is the official site supported by the NH Department of Safety and has the same Nav Light req's as the other two.

From the home page:

Welcome to the official boating safety course developed for the New Hampshire Department of Safety. By passing the online exam, you will be well-prepared to pass the proctored final exam that is required to fulfill your obligation under the law.

This link has the specific nav light discussion:

http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/course/p4-9_navlights.htm

Also, from this site, you can take an online exam to get pre-cleared to then take the proctored exam without having to sit through the class.

I guess we should tell Marine Patrol that their instruction regarding nav lights is inconsistent with actual NH law....

Wondering what's on the boater certification exam since this is a topic I would hope actually gets tested.

jrc

07-31-2007, 07:17 AM

Kamper, good list.

On Winnipesaukee every numbered marker has a white strobe. At night that's how I navigate. Find the flash and run towards it, then pass it on the safe side. A strobe is a target.

ApS

07-31-2007, 07:31 AM

"...I was curious as to how the boater was found. They mentioned the size of the boat, so I did some digging, and as I suspected, the media is not telling the whole truth..."
'Curious as to how "length of boat" returns "the whole truth"....

"The whole truth" is a winnowing process—especially if you were to start at post #1 here.

1) The kayak was cut in half—but only a portion of the bow is gone.
2) Two were rescued—but the kayak shown on TV was a single-seater.
3) It was a hit-and-run—but the boat came to their rescue.

:rolleye2:

That "digging"—was it a different boating forum? (e.g., BoatUS, Donzi-Registry, KayakSport?)

:confused:

jrc

07-31-2007, 07:32 AM

Just in case you want further confusion on lights for non-power boats, look at the rules themselves: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/saf-c400.html

In section Saf-C 403.17 it shows drawings of running lights and the row boat, canoe and small sailboat all show a man holding a lantern. The drawings are tiny but undeniable.

Also, in Coast Guard controlled waters a non-powered boat may exhibit the same red and green lights required by sailboats.

ITD

07-31-2007, 07:56 AM

I was curious as to how the boater was found. They mentioned the size of the boat, so I did some digging, and as I suspected, the media is not telling the whole truth. As I understand it, there was no hit and run, in fact the boater assisted the kayaker, and brought them to shore, leaving with them their complete info. As the damage to the kayak was well under the needed amount to create a reason for MP to get involved, they were notified after the fact. So basically in a nutshell, reckless Kayaker, scared boater, did the right thing, glad no one was hurt, end of story.

Hmmm, different story than what I got, just wondering who you got it from? Certainly is better than a hit and run.

codeman671

07-31-2007, 07:59 AM

I was curious as to how the boater was found. They mentioned the size of the boat, so I did some digging, and as I suspected, the media is not telling the whole truth. As I understand it, there was no hit and run, in fact the boater assisted the kayaker, and brought them to shore, leaving with them their complete info. As the damage to the kayak was well under the needed amount to create a reason for MP to get involved, they were notified after the fact. So basically in a nutshell, reckless Kayaker, scared boater, did the right thing, glad no one was hurt, end of story.

Please post where your information came from. From what I saw yesterday it seems like the media was leaving it rather gray, giving the misconception that it was just another reckless boating accident on a dangerous lake.

Skip

07-31-2007, 08:00 AM

...I guess we should tell Marine Patrol that their instruction regarding nav lights is inconsistent with actual NH law....

Wondering what's on the boater certification exam since this is a topic I would hope actually gets tested.

I agree with you 110%.

Nowhere else in the State can I find the general inconsistencies that occur regularly when it comes to NH boating nad navigation regulations, although snowmobile & ATV regulations and their concurrent confusing state of explanation & implementation run a close second!

Thankfully there is a well perused site like this where folks can rationally discuss many of these issues and learn from each other and our experiences! :)

Sue15

07-31-2007, 09:05 AM

We had picked up a friends daughter who was working in Meredith Harbor at 11PM and then visited a friend who had just purchased a new camp on Bear Island. On the way back to Meredith we hit the kayak because they didn't have any lights on. It was the scariest nite of our lives! We will be forever grateful they were ok. We stopped and they were insistent that they didn't want a ride back to their camp-come to find out they didn't even know where it was. They did not have life perservers on. It took us at least 15 minutes by boat to get to their dock and they were at least a half mile off shore. The front third of his kyack was severed-we retrieved it put both their kayaks in our boat and made sure they were alright and home safely. We would like to urge everyone to please observe boating safety rules, wear life persevers, use lights starting at dusk and maybe stay near the shore in non motored craft at night. Many of us have not slept since this incident early Saturday morning. The Marine Patrol gentlemen were wonderful and understanding but it will never take the awful memories away of what might have happened. Sue

Dave R

07-31-2007, 09:11 AM

hazelnut

07-31-2007, 09:28 AM

MY GOD!

Not only did they take their lives for granted that night, they almost destroyed your lives. I couldn't imagine the awful feeling I would have if I had taken someone's life even if it wasn't my fault.

Thanks for sharing the story and I am glad everyone was ok.

SAMIAM

07-31-2007, 09:29 AM

Good for you for doing all the right things to help out the kayakers.That must have been some scary!
By the way.....was there any damage to your boat?

Sue15

07-31-2007, 11:25 AM

No, thankfully there was no damage to the motor boat we were on. There were young adults who were quite traumetized and none of us adults slept that nite. whew am I glad no one was hurt. Thanks for all the kind remarks that we did the right thing-it's hard to think straight in a situation like that but we couldn't leave them in the middle of the lake!!

ITD

07-31-2007, 03:15 PM

Sue, good for you, God was with those people that night, you should rest easy, you obviously did all you could and did the right thing.

Kamper

07-31-2007, 04:19 PM

SUE15, Thank you for filling us in on the whole story.

WeirsBeachBoater

07-31-2007, 04:52 PM

Sue's first hand account matches pretty well with what I had heard.

I will take that apology now APS.

SteveA

07-31-2007, 05:12 PM

Sue, good for you, God was with those people that night, you should rest easy, you obviously did all you could and did the right thing.

I agree with ITD... you went above and beyond... and did all you could. Be proud of that.. some people in that type of situation would not have done all that you did.

ITD

07-31-2007, 05:51 PM

Hey, I wonder if they were in Sea Kayaks? :D

ApS

08-01-2007, 05:52 AM

"...In section Saf-C 403.17 it shows drawings of running lights and the row boat, canoe and small sailboat all show a man holding a lantern. The drawings are tiny but undeniable..."
Those drawings appeared full-page in the NH Boating Handbooks of the 90s, before New Hampshire boaters' guides received their glossy covers and misleading photographs. (And printed/edited in Dallas, Texas instead of New Hampshire).

"...Sue's first hand account matches pretty well with what I had heard. I will take that apology now APS.
How does my question differ from this one (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=53225&postcount=72) or this one (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=53225&postcount=73)? :confused:

OTOH, I think Bear Island residents (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=53225&postcount=21) are owed an apology. :(

IMHO, based on one Winnipesaukee-kayak-cut-in-half account at an Internet speedboat site yesterday, we are still vacuuming around "the elephant in the living room".

Skipper of the Sea Que

08-01-2007, 06:45 AM

Thank you Sue15 for sharing the information with the forum.

Would you please tell us the type of boat you were in and about how fast (or slow) you were going.

Thanks

Gavia immer

08-01-2007, 09:40 PM

The wayward swim raft normally wouldn't be occupied, would be close to shore and wouldn't be required by law to display proper lighting.

Regardless if the water was calm, traffic low, a full moon and clear visibility, the fact remains that a vessel was operating during the hours of darkness, between sunset and sunrise, without displaying proper lighting. The operator was at extreme risk of being killed.
The captain is required to maintain a proper watch regardless. He also may not display lighting that interferes with his capacity for night operations and keeping a proper watch.

While one or both kayaks violated visibility regulations, the captain is responsible that a proper watch is kept and responsible for the safety of his passengers and crew. Unlighted kayak, raft, island, shoal or cruiser, conditions that night were ideal for the captain to avoid a collision. A captain cannot pick and choose what he may collide with.

Winnipesaukee

08-01-2007, 10:04 PM

I haven't read past post 6 or so, but I'll say one thing: I smell alcohol.

jrc

08-01-2007, 10:06 PM

Those drawings appeared full-page in the NH Boating Handbooks of the 90s, before New Hampshire boaters' guides received their glossy covers and misleading photographs. (And printed/edited in Dallas, Texas instead of New Hampshire).

The facts seems to indicate that this boat operator had no lights whats-so-ever. So the nuances of what flavor of lights he should have had are moot. Using that issue to somehow justify his actions is a weak position. It does support my opinion that everyone on the water should be required to take the safety course.

IMHO, based on one Winnipesaukee-kayak-cut-in-half account at an Internet speedboat site yesterday, we are still vacuuming around "the elephant in the living room".

If this incident is all the boat banners have left. Maybe common sense may yet prevail. A speed limit to protect this guy would be about 5 MPH. If you make the argument that he doesn't need lights, then why does anyone?

michael c

08-01-2007, 10:14 PM

The captain is required to maintain a proper watch regardless. He also may not display lighting that interferes with his capacity for night operations and keeping a proper watch.

While one or both kayaks violated visibility regulations, the captain is responsible that a proper watch is kept and responsible for the safety of his passengers and crew. Unlighted kayak, raft, island, shoal or cruiser, conditions that night were ideal for the captain to avoid a collision. A captain cannot pick and choose what he may collide with.

Yes , when it comes to responsibilities "the buck stops here " on the captain . But your answer is akin to blaming the man in charge of operating a locomotive with 10 or 100 cars behind him for running over an idiot asleep on the railroad tracks. The kayakers had no right being there,were breaking many of our boating laws and only by the Grace of God are they alive .
the captain of this boat deserves a "round of applause" and not a negative word otherwise . To to do anything else or to suggest that he /she is partly at fault is simply inappropriate and insulting to the captain and simple human logic....But then, there is an entire group out there in our society that thinks that there is always someone else to blame . "hey , I have lung cancer because i smoked butts for 25 years ...i think I'll file a suit against the tobacco companies " while they have been telling everyone who will listen that smoking causes cancer..... The fault must fall on the person who acted
irresponsibly....that would be,by 99 % of the American public,the kayakers
I am very happy that no one suffered serious injury.There was injury caused that night: to the people operating and riding in the boat...they will never forget that night and I am sorry for that . they don't deserve that.....

Mee-n-Mac

08-01-2007, 11:27 PM

ApS

08-02-2007, 04:59 AM

"...The facts seems to indicate that this boat operator had no lights whats-so-ever. So the nuances of what flavor of lights he should have had are moot. Using that issue to somehow justify his actions is a weak position. It does support my opinion that everyone on the water should be required to take the safety course..."
Whether the kayakers had the best in required lights, no lights, or dead batteries, the kayakers had the benefit of a full moon to assure visibility among boaters sharing the lake. We've seen where the absence of a full moon was used to dismiss responsibility for a previous infamous Winnipesaukee collision.

Just this year so far, we have seen a tragedy resulting with a boy from Massachusetts, adults from Vermont, and still another boy from Massachusetts making LR headlines. What happens when we read of multiples? (Which could have happened here).

We also point to the required safety course as a factor in boaters abandoning this form of recreation altogether—nationwide. That slow boaters may be all dummies doesn't relieve the rest of lake boaters of responsibility.

Even when the safety course is taken, New Hampshire has unique safety circumstances.

If this incident is all the boat banners have left. Maybe common sense may yet prevail. A speed limit to protect this guy would be about 5 MPH. If you make the argument that he doesn't need lights, then why does anyone?
We've seen that even savvy forum members will try to enjoy what remains of our Winnipesaukee wilderness heritage. Our Vermont visitors weren't all that savvy, and were lucky that the collision didn't involve one of Winnipesaukee's even more formidable players.

A sensible limit like 25-MPH could forestall an even more extreme measure like Indiana's. In that state, when you put on your navigation lights, you must proceed at 10-MPH—even on the Great Lakes in that state's jurisdiction!

We don't know if the visiting kayakers could have been spared their ordeal even being rules-compliant, but how is "unlimited limits" the answer?

"...Maybe more info from Sue will follow..."
It's been awhile, and indications are they are not forum regulars. I have implicit trust that WeirsBeachBoater (who is a daily forum regular and provided the first, most complete, account of this collision—including apparently a witness for the speedboat) will be providing what we seek.

"...If this incident is all the boat banners have left..."
Nobody's banning boats, common sense isn't common, and it's not "all that's left". It's unfortunate, and even with reduced boat traffic, we could see yet what drove Indiana's legislators to such an extreme measure.

WeirsBeachBoater

08-02-2007, 06:45 AM

How does my question differ from :confused:

Your question differs for one simple reason. You are trying (desperately) I might add to make this incident fit the mold you need. That way you can beat your drum about speed limits and GFBL's... Obviously you are so obsessed that you monitor other boating community websites to see what you can use against them and strike fear into the non boating public. You see, that is the goal of the pro speed limit crowd, prey on the fact that non boaters can't see that there is no speeding issue, you are holding on to the hope that you can make perception, a reality. I think that is starting to backfire, A boy can only cry wolf so many times!IMHO, based on one Winnipesaukee-kayak-cut-in-half account at an Internet speedboat site yesterday, we are still vacuuming around "the elephant in the living room".This proves my point, there is much more to life APS, get out and enjoy it, don't spend so much time trying to catch the evil powerboats!!! LOL

jceria

08-02-2007, 07:20 AM

Being out on the lake at night in a tiny craft without lights in simply dumb!

On the other hand, the captain has to watch ALL the time. I've done a lot of boating at night on the lake. It's easy to assume you the only one out there when you don't see any lights for some ways, but ultimately you are responsible.

I just had to put a motor in my truck due to catastophic oil pump failure. I had an oil pressure gauge. I've had my truck for 8 years. It ran great! Do I watch the oil pressure gauge? Not all the time, I got complacent enough to cost me.
It wasn't my fault that the enging blew, but I could have prevented it! Does everyone watch thier gauges on a regular basis? I mean every few minutes ALL the time? I didn't think so! :)

Dave R

08-02-2007, 07:59 AM

I just had to put a motor in my truck due to catastophic oil pump failure.

Dodge 5.2 or 5.9, by chance?

Irrigation Guy

08-02-2007, 08:57 AM

Yes , when it comes to responsibilities "the buck stops here " on the captain . But your answer is akin to blaming the man in charge of operating a locomotive with 10 or 100 cars behind him for running over an idiot asleep on the railroad tracks. The kayakers had no right being there,were breaking many of our boating laws and only by the Grace of God are they alive .
the captain of this boat deserves a "round of applause" and not a negative word otherwise . To to do anything else or to suggest that he /she is partly at fault is simply inappropriate and insulting to the captain and simple human logic....But then, there is an entire group out there in our society that thinks that there is always someone else to blame . "hey , I have lung cancer because i smoked butts for 25 years ...i think I'll file a suit against the tobacco companies " while they have been telling everyone who will listen that smoking causes cancer..... The fault must fall on the person who acted
irresponsibly....that would be,by 99 % of the American public,the kayakers
I am very happy that no one suffered serious injury.There was injury caused that night: to the people operating and riding in the boat...they will never forget that night and I am sorry for that . they don't deserve that.....

I couldn't agree more!!

I've also done a fair amount of nighttime boating. IMHO as far as moonlight goes, it depends on if it is in front of you or behind you. If the moon is in front of you, it illuminates the water quite nicely and things are pretty easy to see , mostly as silhouettes. On the other hand, if the moon is behind you, most everything in front of you seems very dark and it tends to be quite difficult to see whats out there. This person should have had some form of light for there own safety. We all have to be responsible for are own actions, and look out for our own well being!! Geeesh.

codeman671

08-02-2007, 09:24 AM

Whether the kayakers had the best in required lights, no lights, or dead batteries, the kayakers had the benefit of a full moon to assure visibility among boaters sharing the lake. We've seen where the absence of a full moon was used to dismiss responsibility for a previous infamous Winnipesaukee collision.

A sensible limit like 25-MPH could forestall an even more extreme measure like Indiana's. In that state, when you put on your navigation lights, you must proceed at 10-MPH—even on the Great Lakes in that state's jurisdiction!

What responsibility was dismissed??? We all know what you are talking about and a certain someone is in jail because of the incident. Although it may have been tried in litigation, it certainly dismissed nothing. Since you brought it up, other than the direct parties involved knowing the truth, there is still no outside proof that the boat that was hit had their lights on! Other posters recently have made comments of witnessing boats without their lights on at night. It unfortunately happens frequently.

I think that the overwhelming percentage of boaters have no problem with a 25mph night time speed limit. Its the day time limit that is not necessary.

Weirs guy

08-02-2007, 12:12 PM

So let me get this straight, based on some of the posts I've seen here responsibility for ones actions is directly tied to what type of boat they drive? I.E. a slow kayaker is not responsible for following the law, but the GFBL boater is responsible for not following an non-existent law?

Why couldn't I have had parents that think like that?

Seaplane Pilot

08-02-2007, 12:14 PM

chipj29

08-02-2007, 08:00 PM

I haven't read past post 6 or so, but I'll say one thing: I smell alcohol.
You should probably read past post 6.

Airwaves

08-02-2007, 08:23 PM

I figured it’s been a while so I’ll “weigh” in on this one.

The ultimate cause of the accident, assuming the facts presented are accurate, was that the kayaker(s) that were struck were not showing the required lighting configuration and are therefore completely to blame for the accident.

Navigation laws are similar in the US and Canada, so without digging too deeply looking for case law on this topic I found a similar case (underway powerboat strikes an unlighted vessel at night). The case was decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I am sure anyone who wishes will be able to find other such accidents to compare it with.

Collision – Small Vessels – Improper lighting – Liability
Thatcher v Schell, 2005 BCSC 1121
This case involved a collision on Okanagan Lake between a 26' sailboat operating under power and a 19' motorboat. The collision occurred at dusk. Both vessels were destroyed and the occupants of each were injured. The owner of the sailboat alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the other vessel in proceeding at an excessive speed and failing to maintain a proper lookout. The owner of the motorboat argued that the collision was caused by the negligence of the sailboat in failing to have the proper running lights and in turning to port immediately before the collision instead of to starboard as required by the collision regulations. It was uncontested that the driver of the motorboat did not see the sailboat until immediately before the collision and took no steps to avoid the collision. After reviewing all of the evidence the Judge found as a fact that the sailboat was not properly lit and that this was the cause of the collision. The owner/operator of the sailboat was therefore held to be completely at fault.

So unless there is NH case law to the contrary it stands to reason the kayaker is the liable party.

Kudos to Sue15 and her crew for taking quick action preventing this from becoming much much worse. It's unfortunate that they are going to suffer emotionally because of the bonehead move of a couple of kayakers!

Silver Duck

08-03-2007, 08:59 AM

Airwaves

Since I frequently go out at night, I've been trying to come to grips with this one all week, and I'm not sure that the issue is quite that simple.

I'll freely admit that the kayakers were completely and totally in the wrong being out there without lights. :( I also commend the operator of the powerboat for stopping and assisting the kayakers. :)

But, had there been a fatality (God forbid that should happen to anybody on Winni ever again :eek: ), I'm not at all certain that a case couldn't have been made for "failure to keep a sharp lookout" and/or operating at too high a speed for the current conditions.

I've never come across a legal definition of keeping a sharp watch :confused: (Skip, maybe you can help out with this) but I suspect that it would involve becoming aware of dangers in time to avoid them. That did not happen in this case. :(

And, I've no idea how fast the powerboat was going, but whatever the speed was, it was inarguably too fast for the powerboat operator to see the kayak in time to respond and miss it.

The powerboat operator came within a few feet of possibly having his/her life ruined by this incident (and the kayaker's stupidity), and certainly had a horrible scare that will stay with him/her for a long time; I'm not in the least unsympathetic to him/her.

But, I suspect that there are a couple of object lessons here for the rest of us.

First, if you can't see what's around you clearly and for a goodly distance, slow down (way down, if necessary)! That applies to sun glare, fog, rain, etc. as well as darkness. Never, ever, outrun your field of vision! :eek:

Second, carry a spotlight at night and use it to "sweep the area" in front of your boat as needed to be certain that you know what's in front of you (brief scans, please; don't just leave it on!)

Silver Duck

jrc

08-03-2007, 10:01 AM

....First, if you can't see what's around you clearly and for a goodly distance, slow down (way down, if necessary)! That applies to sun glare, fog, rain, etc. as well as darkness. Never, ever, outrun your field of vision! :eek: ....

Obviously good words to live by but not practical in every case. On a cloud covered moonless night your visibilty is near zero, you would have to stop. People have been boating at night for hundreds of years with charts to identify fixed objects and lights to mark moving objects. If everyone follows the rules, it works pretty well. It will always be more dangerous than daylight boating, but if you get in the boat you chose to take the risk.

Airwaves

08-03-2007, 12:52 PM

Hi Silver Duck
We agree that had the kayaker followed the law and displayed the proper lighting configuration the accident would never have happened.

I don't know if you've ever come upon an unlighted boat at night or not, I have, and from that one experience I can tell you that anything above headway speed and you are going to have a collision! An unlighted boat at night is invisible!

As for keeping a proper lookout, that's part of the law but again, even with someone kneeling in the bow seat whose only job was to look ahead an unlighted kayak would still be invisible until the collision.

As for using a search light ahead of your boat, even it's it's brief I would strongly recommend against it for all but tricky situations. The use of a searchlight destroys everyone's night vision. When you turn it out and the world is darker than before. Wasn't there a post on another thread about someone being pulled over by the MP because he forgot he had his headlights on while leaving the Weirs? Those kinds of lights are helpful going through tough channels at night, searching for something, or someone lost overboard and maybe even docking if you aren't sure of your approach, but should not be used to sweep the area.

As I mentioned, if there is NH case law floating around to the contrary then my arguments are moot. But in the absence of NH case law then you have to look at similar accidents in other areas and lacking other circumstances, such as excessive speed or alcohol, the case really is pretty simple.

Sman

08-03-2007, 01:06 PM

Knowing the law is a must and probably would have helped the person in the kayak, but don't you guys depend on your own commonsense to keep yourself safe? I follow the laws but don't rely on them to keep me safe. If the law says a single white light, think about it if you have boated at night, a single white light not moving very fast or at all tends to blend in with shore lights and even if legal, in my opinion, it is not enough, and I realize this kayak had no light.

Using a less reasonable example to make a point...if a car is speeding over a cross walk and as a pedestrian you are in the right, do you step out in front of the car anyway. You may be technically or legally right but you will also be technically and legally dead. I am glad these folks jumped in time.

I feel for the people in the boat that hit them, glad everyone is ok

NH_boater

08-03-2007, 01:16 PM

They call that being "Dead Right".

Kamper

08-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Knowing the law is a must and probably would have helped the person in the kayak, but don't you guys depend on your own commonsense to keep yourself safe? ... glad everyone is ok

All my common sense isnt gong to save you if I cant see you at night. Having appropriate lights would have increased the lead time that could have allowed all the involved operators to avoid a dangerous situation.

I try to be heads-up but no one is 100% all the time. Running a boat involves a bit of multi-tasking. If the moon would have let me see a hazard at the last second but I'm looking down at my chart-plotter at that instant, there's going to be an accident.

Highway planners use the term "conflicts" for situations like that. Where you need to be aware of more than one thing at a time and are trying to priotise. Roads are supposed to be designed so that a driver is not surpised by the conflicts built into the highways system. Nothing can protect you from the conflicts that arise from another person's actions. You just have to hope you recognise them in time to deal with them appropriatly.

Gavia immer

08-03-2007, 08:18 PM

Obviously good words to live by but not practical in every case. On a cloud covered moonless night your visibilty is near zero, you would have to stop. People have been boating at night for hundreds of years with charts to identify fixed objects and lights to mark moving objects. If everyone follows the rules, it works pretty well. It will always be more dangerous than daylight boating, but if you get in the boat you chose to take the risk.
With poor visibility, you don't need to stop. You would need to go slow enough to overcome any loss of night vision caused by cockpit lighting or chart plotter lighting, That speed will still get you to your destination and if it's less than 10 or 15 miles per hour, a collision's impact would be minimal on whatever is struck.

Airwaves: Kayaks without lighting after dark are always going to be wrong in a legal sense. But it's like the unanticipated night time jaywalker. When machine strikes man, it's a major burden to have to carry for life even when it's legal.

Airwaves

08-03-2007, 09:22 PM

Gavia immer wrote:
Airwaves: Kayaks without lighting after dark are always going to be wrong in a legal sense. But it's like the unanticipated night time jaywalker. When machine strikes man, it's a major burden to have to carry for life even when it's legal.

First, ANY vessel on the water at night without the required lighting configuation is legally in the wrong and is a hazard to navigation!

Second, I don't understand what it is that you are saying about the emotional baggage that Sue15 and her crew will carry. Of course anyone who is involved in an accident like this, on land or on water, will carry it with them. Isn't that what I said?

Sue15 and her crew are to be commended for their actions in preventing a tragic situation.

BTW. My posts are moderated so please keep that in mind, they eventually show up as I respond, but not as the most recent posts.

Tank151

08-04-2007, 07:33 AM

While I certainly agree with the posts written here, let's not excuse the power boat captain completely. There is never an excuse that makes it "OK" for a boater to hit something in the water. Even at night, you need to watch what is in front of you.

Simple fact; "The Kayaker" is a BONE-HEAD! I still think this story is a little fishy, but if true, he violated the boating regulations/law requiring PROPER lighting while navigating at night.

Don't blame the captain of the power boat

Bear Islander

08-04-2007, 09:59 AM

Obviously the kayaker was in the wrong if he had no light. But his being wrong does not mean the power boat was in the right, they can both be wrong, and I think they are.

This idea that you can fly along at night as long as you don't see any lights is wrong. Floating logs and drifting docks don't have lights. How often do we see damaged markers.

If conditions are such that you can't see something as big as a kayak or canoe then you need to slow down for you own safety.

Paugus Bay Resident

08-04-2007, 10:17 AM

This idea that you can fly along at night as long as you don't see any lights is wrong.

I didn't see anyone mention "flying along"

WeirsBeachBoater

08-04-2007, 11:24 AM

I didn't see anyone mention "flying along"

PBR, You see this is the "pro" speed limits way of trying to make this incident fit into their cry for help from all the boats "flying along".

As you pointed out, there was never any mention of speed in this incident.

Bear Islander

08-04-2007, 11:48 AM

I didn't see anyone mention "flying along"

"Flying along" was in the second paragraph. That paragraph did not refer to the accident. It was about going fast when you can't see what is in front of you.

Many 45/25 speed limit opponents say they favor a night speed limit.

Islander

08-04-2007, 03:08 PM

PBR, You see this is the "pro" speed limits way of trying to make this incident fit into their cry for help from all the boats "flying along".

As you pointed out, there was never any mention of speed in this incident.

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.

WeirsBeachBoater

08-04-2007, 03:43 PM

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.

Who is picking and choosing their words to make this a speed issue? Also, why are you dragging the past into this? We are all aware of the past incident. You only pull it up to cause issues. I am the only one who will step up and call the pro-speed limit side all out as Alarmists, and on the fact that they all try and make every incident a "speed issue". Give it up. Speed isn't the issue, Education, Enforcement of current boating laws will make our lake a better place. Unfortunately we can't teach common sense or courtesy, if we could, none of us would have any gripes to write about on here.

Island Lover

08-04-2007, 05:09 PM

Who is picking and choosing their words to make this a speed issue? Also, why are you dragging the past into this? We are all aware of the past incident. You only pull it up to cause issues. I am the only one who will step up and call the pro-speed limit side all out as Alarmists, and on the fact that they all try and make every incident a "speed issue". Give it up. Speed isn't the issue, Education, Enforcement of current boating laws will make our lake a better place. Unfortunately we can't teach common sense or courtesy, if we could, none of us would have any gripes to write about on here.

New Hampshire must have a lot of alarmists because 78% of registered voters support a speed limit. And 74% think it will make our lakes more enjoyable. Both from an independent poll.

Education and enforcement are wonderful, but they are not making and can not make the changes we need. The speed limit will pass easily this time. Then you will one day notice that the most offensive boats and people have gone to faster waters. And most of us will say GOOD BYE!

WeirsBeachBoater

08-04-2007, 05:46 PM

New Hampshire must have a lot of alarmists because 78% of registered voters support a speed limit. And 74% think it will make our lakes more enjoyable. Both from an independent poll.

Education and enforcement are wonderful, but they are not making and can not make the changes we need. The speed limit will pass easily this time. Then you will one day notice that the most offensive boats and people have gone to faster waters. And most of us will say GOOD BYE!

because your poll of non boaters does not mean a thing to me. Ask people the right question, and anybody can get the desired answer. For example: When people were posed the question, In this day and age with all the worry about the enviroment and global warming, Don't you think we should put a ban on DiHydrogen Monoxide... Overwhelming amounts of people said YES.. Now to those who don't know what it is H2o is another way of stating it. Now if you can convince a majority of those polled that water is bad for them. Imagine how easy it is to get 78% of those polled (by the way most have no boating experience, but they don't mention that) to agree that speed limits are a must have on the lakes.

BTW, isn't this thread hijacked enough. I will make this my last post, unless we move this discussion to appropriate thread in the speed limit forum.

Lakegeezer

08-04-2007, 05:48 PM

New Hampshire must have a lot of alarmists because 78% of registered voters support a speed limit. And 74% think it will make our lakes more enjoyable. Both from an independent poll.This should be taken to the speed limit forum as it brings up the old argument of paid lobbyists "educating" the non-boating population before the survey. It will be sad daywhen the bass boaters are encouraged to stay under 45 just to keep the safe yet "scary" big boats off the big lake.

michael c

08-04-2007, 07:05 PM

34 per cent of ALL auto accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

therefore we must also know that 66 per cent of all auto accidents are caused by sober people.... Using your logic , If we all drove around drunk, there would be far fewer auto accidents ....
Anyone can make the numbers fit their situation /viewpoint.

If we stay with the facts and not go off course and begin debating what a boaters responsibilites under THESE conditions or "those conditions" ,,,not
"what if's " and "just suppose"
the Kayakers were out in the middle of the night. they had no lights on .
that is against both the laws of the state of N.H and every other state in the union [ I wonder about california ] the Kayakers were wrong ...period .

the driver of the power boat was going from point A to point B and knew his way, was driving his boat in a lawful way ...the only way for the kayaker to make himself MORE difficult to see ,would be for him to be swimming ,head under water ,using a snorkle !!!
I think anyone who cannot see why this is clear,,,crystal clear , is also in line to file a law suit against Macdonalds for making them fat ....
I apologize to the skipper and his crew for the some subtle and some not so subtle assaults on your abilities ..It is also clear, crystal clear , that these people have Dain Bramage:(

SAMIAM

08-04-2007, 07:07 PM

Yuh,right...Island Lover. "Offensive" boaters meaning owners of pricey powerboats. When they leave,all that will be left is the Al Gore moonbats like you with the canoe's and kayaks, your brie and bottled water.....the restaurants,hotels and stores will dry up...and so will the jobs.Sorry to rant,but I am in business in the lakes region.We have 75 employees who rely on tourism.I've said this before on the forum and I'll say it again.These GFB owners that you dispise so much stay in our hotels,eat at our restaurants and shop at our stores...they spend a ton of money because they are wealthy and successful. The engine that drives the lakes region is small business.

Gavia immer

08-04-2007, 08:31 PM

One went by our house about 10:30. No lights. Bright moon allowed us to see it going by. They are out there.
You can't see kayaks lighted by the moon.:rolleye2:

Islander

08-04-2007, 09:29 PM

First we are told that a speed limit is useless because it will not change a thing, only education and enforcement will fix the problem.

Then we are told that a speed limit will ruin the economy of the lakes region because all the high speed lovers will leave the area.

Those two arguments are mutually exclusive, which is the truth?

And please factor in all the kayak and canoe enthusiasts that will be coming to the area after the speed limit takes effect. Local merchants should stock up on brie and wine.

At the public hearings there were several local merchants that said the situation on the lake was scaring away customers.

Evenstar

08-04-2007, 11:46 PM

You can't see kayaks lighted by the moon.:rolleye2:
That's a pretty broad statement. Wouldn't that depend on the color of the kayak. Lighter ones should be very visible.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
First of all I don't kayak at night. And the kayaker was certainly wrong not to have the required lighting - but that's the only law that he was breaking (based on what we know).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
But the power boat operator is also at fault, and must have to be going fast enough that kayaker wasn't able to get out of the way, and also had to be going fast enough to cut a kayak in half. Most kayaks are pretty durable, but we were not even told what type of kayak it was (plastic, fiberglass, Kevlar, wood?) or how long it was. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm amazed at the lack of information that has been released on this accident (like practically nothing officially).

And it is pretty thin argument to claim that a NH lake speed limit whould have a negitive effect on tourism - I personally believe that it would have a very positive effect - especially sice the opponents claim that only a very small percentage of boats are currently going over 45mph (plus this bill is for a state wide lake speed limit - not just for one on Winni).

ApS

08-05-2007, 05:03 AM

This should be taken to the speed limit forum as it brings up the old argument of paid lobbyists "educating" the non-boating population before the survey. It will be sad daywhen the bass boaters are encouraged to stay under 45 just to keep the safe yet "scary" big boats off the big lake.
IMHO, the topic has morphed because of the oft-repeated fact that "...there has never been a kayak struck by a speedboat in the history of Lake Winnipesaukee". :rolleye2:

Now there is one—though we don't know the whole story. It's otherwise pretty well documented.

But except for here, no media account mentioned the second kayak involved. :confused: Traveling together and being silent in operation, the kayakers would have been aware of the approaching peril. Did the kayaks try to defend themselves using the required sound device? (Bell, horn, whistle?) Was the second kayak lighted in order to protect both boats? Was there a Safe Passage violation of the second kayak?

PBR, You see this is the "pro" speed limits way of trying to make this incident fit into their cry for help from all the boats "flying along". As you pointed out, there was never any mention of speed in this incident.
How fast does a speedboat have to go to break off the bow of a kayak—totaling it? :confused:

NightWing

08-05-2007, 06:56 AM

Did the kayaks try to defend themselves using the required sound device? (Bell, horn, whistle?)

Sound producing devices are not required on manually propelled vessels.

WeirsBeachBoater

08-05-2007, 07:20 AM

How fast does a speedboat have to go to break off the bow of a kayak—totaling it? :confused:

We can test the theory out. We just have to find out, whether the kayak in question was plastic or fiberglass.

ApS

08-05-2007, 08:56 AM

Sound producing devices are not required on manually propelled vessels.
I'm reading that now—nor on unpowered sailboats—tricky wording. (And at the bottom of each page: "It's the LAW!") :emb:

Interesting exemption—which would leave a lot of boats defenseless in fog or darkness. Could they have been required in the past? I've attached a whistle to my PFDs for many years. :cool:

"...you provide the kayak I'll provide the boat..."
Ironically, I have two "unused-lately" kayaks available for a test: the frames are, respectively, wood and aluminum.

We can test the theory out. We just have to find out, whether the kayak in question was plastic or fiberglass.
I'd want to know what propeller was used first: there are "cleavers", "choppers", and "rakers" that would make short work of kevlar and aluminum.

Irrigation Guy

08-05-2007, 09:10 AM

The BS is getting pretty thick here. To surmise that kayaks will be coming to the lake in greater numbers ,when 1 in 300 boats will no longer be traveling in excess of 45 miles per hour, is a huge stretch at the very least. I'm not a fan of the loud boats, but those loud fast boats are not what make my passengers cringe. Its just the shear numbers of boats, the vast majority traveling at speed of 20-35 miles per hours, that can be intimidating to some. The marine patrol has basically confirmed speeding boats are just not in the majority. When I see them its from a distance, and it doesn't bother me or my passengers in the least.

On the outset of this argument on speed, I thought I might be for it. But, as time goes on, and with the twisting of facts and details, those for it have really lost my respect. They obviously have a larger agenda, I feel its the noise.

Mee-n-Mac

08-05-2007, 11:34 AM

Evenstar

08-05-2007, 11:52 AM

The BS is getting pretty thick here. To surmise that kayaks will be coming to the lake in greater numbers ,when 1 in 300 boats will no longer be traveling in excess of 45 miles per hour, is a huge stretch at the very least.

Again, I was talking about the overall effect on tourism - not just on Winni. The current bill, if it becomes law, will impose a speed limit on ALL NH lakes.

Squam has a speed limit - and I see way more paddlers on Squam than on Winni. And when ever I talk to other paddlers about paddling on Winni, they all say the same thing - too many fast boats there for them. So I don't see this as a stretch at all.

I also feel that your 1:300 ratio is way off. A speed limit will certainly affect way more than 1 boat in 300.

Airwaves

08-05-2007, 11:53 AM

Islander wrote:
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.
There have been a number of people questioning how fast a powerboat needs to be going to cut the bow of a kayak off. I would speculate that it was not the impact that caused the bow to be removed from the kayak, but probably the prop cutting through the fiberglass or plastic hull of the kayak.

Islander also wrote:
A Meredith resident is in prison right now. He was convicted of operator inattention because he hit another boat at night.
It's my understanding he's in prison on a negligent homicide conviction, that's a far cry from "operator inattention" wouldn't you say?

Airwaves

08-05-2007, 12:15 PM

Just to clarify, one of the charges Littlefield was convicted of was in fact failure to keep a proper lookout, but obviously that is not the major conviction.

Here is a snipet from a Federal Lawsuit that Littlefield brought against his insurance company describing his conviction:
On June 20, 2003, a Belknap County Superior Court jury found Littlefield not guilty on the indictment's first count of "negligently causing the death of another in the consequence of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor while operating a boat on Lake Winnepesaukee," a Class A felony, but guilty of the second count of "negligently caus[ing] the death of another while operating a boat . . . and fail[ing] to keep a proper lookout," a Class B felony.

So, while Islander is correct in saying a Meredith man is in jail for failing to post a proper lookout it is certainly a misleading post because Islander failed to mention the over riding negilgent homicide conviction.

I do not believe that the Hartman boat was unlighted or that Sue15's operator was drunk or left the scene so for Islander to try to use it in this instance is a case of apples and oranges.

Island Lover

08-05-2007, 05:34 PM

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

The swimmer is not breaking any laws.

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

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

codeman671

08-05-2007, 07:17 PM

Islander

08-05-2007, 07:18 PM

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

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

The same is true on the water.

Gavia immer

08-05-2007, 07:20 PM

Navigation laws are similar in the US and Canada, so without digging too deeply looking for case law on this topic I found a similar case (underway powerboat strikes an unlighted vessel at night). The case was decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I am sure anyone who wishes will be able to find other such accidents to compare it with.

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

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

Island Lover

08-05-2007, 10:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

GWC...

08-05-2007, 10:39 PM

Resident 2B

08-05-2007, 11:07 PM

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

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

Put a lid on your agenda.

You are making absolutely no sense at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R2B

ApS

08-06-2007, 04:34 AM

"...If you are going a speed that doesn't allow you time to see an obstacle and react, then you are just hoping that there is nothing out there..."
There were two kayaks: you'd need more than hope. :rolleye1:

"...But What possesses someone to go out with no lights at night? Beyond that a kayak is so low in the water that they are hard to see in the daylight...!"
So how are you at sighting downed skiers and capsized windsurfers? :eek:

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

"...you provide the kayak I'll provide the boat..."
I just got a better idea: why not wait to see if a powerboat tries to cut an unlighted island in half—like Eagle Island or Camper's Island? :idea:

No, wait.... :(

Sman

08-06-2007, 08:00 AM

All my common sense isnt gong to save you if I cant see you at night. Having appropriate lights would have increased the lead time that could have allowed all the involved operators to avoid a dangerous situation.Kamper-I agree with you, my comment was more directed at the comments regarding the laws around what a Kayak legally needs to do to be out at night. So yes, the operator of the boat that hit the kayak could have the commonsense of 10 people and it would not have helped, since the kayak is virtually invisible.

I kayak and I boat at night, I have not kayaked at night but if I did I don't think the one light is enough even if its legal, but yes its better than no light.

while I am at it... I will pass along that I saw a marine patrol stop two kayaks sat night, one had no lights and the other one the guy was wearing a headlamp, I guess they missed this thread. It looked like the the marine patrol was going to escort them home.

jrc

08-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Islander

08-06-2007, 12:36 PM

Resident 2B

08-06-2007, 12:50 PM

WOW! The responses of some of you are astounding to me.

Resident 2B - Suppose you hit and kill this person sleeping on a highway in dark clothing. Do you think there will be no investigation? Do you think your car will not be impounded? Do you think you will not be tested for DUI? Do you think the state will not attempt to determine your speed?

Islander,

A) I do not drink so a DUI test is no problem.

B) I would expect to be cleared by any investigation.

C) What would you expect if you were driving the car?

R2B

WeirsBeachBoater

08-06-2007, 12:55 PM

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

Airwaves

08-06-2007, 01:12 PM

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

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

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

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

parrothead

08-06-2007, 02:19 PM

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

Irrigation Guy

08-06-2007, 02:30 PM

WOW! The responses of some of you are astounding to me.

I guess some people are really so ignorant that they think if they hit something at night, that doesn't have a light, then they are 100% innocent.

GET A CLUE!

Resident 2B - Suppose you hit and kill this person sleeping on a highway in dark clothing. Do you think there will be no investigation? Do you think your car will not be impounded? Do you think you will not be tested for DUI? Do you think the state will not attempt to determine your speed?

How many times have you read about some poor child running out from between cars and getting hit and killed by a car or truck. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Same thing child on bicycle. Yes, there is an investigation, and almost every time the driver is not charged. Why because it was unavoidable and not the driver fault.

At this point, Islander is acting like a child, and has lost all credibility. As I said before, I once was considering it, but give me a break, these arguements have completely changed my mind. Anyone else feel this way?

DoTheMath

08-06-2007, 02:48 PM

OK, for all of you that are supporting the Kyaker here, answer me this:

Would you go out, at night - and to clarify, when the sun has fully set and it is dark out, say 1:00am - in a kayak, canoe or row boat with NO lights on it what-so-ever and venture more than 5' from shore!?

Please respond with a yes or no and a reason why.

Resident 2B

08-06-2007, 02:50 PM

LR,

I was very neutral on this issue. Because of the intensity of the discussion and that being retired I had plenty of time, I decided to join two groups to see what they "felt" like from the inside.

I found that the "N" folks in general like faster boats, but were highly motivated by safe boating. The "W" group seem focused on several agendas, each limiting the full usage of particular styles of boat on our lakes. The "W" group seemed to have more political connections and a stronger PR group with better connections to newspapers and the general press. The "N" group was more focused on boater education.

I plan to continue with the "N" folks and to stay very involved with the Coast Guard Aux. here where I live, spreading the word of safe boating to rational boaters that want to do it correctly.

For the record, we have two kayaks and a Fourwinns 230 Horizon w/ 280HP I/O. Neither are GF or BL boats.

Nice to hear your rational responses.

R2B

Islander

08-06-2007, 02:57 PM

How many times have you read about some poor child running out from between cars and getting hit and killed by a car or truck. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Same thing child on bicycle. Yes, there is an investigation, and almost every time the driver is not charged. Why because it was unavoidable and not the driver fault.

At this point, Islander is acting like a child, and has lost all credibility. As I said before, I once was considering it, but give me a break, these arguements have completely changed my mind. Anyone else feel this way?

If the driver is not charged "almost every time" that means sometimes they are charged.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you are automatically guilty if you hit something without a light at night. I'm saying you are not automatically innocent! The defense that "it didn't have a light" is not going to work in all situations.

Everyone here agrees that the kayaker was at fault, that is not in question. But the kayaker being at fault does not necessarily mean the boater is innocent.

Darkness does not negate your responsibility to operate in a reasonable and safe manner.

Irrigation Guy

08-06-2007, 03:33 PM

If the driver is not charged "almost every time" that means sometimes they are charged.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you are automatically guilty if you hit something without a light at night. I'm saying you are not automatically innocent! The defense that "it didn't have a light" is not going to work in all situations.

Everyone here agrees that the kayaker was at fault, that is not in question. But the kayaker being at fault does not necessarily mean the boater is innocent.

Darkness does not negate your responsibility to operate in a reasonable and safe manner.

It was the kayak that wasn't operating in a safe and reasonable manner in this situation, lets not forget.

I love the example about someone lying in the road. The only reason I used "almost" is that I don't know everything and every situation, and never would cast as broad a statement in saying "every time". Although I'm sure alot of people do, that just not me. Please look in the your mirror and take a look at who you see. Is that person you?

The one reason I know that someone would be charged is if they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

My point should be quite clear, as a matter of practicality though.

parrothead

08-06-2007, 05:57 PM

Islander

08-06-2007, 08:04 PM

OK, for all of you that are supporting the Kyaker here, answer me this:

Who is supporting the kayaker? I just went back and read all the posts, I can't find anybody that is supporting the kayaker.

All the posters in this thread agree the kayaker was in the wrong in a big way!

Can anyone give an example of where the kayaker has been supported in this thread?

Gavia immer

08-06-2007, 08:09 PM

Gavia immer wrote: As I mentioned in my original post, I am not going to be digging too deeply into looking for case law and suggested others (perhaps you?) could poke around and possibly find another case to quote. It doesn't change the fact that if the kayakers hadn't violated the lighting regulations in the first place there would have been no accident.
What we know for sure is that the boat struck one kayak, and could have struck both boats. We don't know what the captain saw, only that he was going fast enough to break off the bow of the one boat he struck. The lake was lighted by the moon, but he didn't see at least one of the two boats ahead of him.

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

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

Airwaves

08-06-2007, 09:55 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident 2B

08-06-2007, 10:35 PM

GI,

So what night time speed do you recommend? :confused:

R2B

Mee-n-Mac

08-07-2007, 04:19 AM

{snip} Darkness does not negate your responsibility to operate in a reasonable and safe manner.

Absolutely true and the reason I posed my earlier question was to debate what is "reasonable" ? So is it reasonable to expect boats to operate at such a speed that avoiding an unlit swimmer 1/2 mile off shore is the norm ? Let me change the parameters to now make it a dark, non-moonlit night.

ApS

08-07-2007, 04:50 AM

Sunday night, a bowrider stopped, turned off his lights and drifted about 150 yards off my shoreline. I could hear them talking in muted tones.

It made me think back to simpler times, when "Dr. Jim" could be reached by dialing "6", and only the rich had inboards. Then I wondered if I should mention here that I have many hours of Winnipesaukee powerboating at night without lights. :confused:

Yesterday, I thought to bring up the subject with a boater who raced a Laconia Sportster (a lake-racer) on Lake Winnipesaukee, and could have even more hours without lights. I asked this long-time Winnipesaukee relative/resident about this matter yesterday while a passenger in his car. His safety credentials are impeccable. The discussion:

ApS: 'Hear about the kayak cut in half in Meredith?
Relative: Yes
ApS: What do you think?
Relative: The speedboat wasn't operating in a prudential manner.
ApS: A Prudential manner? There are insurance rules for boating?
Relative: No....The speedboat wasn't being prudent.
ApS: I agree. Have you boated on Winnipesaukee at night?
Relative: Oh, yes—from Winter Harbor to Wolfeboro—many times.
ApS: That's around seven miles one way. Did you have lights?
Relative: Fifth amendment privileges.
ApS: Why go to Wolfeboro at night?
Relative: To go to the lakeside Casino.
ApS: Wolfeboro had a Casino? To gamble?
Relative: No, it was a dance hall.
ApS: Wolfeboro had a dance hall?
Relative: With a bowling alley. It became the Pirate's Den.
ApS: You left from Camp Wyanoke, then...in a sailboat?
Relative: Yes.
ApS: You didn't have any concerns at night because there wasn't any night boating back then?
Relative: Yes.
ApS: Same here: things have changed. I'd like to mention this on the forum.
Relative: Don't mention my name.
ApS: (Raising hand with a single nod...). "Done".

Islander

08-07-2007, 07:07 AM

...
It's my understanding he's in prison on a negligent homicide conviction, that's a far cry from "operator inattention" wouldn't you say?

Below is from the Supreme Court decision denying Dan's appeal.

"The first indictment (#03-S-006) alleged that he negligently caused the death of another by failing to keep a proper lookout while operating a boat, a class B felony."

http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/littl071.htm

There was testimony at trial, albeit conflicting, that the boat he hit had no white light on. He was convicted anyway.

In my opinion there are quite a few boats out on the lake that are "failing to keep a proper lookout" at night.

Woodsy

08-07-2007, 07:07 AM

This seems pretty simple to me....

Both the powerboat and the kayaks have the right to be out at night, however, the powerboat followed the rules and the kayakers did not. The kayakers were struck as the result of thier own gross negligence. PERIOD! All of this speculation of a moonlit night is hogwash. Those kayaks would only have been illuminated by the moon if the direction the powerboat was heading somehow allowed for the sillouhette of the kayaks to be seen in the moonlight. If you want to go night kayaking,. rig up a light!

There is a level of inherent risk to all activities. Just because you have the right to do something stupid, doesn't mean that the other party in the accident is at fault. If you choose (poorly) to go swimming more than 150' from the shoreline at night with nothing to alert others to your presence, you become a navigational hazard and you assume the risk of death or injury, not the powerboat that is operating legally. The right of the swimmer or kayaker, do not overrule the right of the boater. It comes down to who is the Bonehead.... in this case its the kayakers and they are damm lucky to be alive!

Woodsy

Islander

08-07-2007, 07:15 AM

codeman671

08-07-2007, 07:42 AM

Below is from the Supreme Court decision denying Dan's appeal.

"The first indictment (#03-S-006) alleged that he negligently caused the death of another by failing to keep a proper lookout while operating a boat, a class B felony."

http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/littl071.htm

There was testimony at trial, albeit conflicting, that the boat he hit had no white light on. He was convicted anyway.

In my opinion there are quite a few boats out on the lake that are "failing to keep a proper lookout" at night.

We all know the details of this case although I have never read the actual findings, thank you for posting the link to it. Nobody will deny the outcome or what led up to it. He was most likely drunk but it could not be proven by a test since he was not at the scene. He was not operating at an unsafe speed for the boat or the conditions. He did hit another boat and kill someone. He did leave the scene of the accident and did not offer assistance. Do you think that his innattention was due to the multiple drinks he had before getting behind the helm? Most likely... Do you think this would have looked a lot different if he had not been drinking and did offer assistance? I think so.

"Negligence in criminal cases is different from negligence in civil cases. . . .

In criminal cases, negligence requires proof of more than an ordinary risk, that is of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. In addition, the defendant’s failure to become aware of the risk must be a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would have acted in the same situation."

Had he not been drinking and hit a boat that was not properly illuminated I do not feel that this would have been a gross deviation from how a person would have acted in the same situation. This directly correlates to the kayak incident. The kayak was not illuminated, and as Woodsy stated the visibility of the kayaks in the moonlight would be affected by the direction that the boat was traveling in correlation to the position of the moon in the sky.

To date I have not heard of any charges being filed, or even talk of the possibility of charges so I think that MP has to agree.

Island Lover

08-07-2007, 07:57 AM

GWC...

08-07-2007, 10:05 AM

ITD

08-07-2007, 10:06 AM

......

If you don't see any lights, then its pedal to the metal!

.......

What are you talking about???? You just seem to make it up as you go along. If the boat had been "speeding", "pedal to the metal" we would have one or possibly two dead kayakers here.

You've gotten your study done by MP and the facts don't support your crusade, give it up.

DoTheMath

08-07-2007, 10:44 AM

It seems that the feeling of some here has been the boater was "automatically" in the wrong for striking the kayak because they were not paying proper attention while underway!? As a background note - I have been on this lake for 38 years (Since I was 10 mo. old.) and my friends and I grew up having spent countless summer nights out in our boats, big - small - fast - slow - you name it... We have a standing rule, one driver and one "spotter", four eyes are always better than two. Short of running with your spotlight on at headway speed from point A to point B - at night - you will be hard-pressed to "see" any unlit object sitting 12" off the water, even with fighter pilot vision! What a load of garbage! You're telling me that some knuckle-head decides to go out in a small, low-slung, UNLIT vessel, crossing into traveled waterways and has the slightest expectation that they will be SAFE from any motor vessel under way!? What in gods name would give anyone the slightest bit of comfort in thinking that's a good idea!? Yes, you go out at night (or during the day) and you as the owner / operator assume TOTAL responsibility for operating your boat in a safe and prudent manner - that is ALL boaters, and ALL boats, ALL the time. Yes, the Kayakers were VERY lucky they weren't killed, but the boat operator should be praised for doing their best to allow them to live a bit longer, and yet - they have to live with the nightmares of what "could have been". At the end of the day, the kayakers got off easy and very lucky - and they should awake every morning and thank god that boat operator saved their lives! We don't need speed limits, this is one more case of where we need better boater education, cuz as I have read 100x here - you can't fix stupid, but you can educate against it!

Island Lover

08-07-2007, 11:39 AM

What are you talking about???? You just seem to make it up as you go along. If the boat had been "speeding", "pedal to the metal" we would have one or possibly two dead kayakers here.

You've gotten your study done by MP and the facts don't support your crusade, give it up.

I think you should give up this tactic of pretending to misunderstand posts.

"Pedal to the metal" was obviously my take on Woodsy's comments. The high speed boat crowd think they have a right to go fast day or night, moon or no moon.

Go back up and read where GWC says that it is the responsibility of the little people to make sure they don't get hit.

I should have said "Pedal to the metal and hand me another beer"

Paugus Bay Resident

08-07-2007, 11:43 AM

I should have said "Pedal to the metal and hand me another beer"
I think you just did :rolleye2:

parrothead

08-07-2007, 11:47 AM

So it seems Woodsy goes along with this silly idea that, "if the kayaker was in the wrong, then boater MUST be in the right".

If you don't see any lights, then its pedal to the metal!

Woodsy - If you read all the posts you would know that we all agree the kayaker was in the wrong. That is not in question. The question is should a boat be operated AT ALL TIMES in a manner to prevent hitting unlit objects like kayaks, rafts and logs?

A log is unmanned, how would it light itself? Boating at night and hitting a log is a risk that everyone takes that chooses to go boating at night. The only fault that I can put on the boat driver is that they chose to go boating that night and decided to go in the direction that they went. After that it is all the kyaker. Because the kyaker unlike the log has the ability to think and convert those thoughts into actions. The kyaker had the ability to put lights on his kyak which he chose not to. At that point he is a menace to the boating community, and was very lucky that he was not hurt. Hopefully he learned that you don't go out on a body of water that has power boats without lights at night.

jrc

08-07-2007, 11:56 AM

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

How quick can she stop at 11mph?

Airwaves

08-07-2007, 12:17 PM

Island Lover wrote:
The question is should a boat be operated AT ALL TIMES in a manner to prevent hitting unlit objects like kayaks, rafts and logs?
So your position is that only powerboats need to be operated in a manner to avoid collisions at night, right? Or is it that you believe a kayak not a boat and not subject to the same navigation rules as other boats?

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

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

SIKSUKR

08-07-2007, 12:46 PM

Seaplane Pilot

08-07-2007, 02:09 PM

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

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

John A. Birdsall

08-07-2007, 03:03 PM

What I have not heard anybody say in these posts is the fact that the kayaker got a ticket for driving without lights. News did not say that the operator of the speed boat was ticketed for anything. I read in here about kayaks, well this summer in fact the last week of July I have never seen so many kayaks on the lake, and it is their right to be there. I did not see one of them going over the speed limit, but I saw them going faster than headway speed within 150' of each other, Should have been given tickets for that. If the law is good for one type of boat it should be for all.

Evenstar

08-07-2007, 03:43 PM

I read in here about kayaks, well this summer in fact the last week of July I have never seen so many kayaks on the lake, and it is their right to be there. I did not see one of them going over the speed limit, but I saw them going faster than headway speed within 150' of each other, Should have been given tickets for that. If the law is good for one type of boat it should be for all.

You're kidding, right?

My kayak is a sea kayak, which is much faster than any recreational kayak - and I'm a very strong paddler (I honestly can out paddle most people). Yet my top paddle speed is probably never faster than 6 mph - unless I'm surfing a large wave (often a wake), or running rapids on a river. I can only average about 4.5 mph on a long paddle - at best.

A recreational kayaker is doing extremely well if they can hit 5 mph - and that would be for a very short distance. Generally the fastest most can go is 3 to 3.5 mph.

So are these kayaks you see "going faster than headway speed" jet powered or something??? See Jet Kayak

Irrigation Guy

08-07-2007, 05:02 PM

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

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

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

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

WeirsBeachBoater

08-07-2007, 05:06 PM

How quick can she stop at 11mph?

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

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

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

Gavia immer

08-07-2007, 08:31 PM

Re: your example of the Canadian Captain running aground at night causing the death of one crewmember and injury to another, you're right on! That captain was completely negligent. However he ran aground, he didn't strike an unlighted vessel at night.
You agree that the captain was completely negligent in striking the cliff at top speed at night. Now change the struck cliff to striking "five teenagers in a seriously overloaded, unlighted canoe sitting extremely low in the water". Your legal defense of unsafe night operation would turn five teenagers into roadkill.

Irrigation Guy

08-07-2007, 09:03 PM

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

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

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

ApS

08-08-2007, 05:31 AM

Here's a quote from our recent past:

"I use radar for nighttime navigation and it works the best. I can see all the boats around me, even the ones without lights..."
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22071&postcount=14

jrc

08-08-2007, 10:33 AM

codeman671

08-08-2007, 12:12 PM

Here's a quote from our recent past:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22071&postcount=14

Lets post the entire sentence for clarity:

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

I think what WD was stating is that they can pick up almost everything on radar. This does not mean that the unlit boats are in the middle of the broads. They could be on a mooring close to shore. Your partial post gives a feeling that this is common for boaters to be out without lights. If so, maybe a certain boat in Meredith did not have lights on after all??? :rolleye2:

SIKSUKR

08-08-2007, 01:22 PM

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

Remember Caddyshack? "Hey,you scratched my anchor"

Islander

08-08-2007, 03:09 PM

Island Lover

08-08-2007, 03:32 PM

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

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

codeman671

08-08-2007, 03:39 PM

I must ask

If the boat was...

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

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

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

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

Kamper

08-08-2007, 06:43 PM

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

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

Mee-n-Mac

08-08-2007, 07:39 PM

Maybe radar should be mandatory?

I suggest, no boats on the lake without radar, GPS, Chartplotters and night vision gogles. If you don't do everything you can to prevent a collision, then you are obviously negligent. We can't let lack of a few dollars prevent safety, can we put a price on a human life? :rolleye2:

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

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

Airwaves

08-08-2007, 08:18 PM

Islander asked:
If the boat was...

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

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

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

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

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

Gavia immer

08-08-2007, 08:23 PM

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

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

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

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

Airwaves

08-08-2007, 08:40 PM

Irrigation Guy

08-09-2007, 06:13 AM

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

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

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

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

Keep trying though, I give you credit for tenacity. :rolleye2:

Paugusbaby

08-09-2007, 09:04 AM

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.

Mee-n-Mac

08-09-2007, 11:16 AM

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

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

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

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

Bear Islander

08-09-2007, 11:38 AM

Mee-n-Mac

That is the best emoticon I have ever seen.

:laugh:

Excalibur

08-09-2007, 12:02 PM

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

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

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

SIKSUKR

08-09-2007, 01:37 PM

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.

I stand corrected Paugusbaby,I got my info from my sister who talked to David Monday or Tuesday.

wildwoodfam

08-09-2007, 06:35 PM

I stand corrected Paugusbaby,I got my info from my sister who talked to David Monday or Tuesday.

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!;)

Airwaves

08-09-2007, 09:50 PM

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

08-10-2007, 05:58 AM

"...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: :(

"...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'. :rolleye2:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/523/medium/11MarchMoon1024.jpg

Irrigation Guy

08-10-2007, 06:56 AM

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. :liplick:

MAINLANDER

08-10-2007, 09:49 AM

[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'. :rolleye2:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/523/medium/11MarchMoon1024.jpg[/QUOTE

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

SIKSUKR

08-10-2007, 10:25 AM

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

08-10-2007, 10:33 AM

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

08-10-2007, 11:22 AM

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

Mee-n-Mac

08-10-2007, 12:34 PM

Okaaay...{snip}

Yup. Here's a moonlit Winnipesaukee.

Cain't hardly see nothin'. :rolleye2:

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

08-10-2007, 01:45 PM

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

08-10-2007, 02:23 PM

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

08-10-2007, 04:10 PM

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'. :rolleye2:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/523/medium/11MarchMoon1024.jpg

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

08-10-2007, 06:17 PM

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. :rolleye2:

wildwoodfam

08-10-2007, 07:10 PM

Gavia immer

08-10-2007, 09:35 PM

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

08-10-2007, 10:38 PM

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? :confused:

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

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

08-11-2007, 06:48 AM

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

08-11-2007, 08:19 AM

.... 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

08-11-2007, 08:39 AM

"...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.

"...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. :rolleye2:

"...How far do you think this responsibility goes...?"
Pretty far. :eek:

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

08-11-2007, 08:53 AM

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

08-11-2007, 09:40 AM

Mee-n-Mac

08-11-2007, 10:58 AM

{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

08-11-2007, 11:49 AM

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 ? :rolleye1:

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.

Pretty far. :eek:

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

08-11-2007, 12:32 PM

"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!:laugh:

Tank151

08-11-2007, 01:50 PM

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

08-11-2007, 02:02 PM

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? :laugh:

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

08-11-2007, 02:56 PM

....... 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.:D

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

Evenstar

08-11-2007, 03:12 PM

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!:laugh:
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

08-11-2007, 06:04 PM

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

08-11-2007, 10:28 PM

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

08-12-2007, 06:49 PM

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

...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

08-12-2007, 07:40 PM

....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

08-12-2007, 07:45 PM

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

08-12-2007, 07:55 PM

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. :coolsm:
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

08-12-2007, 08:57 PM

Islander wrote:
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

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

08-12-2007, 10:35 PM

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

08-13-2007, 07:29 AM

Loud exhaust save lives.;)

codeman671

08-13-2007, 08:12 AM

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

08-13-2007, 08:43 AM

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

08-13-2007, 08:46 AM

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

08-13-2007, 08:47 AM

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

08-13-2007, 08:51 AM

....

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

08-13-2007, 10:47 AM

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

08-13-2007, 11:10 AM

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

08-13-2007, 04:57 PM

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

08-13-2007, 05:43 PM

Hopefully this will end the debate.

TankThe debate ain't over until we know why those guys were neked. :D

Islander

08-13-2007, 05:50 PM

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

08-13-2007, 06:36 PM

...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

08-13-2007, 07:05 PM

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

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

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?

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. :laugh:

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. :liplick:

Islander

08-13-2007, 07:21 PM

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

08-13-2007, 07:31 PM

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. :laugh:

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. :liplick:

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