Collisions and Speed

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

One Good Reason:
You obviously felt unsafe, speed limit didn't help you there.

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

I never said that I felt at all unsafe at the time. The operator of the powerboat obviously saw us, so we never felt like he might get close enough to hit us.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did. My kayak has both front and rear sealed (watertight) compartments, so my kayak will not sink even if the cockpit fills completely with water.

The powerboat operator broke the 150 foot law. But just because one law gets broken, that doesn't negate other laws, or show that other laws are not necessary.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If you're going to quote me, please keep my quotes in the context that I wrote them. You are twisting what I actually wrote.
If a boat is going too fast to see me – it’s likely too noisy for the operator to hear an air horn – assuming that I even have time to use one. Besides, it does take both hands to paddle a kayak.

The advantage of a whistle is that they are small and can be worn around the neck. I keep one in my pfd zippered pouch, along with a signal mirror. An air horn has to be stowed, so it's not as fast to get to. Plus, if you end up swimming, you might not be able to get to the air horn in your boat.

Handless bailing - how interesting. Where do you keep the battery to operate the pump?

The horn device mentioned by link and picture is mouth operated and attached to a lanyard, as is a whistle, for the record.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Handless bailing - how interesting...

The horn device mentioned by link and picture is mouth operated, for the record.

Why do you guys feel the need to pick apart every post I make?

This stuff isn't all that difficult to figure out. If you just gave it a little thought, instead of just critizing me. I do know what I'm taking about, as far as kayaking goes.

For you guys, who are having trouble getting this:

When I'm worried that a speeding boat doesn't see me, I'm going to try my best to get out of his way if possible, and this requires using both arms. Besides that, the most visible part of a kayak is often the movement of the paddles. About the worse thing for me to do would be to stop paddling and just sit there, trying to make a noise that he's probably not even going to hear.

If a wake overflows into my cockpit, and there's no immediate danger, I'm free to stop paddling long enough to bail out my kayak. (If there's any other dangers, I just keep paddling until I'm in a safe place. Then I bail.)

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This stuff isn't all that difficult to figure out. If you just gave it a little thought, instead of just critizing me. I do know what I'm taking about, as far as kayaking goes.

When I'm worried that a speeding boat doesn't see me, I'm going to try my best to get out of his way if possible, and this requires using both arms.

(If there's any other dangers, I just keep paddling until I'm in a safe place. Then I bail.)

Seriously, how long does it take to put a sound device, attached to a lanyard you wear, in your mouth to enable you to toot and paddle at the same time, should the need arise?

Per your advice...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This stuff isn't all that difficult to figure out.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar:
Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski summarized it as: "The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced."

Hostile Waters - The Impacts of Personal Watercraft Use on Waterway Recreation - American Canoe Association states: “PWC are designed and marketed for speed. It should be no surprise that excessive speed is consistently one of the most frequently reported causes of PWC accidents. ... The ACA review of PWC accident data revealed that excessive speed was a likely factor in well over half of all PWC accidents.”

So tell me how quoting a former Commanding Officier at a Coast Guard Station in Florida (who in all likelihood has never been on Winni) and The American Canoe Association looking at national numbers is relevant to Lake Winnipesaukee especailly when the marine law enforcement agency that actually patrols the lake states speed is not a major factor in accidents on Winnipesaukee?

I thought HB 162 was about speed limits of 45/25 or are we beginning to see the second wave of the assault, banning PWCs?

.... “The PWC accident data indicate that PWC are more than twice as likely to be traveling in excess of 40 mph at the time of an accident than other vessel types. Injury data also point to speed as a prominent factor in PWC accidents

And 40 mph would still be under the limits of HB162 so it helps how?

As I have posted in response to you prior, (that supporters of HB162 are still ignoring) Using the article you provided a link to, boating accidents in NH have decreased by 68% between 1999 and 2004, (109 to 35) that's almost double the percentage nationally.

BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING, LET IT WORK!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So tell me how quoting a former Commanding Officier at a Coast Guard Station in Florida (who in all likelihood has never been on Winni) and The American Canoe Association looking at national numbers is relevant to Lake Winnipesaukee especailly when the marine law enforcement agency that actually patrols the lake states speed is not a major factor in accidents on Winnipesaukee?

Opponents of a speed limit have repeated claimed that there's no relationship between higher speeds and accidents. Both of these sources said that there is a definite connection. If statistics actually show that more collisions happen at higher speeds, then there is a connection, even if you refuse to admit that these statistics apply to Winni.

I thought HB 162 was about speed limits of 45/25 or are we beginning to see the second wave of the assault, banning PWCs?

My post was to show how collisions and speed are connected, and not an attack against all PWC. If that was my intention, then I would have used different quotes from the ACA report. I'm not out to ban any type of watercraft - I just want the fastest ones to slow down to a safer speed.

And 40 mph would still be under the limits of HB162 so it helps how?

The quote doesn't say "40mph", it says "in excess of 40 mph" - 60mph is in excess of 40 mph.

As I have posted in response to you prior, (that supporters of HB162 are still ignoring) Using the article you provided a link to, boating accidents in NH have decreased by 68% between 1999 and 2004, (109 to 35) that's almost double the percentage nationally.

A number of the supporters of HB-162 have addressed those statistics many times. I've brought up the fact several times that not all boating accidents make it into the USGC reports, plus the argument that smaller boats have been using Winni less in recent years. There are other possible reasons for a lower number of REPORTED accidents in 2004. For one thing, it was one of the coldest and wettest summer in recent years, which likely has some impact.

Overall, NH doesn't have a very good boating safety record compared with our neighboring states, which is something that the opponents to HB-162 are ignoring.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

I never said that I felt at all unsafe at the time. The operator of the powerboat obviously saw us, so we never felt like he might get close enough to hit us.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did. My kayak has both front and rear sealed (watertight) compartments, so my kayak will not sink even if the cockpit fills completely with water.

The powerboat operator broke the 150 foot law. But just because one law gets broken, that doesn't negate other laws, or show that other laws are necessary.

So you don't feel unsafe around speeding boats. I don't understand any of your posts then, because you repeatedly say in other posts you feel unsafe around speeding boats. Or do the facts change with the argument?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

So you don't feel unsafe around speeding boats. I don't understand any of your posts then, because you repeatedly say in other posts you feel unsafe around speeding boats. Or do the facts change with the argument?

Goodness you guys are really getting pathetic!

No - I still feel unsafe around Speeding boats that are going at high speeds - and may not see me!

My argument has not changed. I explained this incident a long time ago: When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going way faster than it should have been at that distance from us. That powerboat was not traveling at high speed and the operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us. The guy was showing off, but we never felt like we were in any danger of being hit by him.

Yes, he broke the 150 foot law, and I wasn't happy about that. He should never have been that close. Guys often come closer than they should, just to check us out - but most actually slow way down. But some guys seem to have trouble thinking straight when they are looking at females.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ITD

So you don't feel unsafe around speeding boats. I don't understand any of your posts then, because you repeatedly say in other posts you feel unsafe around speeding boats. Or do the facts change with the argument?

Isn't it a girls prerogative to change her mind . Maybe I better not go there

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

I never said that I felt at all unsafe at the time. The operator of the powerboat obviously saw us, so we never felt like he might get close enough to hit us.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did. My kayak has both front and rear sealed (watertight) compartments, so my kayak will not sink even if the cockpit fills completely with water.

The powerboat operator broke the 150 foot law. But just because one law gets broken, that doesn't negate other laws, or show that other laws are not necessary.

My skepticism comes from reading your posts and remembering what you say from one to the next.

The speeding boat post was in a thread concerning the 45 mph speed limit. Speeding implies a speed greater than the proposed limit. You getting swamped by a "speeding" boat troubles me. You see a "speeding" boat generally gives a small wake. If I believe all your posts a sea kayak would not get swamped by a small wake. So that leaves me to believe that the "speeding" boat was probably traveling below planing speed, which for sake of argument is about 15 mph (with a "tolerance" ). This troubles me because your definition of "speeding" is actually not that fast at all, in fact it seems to be below 45 mph. Now there is another definition "speeding at high speed", what's next, speeding at ludicrous speed?

Here's my problem, your information is incorrect in that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You have very limited experience on Winni. (once or twice) yet you try to make it sound unsafe and pass yourself off as knowing what you are talking about. We ask for statistics, you provide quotations. The statistics you do provide do not support your cause and you misinterpret them be it intentionally or through error.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar:
A number of the supporters of HB-162 have addressed those statistics many times. I've brought up the fact several times that not all boating accidents make it into the USGC reports,

Right, only the ones with over 2-thousand dollars or personal injuries. 2-Thousand dollars damage on a boat isn't much damage.

Orginally posted by Evenstar:
plus the argument that smaller boats have been using Winni less in recent years.

I didn't bring this quote up in the past because it's just foolish. If you follow that line of thinking then the accident rate is dropping because small boats are not on the water! That would be the same as saying smaller boats are the cause of accidents on Winni, do away with them and the problem is solved.

Original quote by Evenstar:
There are other possible reasons for a lower number of REPORTED accidents in 2004. For one thing, it was one of the coldest and wettest summer in recent years, which likely has some impact.

Weather plays a factor in boat traffic, and if the figures for 2004 were an anomaly I might consider it, however the trend for the past 6 years that stats are available show an annual decrease in accidents.

There was also a posting on another thread (and I am paraphrasing) that said boater education has no impact on safety! I found that one of the funniest posts I had recently read (no, it was not written by Evenstar). So now it's not Speed kills, it's Education kills!

Original post by Evenstar:
Overall, NH doesn't have a very good boating safety record compared with our neighboring states, which is something that the opponents to HB-162 are ignoring.

NH's boating record has improved every year, and as I have posted prior, 35 accidents in 2004 involving a fleet of registered boats of over 101K (not including transient boats) is a pretty darn good record!

So, the Laconia paper mentioned the Senate committee was going to take this up today and vote on whether to recommend or not recommend it to the senate, any idea what happened?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

My skepticism comes from reading your posts and remembering what you say from one to the next.

Well, your memory is either very poor or extremely selective. If you don’t believe me, go to this post and read what I actually wrote almost a year ago: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15097&postcount=43

What right do you have to use your own definition for MY words to suit yourself!!! I was very specific about what I was writing about and I explained exactly what I meant. I defined my use of the word speeding in that old post, shortly after making it. And I also explained what I meant by the word swamping. (FYI: I bought my sea kayak last June – after I made that “swamping” post. My previous kayak was a day/light touring kayak, and I didn’t even have a spay skirt for that boat.)

Not that it’s any of your business, but I have a documented learning disability due to a severe head injury, which was the result of an accident I was involved in when I was little. The left side of my brain was badly damage, so language (especially writing) causes some real problems for me.

I work very hard at being clear in anything that I write. So it really frustrates me when you and others here try to add meanings to my posts that are not even in my words, or when you just ignore my explanations for what I honestly meant when I wrote my posts. I really don’t like being accused of lying or of changing my mind to suit my agenda. If you don’t get it yet my only agenda is safety for paddlers on NH’s lakes, and equal right to use our lakes – without feeling like we’re going to be run over. I'm not anti powerboat, anti PWC, or anti any other kind of boat.

I’ve always been completely open and honest about how much I’ve paddled on Winni. I have said many times that my paddling experience is mostly on other large NH lakes and on the Connecticut River. But HB-162 will affect all NH lakes and rivers.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience in anything than what I actually have.

It really doesn’t make any difference how many bad experiences I’ve had on Winni. The fact is that I did spend time kayaking out on the main lake last summer and I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph). I’m not exaggerating anything and I do honestly believe that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on, mostly due to the excessive speeds of some of the powerboats. And I’m not alone in having this opinion. My best friend was more scared out there than I was.

There’s nothing at all wrong with any of my information. You might not agree with them, but I believe they are all pretty good sources.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It really doesn’t make any difference how many bad experiences I’ve had on Winni. The fact is that I did spend time kayaking out on the main lake last summer and I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph). I’m not exaggerating anything and I do honestly believe that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on, mostly due to the excessive speeds of some of the powerboats. And I’m not alone in having this opinion. My best friend was more scared out there than I was.

One should know one's limits and not exceed them.

You experienced a feeling of fear because you exceed your limits, as did your friend.

There are plenty of water bodies in NH were you are within your limits and are able to enjoy the experience without feeling fearful. Squam being one.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why do you feel a need to "spin" your posts to impose a speed limit upon others on a body of water that is obviously beyond your limits?

Why can you not enjoy the beauty of Squam and leave the Lake the way it is; rather than trying to impose your will upon those who enjoy the Lake as it is?

How happy would you be if a group of concerned citizens decided to seek legislation to ban kayaks from large bodies of water in NH, including Squam?

Squam has a speed limit. Great!

The Lake does not. Great!

Take a wild guess where you need to kayak so that you and your friend may enjoy life and all the pleasures Mother Nature offers.

Life is short - live within your limits and kayak were you are happy and feel safe. A beautiful place already exists where you and your friend may do just that - Squam.

[Evenstar]

[quote=GWC...]One should know one's limits and not exceed them.
You experienced a feeling of fear because you exceed your limits, as did your friend.[quote]
That’s just not true! Don’t you even read my posts? How were we exceeding our limits???? Our abilities had nothing at all to do with our fear. I posted this as clearly as I know how: “I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph).”

Why do you feel a need to "spin" your posts to impose a speed limit upon others on a body of water that is obviously beyond your limits?

Winni is not beyond my limits – and my abilities have nothing whatsoever to do with a speed limit.

It’s easy to slam someone on a message board. Are you an expert paddler? You must be to think that you’re qualified to question the abilities of another paddler. How many miles did you kayaked last season? I can out paddle most guys and would be surprised it anyone on the forum could match my paddling abilities.

What right do you have to suggest that any NH resident doesn’t have the right to use any NH lake – without the fear of being run over? I certainly have the right to fight for any law that I believe in!

Paddlers were on Winni for centuries before powerboats. My grandfather canoed and kayaked on Winni over 50 years ago. Some of us are not willing to just hand Winni over to the hi-speed powerboats without a fight.

HB-162 doesn’t ban any type of vessel! If this law passes, you can still boat on Winni.

If you need to go faster than this law will permit – there’s this place called the OCEAN.