Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith

[Airwaves]

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]

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 ), 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 (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!

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]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

....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! ....

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]

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]

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]

They call that being "Dead Right".

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Sman

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]

Originally Posted by jrc

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

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]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

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]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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]

Originally Posted by Islander

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]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dan

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.

[Islander]

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]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

You can't see kayaks lighted by the moon.

That's a pretty broad statement. Wouldn't that depend on the color of the kayak. Lighter ones should be very visible.fficeffice" />>>
>>
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).>>
>>
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. >>
>>
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]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

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".

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. 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?

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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?

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by NightWing

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!")

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.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...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.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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]

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]

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.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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]

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...

[Islander]

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]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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]

Originally Posted by codeman671

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...

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...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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.

Sounds like the speed limit proponents need to reduce the night speed limit to headway speed.

Interesting how 25 mph all of a sudden seems to fast; although, Island Lover confesses that the speed of the boat is not important.

What a wicked web we weave, ...

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

"...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.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...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?

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.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...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?

No, wait....

[Sman]

Originally Posted by Kamper

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]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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.

So I'm swimming across the broads alone one night and I see this:



I have no worries because the Captain would never be going a speed that doesn't allow him to see an obstacle and react to prevent a collision. The glow from his navigation light will light me in plenty of time for him to stop.

[Islander]

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?

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Islander

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Islander

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

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]

Originally Posted by Islander

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]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

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.

Can I respond with a HECK NO. The reason why is that it is extremely dangerous

[Islander]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

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]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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]

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]

GI,

So what night time speed do you recommend?

R2B

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

{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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...
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/...5/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]

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]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

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

I wonder if it seems that simple to Dan?

The kayaker was breaking the rules. But the question is was the boater "keeping a proper lookout". It's possible he was, but Woodsy doesn't know that, and neither do I.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

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/...5/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]

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?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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?

The answer is:

A boat, including kayaks and such, should be operated AT ALL TIMES in a manner to prevent being hit, as a result of being properly lit during times of darkness or limited visibilty.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

......

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ITD

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]

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

I think you just did

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

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]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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]

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]

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.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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]

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]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

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 [urll=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ryf-Uam0g] Jet Kayak[/url]

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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]

Originally Posted by jrc

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]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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.

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]

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/...1&postcount=14

[jrc]

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?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Here's a quote from our recent past:


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&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???

[SIKSUKR]

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]

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.

[Island Lover]

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]

Originally Posted by Islander

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]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

.. 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]

Originally Posted by jrc

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?

Don't worry, the transponders we'll be forced to carry in a few years will also solve this problem ! 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]

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!

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

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.

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]

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?

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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.

Keep trying though, I give you credit for tenacity.

[Paugusbaby]

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]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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]

Mee-n-Mac

That is the best emoticon I have ever seen.

[Excalibur]

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]

Originally Posted by Paugusbaby

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]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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!