[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jrc

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

We've seen that even savvy forum members will try to enjoy what remains of our Winnipesaukee wilderness heritage. Our Vermont visitors weren't all that savvy, and were lucky that the collision didn't involve one of Winnipesaukee's even more formidable players.

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

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

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Maybe more info from Sue will follow..."

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

Originally Posted by jrc

"...If this incident is all the boat banners have left..."

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