Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith

[dan]

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

[Lakegeezer]

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

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

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

Not turning it on breaks the law and could result in shattered lives.

[The Big Kahuna]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

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

I am all for the spice of life and taking the big risks, good for you to voice your opinion and say to hell with playing it safe. Having said that my spice of life is riding around the lake in a rather good size power boat. Should our paths cross enjoying what we both agree is a zest for life, I hope we will be able not occupy the same space at the same time, and we will both continue to enjoy the lake at special times in our own seperate ways.

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

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

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

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

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

[wildwoodfam]

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

I am amazed that nobody was injured!

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

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by wildwoodfam

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

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

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

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

[wildwoodfam]

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

[codeman671]

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

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

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

I am sure that the operator was TERRIFIED to see a kayak in front of him with no lights

A wayward swim raft would also have no lights.

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

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

A wayward swim raft would also have no lights.

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

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

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

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by NightWing

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

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

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

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

[michael c]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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

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

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

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by michael clayton

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

I couldn't agree more!!

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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

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

I pretty much agree with you but, and it's a big but ( ) when you're out at night w/o a light I really can't blame the power boat. That far out from shore I'd be expecting any non-fixed hazards to do their part by having some lighting. I'm not sure where the collision occured but the Moon might not have been illuminating that spot at that time. I believe it set about 3:30 that AM. Maybe more info from Sue will follow.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

A wayward swim raft would also have no lights.

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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

'Curious as to how "length of boat" returns "the whole truth"....

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

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



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

[ITD]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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

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

[WeirsBeachBoater]

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

I will take that apology now APS.

[ITD]

Hey, I wonder if they were in Sea Kayaks?

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Thank you Sue15 for sharing the information with the forum.

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

Thanks

[Gavia immer]

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).