Proposed Law

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by GWC...

4.6 - 2.8 = 1.8 seconds, as in one Mississippi, two Mississippi, splat!!!

So, besides soil yourself, what exactly do you plan to do in 1.8 seconds to save your life, that is?

GWC making fun of this is not helping reach a solution. You would actually have the whole 4.6 seconds to respond. The point is though that the boater does not see the kayaker. Since neither have esp any correction the Kayaker makes may be matched by the boater or the boater may stay on course and a near miss takes place. Accidents are almost a comic (if they don't result in trajedy) collection of events that occur. This is true of car accidents, boats or industrial accidents. I spent 18 years in a corporate safety department and believe me in most accident investigations you would say that those involved were the most unluckey people. However, as in this case of small vessel vs large vessel, slow speed vs. high speed, certain things are in place to make the accident likely to happen once all the other bad karma comes together. Reducing speed does help reduce the likelyhood of an accident but does not prevent it. Reducing speed will now give the kayaker in this example 2.6 seconds to dip their paddle in the water. The other 2 seconds will go to their brain processing the situation and reacting. The idea of restricting small boats along with a speed limit is getting some traction with lawmakers. At least I have only received positive responses to the email I sent to them all. My hope is to see an amendment or more study into the total problem so all are satisfied and safe.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by bilproject

GWC making fun of this is not helping reach a solution. You would actually have the whole 4.6 seconds to respond. The point is though that the boater does not see the kayaker. Since neither have esp any correction the Kayaker makes may be matched by the boater or the boater may stay on course and a near miss takes place. Accidents are almost a comic (if they don't result in trajedy) collection of events that occur. This is true of car accidents, boats or industrial accidents. I spent 18 years in a corporate safety department and believe me in most accident investigations you would say that those involved were the most unluckey people. However, as in this case of small vessel vs large vessel, slow speed vs. high speed, certain things are in place to make the accident likely to happen once all the other bad karma comes together. Reducing speed does help reduce the likelyhood of an accident but does not prevent it. Reducing speed will now give the kayaker in this example 2.6 seconds to dip their paddle in the water. The other 2 seconds will go to their brain processing the situation and reacting. The idea of restricting small boats along with a speed limit is getting some traction with lawmakers. At least I have only received positive responses to the email I sent to them all. My hope is to see an amendment or more study into the total problem so all are satisfied and safe.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Speed has a major impact – here’s why: A boat going 45mph covers 66 feet every second. At 70mph it covers 102.7 feet per second. If a boat is 300 feet away from me and heading directly at me, it takes the 45mph boat 4.6 seconds to reach me. At 70 mph, the boat will reach me in just 2.8 seconds. At a speed of 45 mph, the operator will have nearly twice the amount of time to see and avoid me - and I have nearly twice as much time to try to paddle out of the way.

Time for some real figures:

The rule is called the 150’ rule!

70 mph = (70 x 5280’) = 369600’ in 1 hour = 102.67’ per second

45 mph = (45 x 5280’) = 237600’ in 1 hour = 66’ per second

150’ / 102.67’ per second = 1.46 seconds (70 mph)

150’ / 66’ per second = 2.27 seconds (45 mph)

2.27 – 1.46 = .81 seconds (safety factor difference between 70 mph and 45 mph vessel at 150’)

If 2 seconds are necessary mental time for avoidance decision, kayaker has .27 of a second (2.27 - 2) to paddle if approaching vessel is traveling at 45 mph.

This is the safety factor provided by the proposed speed limit.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can paddle 1 mile in 10 to 12 minutes.

5280’ (1 mile) in 10 to 12 minutes = 528’ in 60 seconds (1 minute) = 8.8’ per second

8.8’ x .27 seconds = 2.38’ (represents distance in straight line from time mind determines it is necessary for evasive action on current heading and does not allow any time to change course)

[Dave R]

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot. If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot. Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH. If one kayaker can spot another a mile away from that low on the water, imagine how easy it is for someone in a boat with at least 4 times the freeboard.

[Bear Islander]

I still can't figure out why kayaks should be outlawed because they might get run over by boats.

If you can't see a kayak in the daytime, don't take the helm.

If you can't spot a kayak, how can you spot a swimmer? Or is swimming in the lake to be outlawed now.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you can't spot a kayak, how can you spot a swimmer? Or is swimming in the lake to be outlawed now.

Of course not.But the point is,do you think it's a good idea for someone to be swimming in the middle of the lake with no boats next to him?I grew up on a very small lake in southern NH (Baboosic) and would not think to be out there alone.I would not go in the middle in a little rowboat and that's on a lake where no boat went more than 50 mph.I did not expect larger faster boats to see every small subject in the lake.We always stayed near shore when in small self-propelled craft.It's just comman sense and it was drilled into my head by my father.One of the first things I was taught when I learned to waterski was that if I fell and driver did not immediately turn back to protect where the fallen skier was,take off my ski and wave out of the water so other craft could see you.It's comman sense and being in small craft or swimming in a large lake should take place close to shore.My boat is only 11 ft long so I know about being the little guy out there.I spend a minimum 0f 25 days on Winni in the summer and almost all on weekends so I know about the worst conditions.The bigger boats that go 70 mph are almost never a problem.It's the Capt Boneheads in their 17 ft bowrider that is on a daytrip.Those are the ones I've had the problems with and I'm not alone.Their boats don't even go 45 mph.Speed is not the problem.Perception and scare tactics are now the problem.

[Bear Islander]

There are many things that are a bad idea, but not illegal.

There are many reasons why a swimmer can be in the water far from shore. They may have fallen of the Mount Washington, or other boat. They may have had their boat sink from under them. It could be a SCUBA diver on the surface. It could even be an irresponsible idiot availing himself of his legal right to swim across Winni un-escorted.

And if you run over any of them you better call an attorney real quick.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are many things that are a bad idea, but not illegal.
And if you run over any of them you better call an attorney real quick.

I suppose those poor people that ran over the aunt and the two children in Mass should have seen them in the speed limited highway and should now call their attorney?Unfortuanately all tragedies in life cannot be avoided and legislated for the sake of one incident.Let me give you an example that might hit home for you BI.You like risking your life going to extreme climates and I think that's awsome.If you died or someone died trying to save you from your "adventure" should we have laws that outlaw your kind of behavior?Of course not.If there were numerous occurances of these incidents then it might have some merit.We must always weigh overreacting to such things.I think over reacting is exactly whats going on with a speed limit.

[Bear Islander]

Pedestrians are not allowed on highways. And double murder with suicide is against the law everywhere. Swimming across the lake is legal.

Common sense and good judgment argue against swimming far from shore. The LAW requires the boater to keep a proper lookout.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

I think Siksukr used a bad analogy... however the point remains that the LAW requires the operator of ANY vehicle, car, truck, boat, pwc, bicycle, kayak, etc to keep a proper lookout for potential hazard.


Perhaps a better analogy would be your impending (hopefully) space flight. Using your own logic, I could argue that civilian "tourist" spaceflight should be banned. Flying to the edge of space as a passenger on a rocket doesn't make you an astronaut any more than flying at Mach 2 on the Concorde makes you a fighter pilot. Why should a bunch of wealthy thrill seekers (it cost $200,000 per ride for approx 4 minutes of weightlessness) be allowed to outrageously pollute the atmosphere and quite possibly scatter toxic debris over hundreds of square miles just to satisfy thier inner adrenaline junkie? What/whom gives them the right? (Oh wait... its not a right, but a personal freedom!) Spaceflight is obviously fraught with peril to you, others flying with you and to people on the ground. There have been many people killed. One just has to look at the fateful mission of STS-107 Columbia (foam failure on launch), or the explosion they had over at Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's Co.) that killed 3 people while doing testing of the Virgin Galactic rocket's nitrous/solid fuel propulsion system. This project hasn't flown yet and it is already killing people!

Woodsy

PS: I am just pointing out the flawed logic that Bear Islander is using to justify HB-847 and applying that same logic to ban something that he wants to do. I think civilian spaceflight is a great idea (environmental concerns aside)and I am all for it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Bear Islander...

I think Siksukr used a bad analogy... however the point remains that the LAW requires the operator of ANY vehicle, car, truck, boat, pwc, bicycle, kayak, etc to keep a proper lookout for potential hazard.


Perhaps a better analogy would be your impending (hopefully) space flight. Using your own logic, I could argue that civilian "tourist" spaceflight should be banned. Flying to the edge of space as a passenger on a rocket doesn't make you an astronaut any more than flying at Mach 2 on the Concorde makes you a fighter pilot. Why should a bunch of wealthy thrill seekers (it cost $200,000 per ride for approx 4 minutes of weightlessness) be allowed to outrageously pollute the atmosphere and quite possibly scatter toxic debris over hundreds of square miles just to satisfy thier inner adrenaline junkie? What/whom gives them the right? (Oh wait... its not a right, but a personal freedom!) Spaceflight is obviously fraught with peril to you, others flying with you and to people on the ground. There have been many people killed. One just has to look at the fateful mission of STS-107 Columbia (foam failure on launch), or the explosion they had over at Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's Co.) that killed 3 people while doing testing of the Virgin Galactic rocket's nitrous/solid fuel propulsion system. This project hasn't flown yet and it is already killing people!

Woodsy

PS: I am just pointing out the flawed logic that Bear Islander is using to justify HB-847 and applying that same logic to ban something that he wants to do. I think civilian spaceflight is a great idea (environmental concerns aside)and I am all for it.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY THAT SPACEFLIGHT IS DANGEROUS!

Full disclosure requires me to explain that I am only considering accidents that are rocket-to-rocket, occur in the stratosphere, under moonlight, carry six passengers and involve air launched, liquid fueled rockets.

I am distressed to learn that my flight does not meet the NHRBA definition of the word astronaut. I will console myself with the knowledge it does meet NASA's.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY THAT SPACEFLIGHT IS DANGEROUS!

Full disclosure requires me to explain that I am only considering accidents that are rocket-to-rocket, occur in the stratosphere, under moonlight, carry six passengers and involve air launched, liquid fueled rockets.

I am distressed to learn that my flight does not meet the NHRBA definition of the word astronaut. I will console myself with the knowledge it does meet NASA's.

Finally... a sense of humor! I don't care who you are thats funny!

Bear Islander... Don't you think turn about should be fair play? I figure if you want to use boating accidents that occurred all over the country and apply them to laws that you think we should have here in NH, even though here in NH we have only had 1 fatal accident in the last 5 years. I figure I should be able to use that same argument to ban you from enjoying a personal liberty!

I am not going to say your lying, but to be truthful, while you may meet Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic definition of Astronaut, your flight does NOT meet the definition of Astronaut according to the NASA website.

The pilots of the rocket may meet the definition of astronaut, (see my paragraph below) however, you as $200,000 passenger/cargo do not.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/astronaut_worldbook.html

"The term astronaut also has a meaning that is not connected with NASA activities. In the 1960's, the United States Department of Defense AWARDED the rating of astronaut to military and civilian pilots who FLEW aircraft higher than 50 miles (80 kilometers). Seven test pilots received this rating for flights in the X-15 rocket plane. Flights of the X-15 ended in 1968."

To think that because you can afford to to pay $200,000 you should be able to have the same title as Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Alan Shepard, etc is absolutely absurd! It is an absolute insult to those who EARNED thier right to call themselves ASTRONAUT by being the best of the best!

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

According to Websters I am an astronaut already.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astronaut

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

Anyway it's just a name. Doing it is what's important.

[Cal]

BI,
If you want your $200,000 thrill to last a lot longer , go buy a nice performance boat and see what it's all about

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

According to Websters I am an astronaut already.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astronaut

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

Anyway it's just a name. Doing it is what's important.

Not to split hairs.... You claimed to meet NASA's definition. Webster's Dictionary is not NASA.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Not to split hairs.... You claimed to meet NASA's definition. Webster's Dictionary is not NASA.

Woodsy

Sorry, you took me to seriously. I was contrasting NHRBA and NASA. The first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, is not an astronaut by NASA's bureaucratic definition. However people like Ed Givens are, despite the fact they never flew to space.

I spent some time with a couple of your "real astronauts" last week during training and they were very gracious in using the term with reference to Virgin Galactic clients.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you took me to seriously. I was contrasting NHRBA and NASA. The first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, is not an astronaut by NASA's bureaucratic definition. However people like Ed Givens are, despite the fact they never flew to space.

I spent some time with a couple of your "real astronauts" last week during training and they were very gracious in using the term with reference to Virgin Galactic clients.

Yuri Gagarin was not an American, but Russian and as such he would be called a Cosmonaut. I am not sure what the Russian definition translates to as I need to bone up on my Cyrillic. Gagarin also didn't pay for his trip... He was the best of thier best... Not some rich guy with $200K to burn.

Those Astronauts had better gracious in using the term used by Virgin Galactic.... they are being paid by Virgin Galactic! The reality is you are doing nothing more than buying a very expensive plane ticket to just beyond the edge of the atmosphere. I think its great that you means and the opportunity to do that, but to call yourself an Astronaut tarnishes the term.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Yuri Gagarin was not an American, but Russian and as such he would be called a Cosmonaut. I am not sure what the Russian definition translates to as I need to bone up on my Cyrillic. Gagarin also didn't pay for his trip... He was the best of thier best... Not some rich guy with $200K to burn.

Those Astronauts had better gracious in using the term used by Virgin Galactic.... they are being paid by Virgin Galactic! The reality is you are doing nothing more than buying a very expensive plane ticket to just beyond the edge of the atmosphere. I think its great that you means and the opportunity to do that, but to call yourself an Astronaut tarnishes the term.

Woodsy

The term you should be trying to keep untarnished is "NASA Astronaut". As far as the general term astronaut goes the ship has already sailed. The FAA regulates commercial spaceflight and they have determined that anyone flying higher than 92.6 kilometers is an astronaut. We will be receiving FAA Astronaut Wings.

None of this has anything to do with speed limits.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The term you should be trying to keep untarnished is "NASA Astronaut". As far as the general term astronaut goes the ship has already sailed. The FAA regulates commercial spaceflight and they have determined that anyone flying higher than 92.6 kilometers is an astronaut. We will be receiving FAA Astronaut Wings.

None of this has anything to do with speed limits.

Bear Islander...

I can't believe you don't research before you post....

You are wrong yet again... well at least your wrong according to the Virgin Galactic website.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/index.php

http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsi...Picture&src=26

"Will I officially become an Astronaut?
Yes. The term Astronaut is a derived from Greek words Ajstron ("star") and nautes ("sailor"). The criteria for determining who has achieved human spaceflight vary. In the United States, people who travel above an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) are designated as astronauts. The FAI defines spaceflight as over 100 km (62 miles).Virgin Galactic passengers will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and may recieve FAA astronaut wings as well."

The key there is "may recieve". The FAA has only awarded 2 people with Commercial Astronaut Wings, and they were the pilots in command of the spacecraft. I highly doubt the FAA is going to award wings to hundreds of people just because they were wealthy enough to afford a $200,000 space ticket. Of course for $200K Virgin Galactic should give you a little gold trinket!

Have fun with those Virgin Galactic Wings!

Woodsy

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

From the Wiki entry for Lisa Nowak

"...received a BS degree in aerospace engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985. Nowak received a Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering, and a degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering in 1992 from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California."

"Nowak received her commission from the U.S. Navy in 1985, and became a naval flight officer in 1987. After her postgraduate studies, Nowak entered Aerospace Engineering Duty and the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. She logged over 1,500 hours of flight in over 30 different aircraft during her career in the Navy, and obtained the rank of captain."

"Nowak was selected to be an astronaut in 1996 and entered the NASA Astronaut Corps at Johnson Space Center in August of that year. She qualified as a mission specialist in robotics, and was assigned to mission STS-118. After schedule changes, she instead went into space on July 4, 2006 as a member of the STS-121 crew to the International Space Station. Nowak served as mission flight engineer, operated the shuttle's robotic arm during several spacewalks, and logged almost 13 days in space."

It's highly likely that Neil, Buzz and Alan take no issue with her being called an astronaut based on her credentials...I doubt anyone here knows how her personal problems may have affected their opinion of what kind of astronaut she was or what kind of person she is.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Pedestrians are not allowed on highways. And double murder with suicide is against the law everywhere. Swimming across the lake is legal.

Common sense and good judgment argue against swimming far from shore. The LAW requires the boater to keep a proper lookout.

Wrong!Pedestrians are not allowed on interstate highways.They are allowed any other highway.

I love that one,suicide is illegal everywhere.Guess what,going over headway within 150 ft is a violation already too!!!

So what about you risking other peoples lives with your risky behavior?It looks like we should set limits on your activities so in the unlikely chance you get stranded,someone might die trying to rescue you.This big brother crap has to stop.

[Bear Islander]

If a mountain climber in Antarctica needs rescue, it can only come from the other climbers that have already accepted that same risk. Part of that risk is that you may die rescuing others.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with enacting a boating speed limit on Winnipesaukee. I can understand you are frustrated by recent events, but equating apples and oranges is not the solution. And your example is more like apples and penguins.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

. . . If there were numerous occurances of these incidents then it might have some merit. We must always weigh overreacting to such things. I think over reacting is exactly whats going on with a speed limit.

But there are numerous occurances - even if many here are not willing to admit it. Collisions might be rare, but close calls seem to happen quite a bit on Winni. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes (including Winni), so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. But whenever we point this out, we are told that we are exagerating (or are accused of lying).

Others feel like we are putting ourselves at risk if we venture more than 150 feet from shore. They believe that kayaks have no business going out on the main lake. For instance:

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

Why do kayaks need or want to be out beyond the 150 feet we are talking about...I don't kayak but when I think about it I think about going up small rivers and into back coves where there are less people and quiet... or hanging close to shore . . .

Why does any boat NEED to be out beyond 150 feet? The obvious answer is because we enjoy being out on the main lake as much as any other boater. I own a boat that I can carry by myself, will float in a 6 inches of water, and is designed for large waves. I'm very experience and physically in shape, and have the proper equipment . . . so why would I want to limit my paddling to just the first 150 feet of a lake?

You may view a lake speed limit law as the result of over reacting - I view it as self-preservation.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot. If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot. Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH. If one kayaker can spot another a mile away from that low on the water, imagine how easy it is for someone in a boat with at least 4 times the freeboard.

Dave, it's COMMON SENSE like that that blows the SL proponents arguments right out of the water, not to mention the actual statistics that exist proving that there is not a problem.

Unfortunately COMMON SENSE is in short supply, thanks for sharing some with us.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

"...I was at last year's hearing and their "right to go fast" was their main argument. They also repeated refused to believe that the safety concerns voiced by other boaters were legitimate..."

I got the same sense with the following Quality-of-Life issues when these were before the Legislature recently:
1) The right to smoke cigars in restaurants
2) The right to skim a snowmobile
3) The right to refuse seat belts
4) The right to refuse PFDs for their children

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH..."

Not killed, but a male kayaker was run over, suffered "broken bones" and was evacuated by air via DART4 to Dartmouth-Mary Hitchcock Hospital from Lake Winnipesaukee. I posted it at the old forum.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision...?"

Then why is New Jersey experience going unchallenged in this thread?

To whit:

1) "...Down here the coast guard or marine police catch you in a channel or boatway in a kayak you get a ticket for unsafe operation of a vessel..."

2) "...Kayaker"s are often in places that they should not be. We see it all the time on Barnegat bay here in New Jersey..."

3) I've seen the inlet deal you mentioned also. Kinda like riding a bike on an interstate..."

Smith Mountain Lake was a double for Lake Winnipesaukee for a movie—yet their double-fatality is challenged as "not on Winnipesaukee".

(Yet Maine's Long Lake double-fatality was, what, forty miles away?)

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot..."

You'd think...

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...Further, I would guess most power boaters, seeing a collection of sailboats would give them a very wide berth..."

You'd think...



(Had Evenstar been in the photo, she'd have been in that lone sailboat—center foreground).

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot. If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot. Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH. If one kayaker can spot another a mile away from that low on the water, imagine how easy it is for someone in a boat with at least 4 times the freeboard.

I agree 100%. The visibilty of kayaks is a red herring. If you can't see a kayak in open water and in daylight, you shouldn't be operating a boat. Now at dusk or in narrow areas, I can see being startled by an unexpected paddler.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot.

They are easy to spot, but it depends on your speed.

The human female retina is amply and evenly filled for color detection. Women have the ability to detect colors better. This is likely an evolutionary adaptation from earliest human's seeking berries and other food gathering needs.

Men have fewer of those color-detecting "cones" in their vision and those are all located in the center of their retinas.

Overall, the male retina is biased towards black-and-white detectors—called "rods"—which are particularly dense in mens' vision outside of center. "Rods" are smaller, and can be packed more tightly and in larger numbers onto the retina.

This is of special impact to those who crave extreme speeds for the following reasons:

1) Peripheral vision is enhanced for movement with only black-and-white vision. (An evolutionary benefit for the stalking hunter-male).
2) Once a kayak gets out of dead-center of the male's vision at high speed, it doesn't matter what color the kayak is.
3) At high speeds, peripheral vision becomes blurry or, at advanced high speeds, lost altogether. The retina-center that detects color becomes much smaller for the operator. The effect is called tunnel-vision, or funnel-vision. The effect is like peering through a long pipe with a very shiny interior. At very high illegal speeds on the highway, a driver will overlook the patrolman sitting in the median!

In the extreme, such as the centrifuge mentioned previously, one's vision can go black even while the participant is fully conscious. Perhaps Bear Islander has been made aware of this.

Women would see kayaks best; unfortunately, most boaters with the excessive speed imbalance are compensating men.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Dave, it's COMMON SENSE...

Kayaks can disappear with excessive speed: it's science, not common sense.