|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-09-2007, 09:50 PM | #201 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Proper lookout!
Paugusbaby wrote that he/she was on board the powerboat...and...
Quote:
Perhaps because the kayakers were naked they decided to avoid the spotlight at the expense of safety? Not to mention that they didn't know if the approaching boat was the Marine Patrol and we've all decided the kaykers were on the water in violation of the law. I am interested in SIKSUKRS post in which he said the kayak that the naked man was in and was struck ABANDONDED HIS BOAT just prior to the accident rather than taking evasive action. Thoughts from the "Powerboat is always at fault crowd"? |
|
08-10-2007, 05:58 AM | #202 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,788
Thanks: 2,085
Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts
|
I see a problem...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cain't hardly see nothin'. |
|||
08-10-2007, 06:56 AM | #203 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-10-2007, 09:49 AM | #204 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Concord, NH.
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
[QUOTE=Acres per Second]Okaaay...Here's what Coastal Laker wrote in this thread:
Anyway, cain't see 'em nohow: Yup. Here's a moonlit Winnipesaukee. Cain't hardly see nothin'. [/QUOTE Are you going to tell me that a SUMMER night is as bright as your photochoped winter night? |
08-10-2007, 10:25 AM | #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Quote:
Sooo sorry Wildwood.My point was that this info was not just gossip form one person to another and so on.She talked directly to the operater and told me what he told her.Does this somehow change the situation for you?
__________________
SIKSUKR |
|
Sponsored Links |
|
08-10-2007, 10:33 AM | #206 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,860
Thanks: 461
Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts
|
Quote:
With what passes for "fact" around here I would say that your story qualifies as indesputably accurate gospel. Thanks for sharing. I wonder if ALCOHOL was involved with these naked midnight lightless kayakers? |
|
08-10-2007, 11:22 AM | #207 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,837
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,626 Times in 562 Posts
|
ALCOHOL ?????no !.....can't believe that even crossed anyones minds.I thought everyone went kayaking naked,late at night.
|
08-10-2007, 12:34 PM | #208 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
Where was the Moon
Quote:
If there's a point pertinent to the thread in the above, you've failed to make it seen. I'd say most full-Moonlight nights pretty much anything could be seen but it all depends. What it depends on is where the Moon is relative to the local horizon. Since I don't know where the collision occured I can't say whether the Moon was positioned to light the area in question. What I can say is that at 1:30 AM that morning the Moon was only 6.5 deg above a flat horizon in the SW sky (221 deg E of N). Perhaps this info may prove useful to the discussion, and while I know sniping from the edges is your speciality, you might want to try it (being pertinent) every so often.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-10-2007, 01:45 PM | #209 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-10-2007, 02:23 PM | #210 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
It's a close as I can get till I talk to the operater one on one.I did not hear any mention of the kayakers being drunk but I'm sure most people going boating naked when sober.I know I do.
__________________
SIKSUKR |
08-10-2007, 04:10 PM | #211 | |
Senior Member
|
Keep twisting the words APS
Quote:
|
|
08-10-2007, 06:17 PM | #212 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-10-2007, 07:10 PM | #213 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North Andover, MA & summers up at the BIG lake
Posts: 285
Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
Apology accepted -
Quote:
|
|
08-10-2007, 09:35 PM | #214 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-10-2007, 10:38 PM | #215 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
What?
GI, you've got me totally confused.
Are you now saying the Canadian Captain that hit the cliff killing a crewmember and injuring a second didn't hit the cliff but instead hit a canoe full of teenagers killing one of his crew and injuring a second? Are you now saying the above scenario that you presented was NOT a hypothetical? So given the story about the naked kayakers as it has now unfolded; Accident location unknown Spotlight in use looking ahead of the powerboat Unlighted kayakers presumably able to see the approaching boat Naked kayaker jumping out of his boat leaving it unlighted, abandonded, adrift and a hazard to navigation The abandonded unlighted kayak hit by the powerboat. What is your take now? |
08-11-2007, 06:48 AM | #216 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Moultonboro & SE Florida
Posts: 94
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
Last night we went for a sunset cruise and saw an unlit single kayak at least 300 yards from any land (6 mile island and he wasn't heading towards it). The sun was down and the kayak was only a shadow against the water. We're daily kayakers but this was insanity. The boats leave Braun bay at sunset and race away. Many going exactly where the kayak was. It would be impossible to see him unless you were actively looking. I guess he doesn't read the forum!
|
08-11-2007, 08:19 AM | #217 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,860
Thanks: 461
Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts
|
Quote:
Oh Lucky, you're relatively new here so let me explain to you how this works. You have to be extremely precise in what you write, this statement will be showing up for years as "boaters don't pay attention to where they are going." They on the other hand routinely make things up, things such as their own facts. They speak in riddles (some do) and make obtuse references to demonstrate ultra intelligence. They will resort to any type of misinformation, then swear its true or project that you are deliberately misinterpreting it. They do this because in their minds the end justifies the means. And the end is that they don't like boats bigger than 20 feet on THEIR lake. I understood what you meant, that in order to see an unlit kayak on a dark night you need to be lucky, or you need someone on the bow of your boat sweeping vigilantly with a spot light. |
|
08-11-2007, 08:39 AM | #218 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,788
Thanks: 2,085
Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts
|
TODAY we learn...
Quote:
Swimming was the logical escape for the unseen kayakers—particularly if the powerboat was approaching at a speed fast enough to total one of their boats. Quote:
While abandoning an unlighted boat in navigable waters is a chargeable offense, it would be understandable given the life-or-death circumstance. Swimming without a light is not chargeable—nor is one's state of dress while swimming or boating. Quote:
If you'll review your New Hampshire Boater's Guides, you'll find: Quote:
__________________
Every MP who enters Winter Harbor will pass by my porch of 67 years... |
||||
08-11-2007, 08:53 AM | #219 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Whenever I, as a kayaker, have posted my reasons here (based on my actual experience on NH lakes BTW - and not some made up or exaggerated), my posts have been ripped apart and I have been personally insulted and attacked, in an attempt to discredit me. The aniti-speed limiters' goal seems to be to protect their freedom to travel at unlimited speeds on THEIR lake - no matter how negatively this affects others. That's a pretty selfish goal in my opinion. As I've posted here many times (yet no one seems to believe me): I have nothing against power boats - and their size isn't an issue for me. The ONLY reason that I feel that we need a speed limit, is that it is crazy to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow-moving, and hard to see boats. (BTW: the current bill will affect ALL NH lakes - not just Winni). Of course it is wrong (dumb, suicidal, and in violation of our boating laws) to be out on any lake at night in any type of boat without the proper lighting. I haven't seen where anyone here has posted that the kayakers were not in the wrong. But I also believe that any power boat out on a lake at night should be traveling slow enough to avoid a collision with any other large floating object on the lake. So I feel that both parties were at fault.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
08-11-2007, 09:40 AM | #220 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
What "they" really need a good set of ear plugs, because its very apparent to me, "they" are trying to stop the noise. I personally tend to agree, some boats are noisy, but a speed limit is not the answer. Some are just loud no matter the speed. |
|
08-11-2007, 10:58 AM | #221 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
So how slow
Quote:
So I ask again, should the rule be that boats hold to NWS on night so as to avoid collisions with unlit vessels ? Perhaps they shouldn't even go out at night in the cases where it's really dark or if we want to protect the unlit swimmer. Why are people supporting a 25 mph limit when that's not sufficient to prevent collisons with unlit kayaks or canoes ?
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-11-2007, 11:49 AM | #222 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
And again ....
Quote:
So again your point is ... what ? Are you saying that the spot light blinded the kayakers so they couldn't see the boat ... the one with the bright spot light ? ... the one he jumped out of the kayak to avoid ? As for swimming being the logical escape .... funny thing your logic, I can paddle much faster than I can swim. Logically if I had seen a boat bearing down on me I'd had paddled at right angles to it's course to escape. But then again I'd have had a light, 2 actually. Quote:
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
||
08-11-2007, 12:32 PM | #223 |
Senior Member
|
To Quote Evenstar, who is an avid kayaker....
"The ONLY reason that I feel that we need a speed limit, is that it is crazy to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow-moving, and hard to see boats"
Even the Kayakers claim they are hard to see. So don't blame the powerboaters on this claim! Even the ones in the kayaks are willing to admit they are hard to see! |
08-11-2007, 01:50 PM | #224 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA & Laconia, NH
Posts: 148
Thanks: 14
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Huh?
Quote:
I believe the boater you're talking about is the guy who's family used to own Channel Marine? I believe he was Drinking (all day) and under the influence, hit the boat, stopped, didn't help or seek assistance, left the scene of the accident and then didn't report to a day or two later... Different circumstances.... Doesn't take a whole lotta speed from a power boat to sever a Kayak in two. |
|
08-11-2007, 02:02 PM | #225 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Blinded by the light revved up like a deuce Another runner in the night
APS wrote:
Quote:
He probably thought it was the Marine Patrol and wanted to get away so that he wouldn't be discovered naked! Swimming away from his kayak was logical? Not if he was trying to avoid a collision. It was only logical if he didn't want to be seen. As for the powerboat approaching at a speed fast enought to total one of their boats...I maintain it was the prop, not the speed of the boat that caused the damage. If you hit a kayak with a boat, what happens to the kayak? It moves! They are light and would bounce off a powerboat. Remember the Mythbuster's show that took that photo of a GFBL boat that was split in half at the bow and the caption claimed it had hit a daymarker and tried to recreate it? That was a fixed object and the GFBL boat kept bouncing off! They had to drop the boat onto the steel pole to finally get a similar effect. So if a powerboat strikes a kayak, it doesn't split in half, it moves and in this case it probably moved under the boat and was struck by the prop because if naked kayaker "jumped ship" the kayak may have capsized when he left the boat and the abandoned hazard to navigation easily slid under the bow of the powerboat. Nope, you're beating a dead horse with this one. Nice pic of Winni at night in the winter. Of course the fact that the water was ice and snow covered and refecting lots of light has nothing to do with the visibility. If you have my private e-mail address I'd love a copy of that pic! |
|
08-11-2007, 02:56 PM | #226 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,860
Thanks: 461
Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts
|
Quote:
So the kayaker carried out his new plan, unfortunately he forgot to push his kayak out of the way and here we are, discussing an accident caused by a kayaker, the safest, best trained boaters out there. **** for the Island speed limit folks, the statements in quotations are a reasonable facsimile of what went through the kayakers head that night. ***** |
|
08-11-2007, 03:12 PM | #227 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
It's been my experience that the operators of fast-moving power boats don't always see me in time to stay out of my 150 foot space (and I'm totally basing this on their reactions - when they actually do spot me). So I do know that I can be difficult to see - even though my kayak is bright red, with a white hull - any my PFD is red - and my paddles are very bright orange. And please don't tell me that I should have to have a bright flapping flag on a pole - because that would just tip me over (my kayak is only 23 inches wide). All people have to do is slow down - and then they will be able to see other boats in time - and be able to stay out of their 150 foot safety zone. Mee-n-Mac: 25MPH would be the MAXIMUM night speed - a speed limit does not require that you travel at the MAXIMUM speed.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
08-11-2007, 06:04 PM | #228 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
Let me try again
Quote:
It's an unreasonable standard to hold the boater responsible for collision with an unlit vessel, barring some condition where it could be reasonably argued that, despite the lack of lights, any boater would have seen the kayak. Boating is a co-operative venture. I'll do my part by keeping a lookout for other vessels but the other guy must also do his part by making himself visible. To blame both parties is wrong unless there's some evidence of my aforementioned conditions. To restrict the boater so as to protect the negligent party is to excuse the negligent party. In effect we're punishing the boater, restricting him from doing what otherwise would be a safe and reasonable action, because some people will be negligent and might get hurt as a result of their negligence. Sorry but I'll fight that philosophy to my end. I'll do my part but I refuse to do more that I should have to, simply to protect the stupid from the consequences of their stupidity.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-11-2007, 10:28 PM | #229 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Evenstar wrote in part:
Quote:
If you consider what we currently understand to be the facts. The powerboat had a proper lookout and even was using a search light (I personally never use a search light unless someone or something falls overboard, but that's another post). The kayaker, who we all agree violated the law by even being on the water, saw the boat coming and jumped out of his kayak leaving it (probably) capsized and in the path of the oncoming powerboat. The powerboat struck said (overturned) unlighted kayak even as he/she was using the searchlight looking ahead. Evenstar, I know you to be a strong advocate of human powered vessels and to tell you the truth, every time I saw a kayak on Winni this summer I wondered if you were among them. That aside, the powerboat operator in this case is completely innocent and not to be held responsible in any way! * The kayak should not have been on the water. * The kayaker should certainly never have abandonded his unlighted boat in the path of a powerboat. * It seems to me that the kayaker was trying to avoid being caught on the water without lights, and without clothes rather than take evasive action. * The powerboater did everything right and yet because of the kayaker's actions the powerboat operator's judgement is being called into question because he/she was at the helm of a boat driven by a machine. Yes, there is blame to be handed out in this case, and that blame goes completely to the kayaker. In my judgement, that kayaker should have not only been cited, he/she (both) should have been arrested. Good to see you posting again! |
|
08-12-2007, 06:49 PM | #230 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-12-2007, 07:40 PM | #231 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
By common sense, and by law, a boater is required to be in control of his vessel at all times. You are required to keep a look out at all times. If you can't see where you are going, YOU DON'T GO! Obviously it is not possible to see everything that may be in the water, especially at night. But boating your way is Russian Roulette. Someday you are going to lose. |
|
08-12-2007, 07:45 PM | #232 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
There's nothing faulty about my logic - because we're talking about visibility over relatively short distances here - like a mile or less (not several miles). BTW your figures and calculations are way off. In a sitting position my eyes are 32 inches high - not "less than 2 feet"(I'm 6 feet tall and have a long torso). So I can see a 1-foot high kayak that is just over 3 nautical miles away. And, I can see the other person in kayak up to about 4 nautical miles away - which is equal to 4.6 miles The formula is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles. But that's just to the horizon. You have to do the same calculation (1.17 times the square root) on the height of the other object, and then you have to ADD the two together. And speed has a great deal with the ability to see what is nearby, as you're moving too fast to see everything. If you don't believe me, try driving a section of road at like 50 MPH, and then walk a mile or two of that same section. I guarantee that you'll see things walking that you didn't notice when you were driving. You simply have more time to see all the details. Plus, the higher you are, and the closer you are, the more that a boat like a kayak blends in with the water around it - because you are looking down on it. I'm actually sitting slightly below the waterline - so I'm looking across the water at other kayaks and and not down at them.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
08-12-2007, 07:55 PM | #233 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-12-2007, 08:57 PM | #234 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Quote:
The kayak: Quote:
The powerboater is completely vindicated. The kayaker was dead wrong, completely liable and he is lucky that he is not DEAD! |
|||
08-12-2007, 10:35 PM | #235 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
I think the earplug suggestion was a joke. But loud boats are an annoyance and should be dealt with more agressively.
Your quote is a good common sense idea. What is the source? I can find no NH law. Remember Coast Guard rules do not apply on NH lakes. "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." |
08-13-2007, 07:29 AM | #236 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Concord, NH.
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Loud exhaust save lives.
|
08-13-2007, 08:12 AM | #237 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,360
Thanks: 210
Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-13-2007, 08:43 AM | #238 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
jrc was the one that brought up the height/distance relationship - all I did was produce the actual formular that you use (look it up) - and I pointed out that his calculations were off. The formular gives you the MAXIMUM distance that you can see another object across a body of water - which is based on the curvature of the earth. THAT'S IT. And that MAXIMUM distance is the furtherest you can see across water, even if you use a telescope. My point was that I have absolutely no trouble spotting other kayakers that are over a mile away - in normal weather conditions - in the daylight. I believe that my position (at their same level) and my slow speed give me some advantage. In actual practice, I know that I can often see other kayaks that are 1-1/2 miles away. For instance, on Squam, when I leave Piper's Cove, I can usually see kayaks up until they pass between Moon Island and Bowman Island. According to my chart, that's just about 1.5 miles away.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
08-13-2007, 08:46 AM | #239 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
We all agree the kayaker was at fault, but that does NOTHING to exonerate the power boater. In your simple view of things you have reasoned that since the kayaker was at fault, the boater did nothing wrong. It is highly possible that BOTH parties were at fault. |
|
08-13-2007, 08:47 AM | #240 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Codeman, Evenstar,
I wasn't trying to give exact measurements. Just pointing out that greater height is greater visibility. I don't know what boaters have said to you but in smooth water and normal daylight, I never have problems picking out kayaks at quite a distance on the open water. Now add some heavy chop and a kayak may fall in a hole once in a while but still quite visble. As the sun fades after twilight things get a little tougher. Boating around kayaks is really very easy. They are relatively slow and usually track a straight course. Now boating around jetskis is a lot harder. They are fast and never follow a straight course. |
08-13-2007, 08:51 AM | #241 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Quote:
Well some people still believe that OJ is innocent. |
|
08-13-2007, 10:47 AM | #242 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
The powerboater was not charged with any wrong doing, and if he/she was you would be shouting it from the roof tops of Bear Island and beyond. The MP's have exonerated the powerboater. It is also quite likely the kayaker or kayakers were given a citation or a least should have been, because as you point of they were in the wrong. END OF STORY. |
|
08-13-2007, 11:10 AM | #243 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 66 Times in 38 Posts
|
I'll throw my 2 cents in too. When I am boating either at night or day I make it MY responsibility to ensure the surounding boats see me and understand my intentions. With that said I expect within reason other boats will do the same. It is the law!! If you are following the law I WILL see you at night. If you are not I may run you over.
I accept the risks of hitting submerged objects, islands, rocks, floats, submarines, and anything else "unexpected". These are MY risks. I keep a vigilent lookout for them. I accept full responsibility for them. I do not however accept the risk of hitting an unlit boat, kayaker, or other MANNED craft without lights. The risk of them being run over is on THEM. I will however rely on my my vigilant lookout to help me avoid such people but I WILL NOT accept their risk. |
08-13-2007, 04:57 PM | #244 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA & Laconia, NH
Posts: 148
Thanks: 14
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Thank You!
Quote:
Tank |
|
08-13-2007, 05:43 PM | #245 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,657
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
-lg |
|
08-13-2007, 05:50 PM | #246 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
At this stage after his accident Dan had not been charged with anything either. And how do we know there was no citation for the powerboater?
This accident in itself is unimportant. However it has brought to light the fact that many people boat at night expecting anything in the way to have a light. 4Fun thinks he is not responsible if he hits a boat with no lights. I hope he never has to explain his theory to a jury, because they will not be buying it. What about a boat with a burned out light, what about children on a boat operated by an idiot. This is the typical "blame someone else" attitude that prevails by irresponsible members of our society. |
08-13-2007, 06:36 PM | #247 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Dan????
Quote:
Apples & oranges again...... |
|
08-13-2007, 07:05 PM | #248 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Batter up. JUST LET IT GO!!!! AS I SAID BEFORE THIS IS JUST PLAIN PATHETIC THE WAY YOU ARE TRYING TO FORWARD YOUR OWN AGENDA. WE ALL KNOW IT. CALL YOUR PUBLICIST. |
|||
08-13-2007, 07:21 PM | #249 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Hi Skip
What are the responsibilities of a boater to be able to see where he is going at night? Any laws on that. Can one assume that if there are no lights then nothing is there? Or is more diligence required? That question is not apples and oranges, it's strait to the point. |
08-13-2007, 07:31 PM | #250 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-13-2007, 07:46 PM | #251 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-13-2007, 08:02 PM | #252 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Gavia immer made me shake my head by writing:
Quote:
Give it up! |
|
08-13-2007, 08:14 PM | #253 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
How many fairies can dance.....
Quote:
Several posters have repeatedly statedthat since Littlefield was not convicted of the BWI offense that he was thus "innocent". A careful reading of the transcript you provided shows just the opposite. There has been no allegation of intoxication on the part of the operator of the power boat regarding this particular incident. And no, there is no concrete answer as to when a person has or has not maintained a proper lookout. That is why, if the accusation is made, the person is charged with an offense and then (depending on the level of the offense) has a hearing in District Court by a Judge(misdemeanor offense) or has a jury trial in Superior Court (for a felony offense). Any one of us is free to speculate ad nauseum about the issues surrounding this particular incident, but until any charges are brought and the issue is adjudicated we are all just taking shots in the dark, so to speak. But back to the case in front of us.... If no charges are brought, as appears more & more to be the case, then the only safe assumption we can make is that the State has determined the facts and circumstances gathered during their investigation did not arise to a sufficient level of probable cause to effect an arrest or summons. Many factors go in to the State's decision to pursue charges or drop a case. In this instance it appears the active investigation is winding down or completed. Once the investigation is completed a copy of the case can be reviewed by contacting the NHMP and requesting, under the State's Right-to-know law, the ability to review the same. Only at that time can the rampant speculation be put to rest. |
|
08-14-2007, 08:31 AM | #254 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Utopia
If this was a perfect world everyone out in the dark could see everything, and everyone boating will do what they are supposed to. But come on!!! you can be the most diligent boater out there and miss something, hence this is called an accident. Accidents do happen no matter how diligent everyone is. Everyone involved took a chance that evening. The kyakers took a chance by going out at night without lights and lost. The powerboater took a chance going out at night and lost by finding the one peice of water that happened to have an unlighted kayak in it. It was an accident, and a case of everyone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The chance of this meeting would have been much smaller if the kayak had a light, or even if the kayaker had a reflective sash on instead of nothing. As the saying goes [stuff] happens and unfortunately it happened to this group of people. Luckily no one was hurt besides the kayak.
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane |
08-14-2007, 08:41 AM | #255 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 66 Times in 38 Posts
|
Quote:
I never want to hit another boat. I will do everything in my power not to do so but I will absolutely NOT be held responsible if I hit another boat with no lights. Burned out or not. Whether there are children or nuns on board is irrelevant. The blame someone else attitude is in your comment!!! If you are out there with no lights YOU are to blame not me. I will be sober, keeping a proper lookout, and going a reasonable speed( no not 50mph in the dark) . I will be following the law. You will be nearly invisible and breaking the law. This is fact. I will put this to a jury and win every time. You better retain a good lawyer if I hit your unlit boat at night and someone in my boat is hurt. I do agree it's about time the "blame someone else" people are held accountable. Take responsibility for your own actions please. The laws you are pushing so strongly have nurtured all these idiots to get so far in life. They think the world is all warm and fuzzy since RSA1234 is there to keep them safe. We need to stop dummying down society to the lowest common denominator. There are some pretty dumb people out there and if we model our society around them we will grind to a halt. |
|
08-14-2007, 09:27 AM | #256 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 66 Times in 38 Posts
|
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=68561
Here is a relavent link from Long Lake in ME. Rumor has it the boat that was hit was "star gazing" with no lights on. ( A 17' hydrostream) It is not clear how fast the 31' was going but I would guess pretty fast seeing they got thrown out and the boat made it 100 yards on shore. This should be an interesting investigation..... Another report with slightly different boat info... Sorry no link... HARRISON — Maine Warden Service divers planned to resume their search this morning for the bodies of two people presumed to have been killed when a cigarette-style speedboat smashed into their 14-foot fiberglass boat Saturday night on Long Lake. The speed of the 34-foot, high-performance boat was such that when it hit shore moments after striking the smaller craft, it was launched 150 feet into the woods. The two occupants of the speedboat were thrown into the water in the collision, but were able to swim to shore. The warden service has launched a criminal investigation and has been instructed by the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office not to release the names of those who had been in the speedboat or the couple presumed to have died in the smaller boat, said Lt. Pat Dorian, head of search and rescue for the warden service. More than a dozen distraught family members and friends gathered on the shoreline near the staging area of the search, watching the boats, divers and a float plane scour a half-mile by quarter-mile area. Friends in the town of Naples lamented the loss of a local musician who had a wide circle of friends. Investigators have not concluded whether the boats involved had the required bow and stern lights, or if so, were using them when the crash happened at about 9 p.m. off Bear Point on the east side of Long Lake near the town line. The speedboat and the recovered bow of the fiberglass boat have been taken to the Maine State Police crime lab in Augusta for analysis. Police were called to the east shore of Long Lake by a resident who heard the larger boat crash into the shore. The occupants were found swimming to shore and were taken for medical treatment. It was two hours later that wardens found the flotsam of the smaller boat, but it is unclear precisely where the collision occurred, leaving divers with a huge search area, Dorian said. The searchers were skimming the bottom in 30 to 45 feet of water, with about 10 feet of visibility when the sun was shining. A boat towing two divers was using global positioning software to record the areas that had been searched. The searchers were looking for the missing couple or the boat's 115 Mercury outboard motor, which sank and could help them narrow their search, Dorian said. However, soft mud and silt at the bottom could have buried the motor, he said. People in Naples said one of the missing people was Raye Trott, and that the other was presumably his girlfriend, who was not from the area. The couple had headed out on his boat on Saturday and had not returned to their vehicles after the crash. Friends gathered Sunday at Bray's Brew Pub, a popular Naples hangout where Trott often performed in a local band, in hopes the search would bring good news. They left disappointed. "It's obviously very disappointing for anyone who knew him," said Angela Roux, a waitress at the pub. "He was a great musician, a great friend and he had a big heart." Seth Merriam said Trott was a good friend who was fond of riding his customized Harley-Davidson motorcycle and who had a coarse, but warm, sense of humor. "He tells some pretty funny jokes you wouldn't tell your grandmother," Merriam recalled. "He was really down to earth and funny." Merriam said he was in Naples talking to his girlfriend on the telephone Saturday just before the crash, and heard a cigarette boat accelerate loudly after passing the bridge by the Naples Causeway. He remarked about it to his girlfriend because he had been in one for the first time earlier in the day and was amazed at how fast it was and how much of the lake it consumed as it roared down the narrow body of water. Merriam guessed that Trott may have sought the dark, open expanse of sky offered on the lake Saturday night to take in the Perseid meteor shower, which could have been a reason to turn off the boat's navigational lights. Boats under way are required to have a white light on the stern and a red and green light on the bow. Maine law defines reckless operation as operating a watercraft to recklessly create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person. Another law defines operating to endanger as operating a watercraft so as to endanger a person or property. Boats also must be operated at reasonable and prudent speeds. Violation of any of those laws is a misdemeanor. "Speed is a factor on many of our lakes and ponds in southern Maine," Dorian said, noting that congested lakes during the summer are particularly dangerous. "It's an accident waiting to happen. Those kinds of things are compounded when you're traveling at night," he said. Searchers planned to return to Bear Point today to continue the search for the missing couple and for evidence. "I don't have a doubt we'll go for days until we find the missing victims," Dorian said. |
08-14-2007, 10:37 AM | #257 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Just what I was thinking. . .
Thanks Parrothead - you summed up my thoughts. This was an accident. I can't tell you how "fast" we were going, but I can say, for what it's worth, that I at no time felt unsafe, or that we were moving at an excessive speed - based on the speeds I have travelled at other times on the lake (as a passenger). My immeidate reaction when I saw the kayak in two pieces was that the prop caused the damage. Yes there was moonlight, but make no mistake that it was still dark. I just don't think, until it happens to you or you witness it, that you can place blame on the captain.
|
08-14-2007, 11:08 AM | #258 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,522
Thanks: 747
Thanked 344 Times in 257 Posts
|
Really?
Quote:
I agree that it was an accident and if you had to put blame it would be the kayak with no lights. Speed could have come into play here but if lights were on you would have to imagine steps would have been taken, even with this said, the illegal act was being on the lake at night with no lights |
|
08-14-2007, 08:31 PM | #259 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
Hows that? |
|
08-14-2007, 10:32 PM | #260 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
I have read the entire thread and I don't see what you are getting at. Both sides have expressed their opinion, I don't see where anyone has had their "scenario discredited". There seems to be a difference of opinion about vision and boating in the dark. Quite frankly it has made me think about my night operation. I'm not sure where I come down on this. But why the mystery? Who are you talking about? What is the "agenda"? |
|
08-15-2007, 08:46 AM | #261 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
|
|
08-15-2007, 09:44 AM | #262 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
|
Quote:
Good luck in your quest for speed limits(said facetiously for those how like to twist things). I've had enough of this thread and feel it should be closed. Beating a dead horse is a understatement. |
|
08-15-2007, 10:07 AM | #263 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
I think YOU are the one with the agenda. Because you don't like speed limits is no reason to bash people that do! This thread has very little to do with speed limits, I can't see where ANY proposed speed limit would have made a difference in this case. |
|
08-15-2007, 11:55 AM | #264 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
I agree!
This accident and this thread are not about the 45/25 proposed speed limit. It does involve the question of how fast is reasonable at night. That determination depends on the conditions. There are some instances where it is possible to go quite fast at night in reasonable safety. A lot also depends on the operators night vision and experience. A 25 mph night speed limit is a compromise at best, and 45 mph during the day is to low. If you want to go back and read posts, check out #21 where the entire story of the accident is thought to be BS, and must therefore have been invented by people on Bear Island. That is called bashing. Asking for a thread to be closed is a typical responses when someone's own voracity or agenda is challenged. |
08-15-2007, 12:07 PM | #265 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Island Lover wrote:
Quote:
The "powerboater is always wrong" crowd first accused the powerboater in question of not keeping a proper lookout. I am just pointing out that it was also the responsiblity of the kayker to keep a proper lookout, and based on his action of abandoning his boat it is reasonable to say he saw the approaching vessel and rather than paddle out of the way he jumped out of his boat thus taking his second action to directly cause the accident! (The first was being out on the water after midnight without proper lighting) Of course when we found out from someone on board the powerboat that not only was there a proper lookout posted, but an active search ahead of the boat with a spotlight...well, then the argument turned to: Quote:
I tend to agree with LocalRealtor, enough is enough until someone can obtain a copy of the MP report on this case. |
||
08-15-2007, 12:19 PM | #266 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Quote:
Quote:
The powerboat operator is responsible for nothing more than hitting an unlighted object, period. If they hit a floating tree, dock, ect. its the same deal, they are responsible for the damage to their own craft and learn a lesson about being more vigilant in their watch. No forum threads, no news reports, no one dies or is traumatized for life. But throw in a couple of kayakers and now someone has to spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact that they almost killed someone. To shift responsibility for anything more then the damage to the powerboaters own vessel onto the powerboaters is a ridiculous attempt by the GSBQ (Go Slow, Be Quiet) crowd to shout from the hilltops about how irresponsible powerboaters are. Now heres a great question, whos to say that capt. neckeds hasty retreat from his kayak didn't push said kayak into the powerboaters path?
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet? Now? |
||
08-15-2007, 12:57 PM | #267 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,360
Thanks: 210
Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-15-2007, 01:04 PM | #268 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
I disagree. Darkness is a mitigating factor, just like snow, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities. Since I am a powerboater myself, I will not blame them as a group. My boat can go 60 mph and frequently does. And several anti speed limit people are in agreement with me about night boating. Read the very logical things Silver Duck said in post 66 and 102. I agree with him 100%. I assume the only reason he was not bashed is because he opposes 25/45. |
|
08-15-2007, 07:04 PM | #269 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
|
Quote:
You say it's good common sense, and I agree. There needs to be more common sense used while boating at night, not entitlement and outrage. |
|
08-15-2007, 08:29 PM | #270 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
So is boating on a dark night irresponsible
Quote:
"Obviously it is not possible to see everything that may be in the water, especially at night. " and "If you can't see where you are going, YOU DON'T GO!" To me it sure sounds like nighttime boating, except for perhaps when the full moon is overhead, is verbotten in your book. Do I understand you correctly ?
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-15-2007, 09:11 PM | #271 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
I believe an operator must regulate their speed to match the conditions. Even then boating at night caries risks. Like driving in a snowstorm, you need to make adjustments to match the conditions, even then accidents happen. However many operators have taken this one step to far. They think it is the responsibility of anyone or anything on the lake at night to have a light. This is NUTS. Someone can be out on the lake at night without any lights and not breaking any laws. If you run them down you better have a better story than they didn't have a light. |
|
08-15-2007, 09:44 PM | #272 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
Huh II ?
Quote:
OK, now I'm baffled. You stated that if you can't see, "you don't go" and that the responsibility to avoid unlit objects (swimmers, boats, canoes, etc) lies with the boat operator. Yet you state above you've crossed the lake many times when you could have easily run down a swimmer (assuming there had been one in your path) because "it isn't possible to see every obstacle in the water at night". So what would have been your story should such a thing have occurred to you some dark, rainy night ? What makes your unsafe speed different from the unsafe speed in this incident ?
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-15-2007, 10:03 PM | #273 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
Perhaps I should have said "if you can't see well enough, you don't go" it is not possible to see everything at night. This is in contrast to the "I don't see any lights, so I can go" theory I disagree with. |
|
08-15-2007, 10:30 PM | #274 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 08:01 AM | #275 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane |
|
08-16-2007, 08:07 AM | #276 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Confused?
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 09:28 AM | #277 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 66 Times in 38 Posts
|
Quote:
This was exactly my point earlier. You have to operate your boat in a safe manor taking precautions for the unexpected. But you can not remove ALL risk from boating. If you did you would stay on land. I will do my part by taking all precautions(sober, vigilant, proceed with caution). That's why I regulate my speed accordingly. IF, I can see I go. If not, I go SLOW. It's that simple. What my point was after taking all the reasonable precautions and there is still an unlit manned object in the water that is nearly impossible to see the blame is one them in a crash. I just want the people who think it's there right to kayak or swim without lights away from shore to understand the risk they are putting on THEMSELVES. |
|
08-16-2007, 10:01 AM | #278 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
swimming .. |
|
08-16-2007, 04:02 PM | #279 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 04:48 PM | #280 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
Swimming at night in navigable waters is done all the time. A very normal thing to do. Perhaps you mean swimming at night a long way from shore. Even then there are good sane reasons. And it is completely legal. |
|
08-16-2007, 05:38 PM | #281 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Unlghted boat, unlighted swimmer? Apples and Oranges
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If, God forbid, I was out at night (at 1:30 in the morning) and struck a swimmer that was more than 150 feet from shore I seriously doubt there is a jury in the world, or even NH, that would find me at fault. BTW, I did respond to the question regarding post 234 in post 265 (I think it is 265 but the numbers aren't listed in the "write mode"), it was delayed in posting due to moderator. Not a critical comment, just fact. |
|||||
08-16-2007, 06:33 PM | #282 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Quote:
Operating an unlit boat is not much of a topic, you are an idiot and you are breaking the law. What if that swimmer was 50 feet from a properly lighted boat at anchor? What if their canoe, with a light, had overturned and they a waiting for rescue. What if instead of just laying there they were kicking their feet to rise out of the water, waving their arms and screaming at you at the top of their lungs. And they are 151 feet from shore. Still sure about that jury? What about the testimony that you had three beers at dinner? That you were looking back and talking to your passengers? That you didn't have a current chart on board? |
|
08-16-2007, 07:06 PM | #283 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,657
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
-lg |
|
08-16-2007, 07:46 PM | #284 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,360
Thanks: 210
Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 08:13 PM | #285 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
|
Why is the lighted canoe that tips over up for a Dawin Award? They were not breaking any laws or doing anything stupid. The canoe may have tiped because of the wake of a GFBL.
Anyway the question was would the boat operator be in any trouble. And in any of those instances the operator is going to be asked some very tough questions. Could you see where you where going? If you had trouble seeing why didn't you slow down? Why couldn't you hear them screaming? If you tell the jury "I didn't see a light so I gave it the gas" you are going to end up in a very small room. |
08-16-2007, 08:23 PM | #286 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
The topic, as I understand it is, who is responsible, liable, for this accident?
The responsibility of ALL boaters is to keep a proper lookout and have the required lighting at night. If you'd like to visit the USCG Navigation rules site they do have an FAQ section in which they point out that even a ONE PERSON vessel, including an 18 foot boat or kayaks and canoes, have to adhere to Navigation Rules. To the best of my knowledge, NH has adopted the USCG Navigation rules as law. The USCG Nav site also has a FAQ about kayaks and canoes and the response is that, based on the NAV RULES, they are treated like a small sailboat. Let's review: The kayaker(s) went out at night without lights. The kaykers(s) eventually found themselves in the path of a lighted underway vessel. The kayker abandonded his boat leaving the (probably) overturned kayak, unlighted, unmaned, and in the direct path of the powerboat. The powerboat went out at night with required navigation lights on and functioning. The powerboat found itself in a position that it required a spotlight to find the next navigation marker The powerboat, with a spotlight in use, struck an abandonded, capsized boat (kayak) in the water. As I posted many many many posts ago. I have had personal experience in coming across an unlighted boat at night. The boat I nearly hit was a fully loaded 21 foot pontoon boat. They had lots of lights on the boat, but not a stern light. I came up from behind and nearly hit them because I didn't see them. Both of our boats were going at barely above headway speed. I swung around the pontoon boat to come along side to apologize about what I had almost done, and to my utter horror, when I came up behind it again, the boat, THAT I HAD IN MY SIGHT AND WAS WATCHING! disappeared from view. The area where I knew there was a boat, it was invisible, no boat, nothing but black! We're not talking about on Winnipesaukee somewhere out in the Broads, we're not talking about off the coast of Newburyport where folks crowd into the mouth of the river to get home. I am talking about the Merrimack River in LOWELL! We were headed out for the fireworks so both sides of the river were well lighted! And still, even knowing where the boat was after I almost hit it and lots of light from both shores, NOTHING BUT BLACK! So, I pulled up along side the pontoon boat to talk to the owner. When I told him what happened, he understood and repositioned his stern light so that instead of lighting the deck of his boat it actually was useful for other boats to see. Bottom line. An unlighted boat on the water, whether it's a 21 foot pontoon boat or a kayak, is INVISIBLE AT NIGHT! If it is unlighted it is at fault for any accident. Period. A swimmer is not covered by the Navigation laws. If you're stupid enough to be swimming after dark in an area where there is boat traffic then you stand a good risk of being killed. A kayak IS required to follow ALL navigation rules. Quote:
If the powerboat hit a swimmer 50 feet from shore the powerboat operater is totally at fault. The powerboater in this case hit an unmanned, unlighted hazard to navigation and you folks are trying to place the blame on the skipper of the powerboater? It was not the powerboaters fault in any way shape or form! The naked kayakers should have been charged! |
|
08-16-2007, 08:37 PM | #287 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
No one allowed at night!
BTW who said there was alcohol involved in this incidnet?
Islander: Quote:
It's over! |
|
08-16-2007, 08:38 PM | #288 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
And to follow up ...
Quote:
D/A : So it was dark and raining and you were headed to your island that night ? Islander : Yes sir but I was proceeding at no wake speed. D/A : Yes but you admit you couldn't, didn't see the person in the water. Islander : It isn't possible to see every obstacle in the water at night. D/A : So why did you go out that night ? Islander : {insert answer here} The point being that there are circumstances we can imagine, however unlikely, that will lead to the boat overrunning the person in the water no matter how cautious the boater may be. You either believe you can boat responsibly under these conditions or you believe that you must stay at the dock, no matter how unlikely you think the possible circumstance may be.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-16-2007, 08:41 PM | #289 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Not the swimmers fault in any case. The swimmer has just as much right to be on the lake, day or night, as the boat.
It is incredible that there are people who think they can run over a swimmer! |
08-16-2007, 08:57 PM | #290 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Hey, the fish have to eat too - variety is the spice of life...
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ] |
|
08-16-2007, 09:03 PM | #291 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
|
Let's keep them separate
Okay, so kayakers and canoeist and swimmers apparently want certain concessions from powerboaters. How about some from the human-powered mode of transportation? I propose that swimmers, kayakers and canoeist must remain within 150' of shore at night.
You all are in such trouble when I become empress of the universe. |
08-16-2007, 09:10 PM | #292 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
Swimmers again
Quote:
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
08-16-2007, 09:41 PM | #293 |
Senior Member
|
And we are right back to The reason they keep beating this horse
"The canoe may have tiped because of the wake of a GFBL." Islander
There is that agenda again......It must be those Scary boats again! I hope the Reps in Concord are following this saga.... I know it has been pointed out to them. This incident will never fit the mold you keep trying to put it in... you know the We need a speed limit to get rid of these GFBL's we don't like mold. PS: Fact: GFBL's produce less wake at speed ! |
Bookmarks |
|
|