John Fereira wrote:


I believe on of the site I read indicated that the incident occurred between
5:45 and 6:00am. I don't live all that far from New York City and leave for
work around 7:00am and it's still quite dark.

I don't recall that morning being "quite dark." It was rainy, sure,
and thus not the broad daylight I'd originally imagined.

Certainly visibility was an issue. Just think the powercraft should be
a heck of a lot more careful. If you're behind an engine, I think it
should be AUTOMATICALLY ENCUMBENT upon you to watch out and not get
into an accident.

What's so controversial about that???

Why is it necessary to assign blame?

If you have rules, and you have an accident, you investigate who
followed the rules. Either the rules aren't good enough if they were
followed, or someone didn't follow the rules.

What's so controversial about that???

The way I remember the previous
episode was that the fellow paddlers here were not claiming that the police
patrol boat was not at fault, but that ultimately that we are all
responsible for our own safety.

You recall incorrectly, then.

"Responsibilities" imply "rights"...my responsibility to my safety on
the water thus implies the right to hug the shoreline such that I do
all I can to avoid motor-boats. Once that responsibility has been met,
it's incumbent upon the power-boaters to STAY AWAY from the shoreline.

My responsibility to my safety in the dark means having a light with
me. Once that responsibility has been met, it's incumbent upon the
power-boaters to PAY ATTENTION for lights on the water.

Legally, a motor vehicle must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and if
I'm in a cross walk and am run over by a motor vehicle the fault would be
attributed to the driver of the motor vehicle.

Exactly.

Pragmatically, when a
collision involving a 2 ton motorized vehicle and a human occurs, the human
suffers the greatest amount of damage.

Yeah, and practically speaking, none of you paddlers should be out on
the water in the first place! Why not just reduce the risk to
0%...doh!

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

Subsequently assigning blame isn't
as much an issue as who might be living the rest of their life crippled or
have their life ended right there.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

Similarly, in a collision between a
large power boat and a small paddle craft the operator of the paddlecraft is
going to suffer the greatest damage. While maritime right-of-way laws might
give the right of way to the paddle craft, those that take responsibility
for their own safety take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure their
safety rather than assume the rules of the road are going offer complete
protection.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.

That means that carrying a light might meet a legal obligation
but if the light is not sufficient enough to prevent a near collision, most
rational people would conclude that having a brighter light (or maybe just
not paddling at night in certain waterways) will going further in preventing
a future incident than getting a bunch of people to support you in assigning
blame.

Nice try at a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, but this isn't what I was arguing in
the first place, ever. It's really pitiful that you continue to bark
up the wrong tree.