Keenan & Julie wrote:


Very sorry to hear of your injuries, but isn't the main issue here that you
were paddling at night in an unsafe area for paddling at night? Maybe? It
sounds like you were lucky not to be killed!


Many thanks for your sympathies, and yes, as I'd originally stated,
it's actually the rocks which may have saved me from being plunged
deeply into water.

But what's an area unsafe for paddling at night? AFAIK, the East River
isn't considered so, at least not "naturally" speaking. There was very
little traffic, too -- in another post I'd detailed five motorcraft in
roughly four hours of paddling.

And I'm still puzzled that no one can answer these three fairly obvious
and basic questions:

Where is a paddler supposed to be if not along the shoreline?

Why allow police motorcraft to speed up along the shoreline in
darkness?

What good are those giant halogen lights on the police boat, then???


I understand I can avoid all this by just staying home. But then
that's not exactly an answer to these questions. Why should the rivers
be more dangerous than NYC streets?? Think about it.

in article , NYC XYZ at
wrote on 7/28/05 9:32 AM:


Keenan & Julie wrote:


Very sorry to hear of your injuries, but isn't the main issue here that you
were paddling at night in an unsafe area for paddling at night? Maybe? It
sounds like you were lucky not to be killed!


Many thanks for your sympathies, and yes, as I'd originally stated,
it's actually the rocks which may have saved me from being plunged
deeply into water.

But what's an area unsafe for paddling at night? AFAIK, the East River
isn't considered so, at least not "naturally" speaking. There was very
little traffic, too -- in another post I'd detailed five motorcraft in
roughly four hours of paddling.

And I'm still puzzled that no one can answer these three fairly obvious
and basic questions:

Where is a paddler supposed to be if not along the shoreline?

There would be exceptions (there are some places a paddler is not supposed
to be at all) but my answer to your question would be, generally, that the
shorline would normally be a good place to be to avoid getting run over by a
powerboat.

Why allow police motorcraft to speed up along the shoreline in
darkness?

I would assume for the same type of reasons a police car might speed along a
road.

What good are those giant halogen lights on the police boat, then???

Unless you are suggesting they deliberately tried to kill you, it's rather
irrelevant, because they didn't see you.

I understand I can avoid all this by just staying home. But then
that's not exactly an answer to these questions. Why should the rivers
be more dangerous than NYC streets?? Think about it.

There's no evidence the river is more dangerous. That is not to say that you
were not in danger.

Keenan & Julie wrote:


There would be exceptions (there are some places a paddler is not supposed
to be at all) but my answer to your question would be, generally, that the
shorline would normally be a good place to be to avoid getting run over by a
powerboat.

And what are the actual laws and regs, if any? I'm really curious,
because if one can't even be safe where one's supposed to be safe,
what's the point?

I would assume for the same type of reasons a police car might speed along a
road.

Wouldn't they have sirens and horns flashing? Wouldn't they go along
the middle of the river where "sailing" is best?

Unless you are suggesting they deliberately tried to kill you, it's rather
irrelevant, because they didn't see you.

It's not irrelevant if the conversation's turning on whether I have
done what I can to make myself be seen -- have THEY done what they can
to see, like, open their eyes?

There's no evidence the river is more dangerous. That is not to say that you
were not in danger.

Um, despite all the car accidents, random shootings, roller-bladers,
loose dogs, and drunk investment bankers, NYC streets are still more
predictable than NYC rivers, as my case attests!

Why, if I had reported that I crossed the street on my green and a
police vehicle not flashing sirens swiped me onto the curb, would folks
still be asking me what was I doing crossing the street?

Seriously, I want to know -- what is the point of their halogen lights
if the onus is on me to be seen? What is the point of my sticking to
the shoreline if they're still at liberty to charge up it in the dark?

in article , NYC XYZ at
wrote on 7/28/05 10:31 AM:


Keenan & Julie wrote:


There would be exceptions (there are some places a paddler is not supposed
to be at all) but my answer to your question would be, generally, that the
shorline would normally be a good place to be to avoid getting run over by a
powerboat.

And what are the actual laws and regs, if any?

Why don't you look them up?

I'm really curious,
because if one can't even be safe where one's supposed to be safe,
what's the point?

I would assume for the same type of reasons a police car might speed along a
road.

Wouldn't they have sirens and horns flashing? Wouldn't they go along
the middle of the river where "sailing" is best?

I don't know why they were there.

Unless you are suggesting they deliberately tried to kill you, it's rather
irrelevant, because they didn't see you.

It's not irrelevant if the conversation's turning on whether I have
done what I can to make myself be seen -- have THEY done what they can
to see, like, open their eyes?

Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant.
They didn't see you.

There's no evidence the river is more dangerous. That is not to say that you
were not in danger.

Um, despite all the car accidents, random shootings, roller-bladers,
loose dogs, and drunk investment bankers, NYC streets are still more
predictable than NYC rivers, as my case attests!

Predictable is not the same as safer. Your case only attests to the fact
that there was one incident where you browned your shorts.

Why, if I had reported that I crossed the street on my green and a
police vehicle not flashing sirens swiped me onto the curb, would folks
still be asking me what was I doing crossing the street?

They might. You seem to have an irritating quality.

Seriously, I want to know -- what is the point of their halogen lights
if the onus is on me to be seen? What is the point of my sticking to
the shoreline if they're still at liberty to charge up it in the dark?

I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in
her jurisdiction, isn't it?

Keenan & Julie wrote:


Why don't you look them up?

Figured folks like you who know so much would know at least this much.

I don't know why they were there.

So why make it an issue of why I was there, and under what
circumstances? One poster in this NG even wanted to know what I was
doing out at night!

Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant.
They didn't see you.

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?

Because it says so in the Bible.

Do you not see your constant circular reasoning?

Predictable is not the same as safer.

You bet your accuary degree it is! What do you think the insurance
industry gambles on? For that matter, how do you think casinos make
their money?

Your case only attests to the fact
that there was one incident where you browned your shorts.

No, reddened my shirt is what happened. But your mentality speaks to
why you paddle in circles.

They might. You seem to have an irritating quality.

Sure -- you chase your own tail and blame me for your dizziness!

I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in
her jurisdiction, isn't it?

Oh, sorry, thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not alt.whatever.

I'll continue learning this sport, no thanks to you, but my advice to
you is to take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next
Presidential elections.

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

Keenan & Julie wrote:


Why don't you look them up?

Figured folks like you who know so much would know at least this much.

I live in Canada. As such, I am not well versed in the rules governing
police boats in New York. Since you actually use those waters, it would make
sense for you to find out what the rules are for that jurisdiction.

I don't know why they were there.

So why make it an issue of why I was there, and under what
circumstances? One poster in this NG even wanted to know what I was
doing out at night!

I'm not everyone on this NG. I didn't have a meeting or talk to anyone else
here before responding to you. Try to focus, you are sounding paranoid.

Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is
irrelevant.
They didn't see you.

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?

Because it says so in the Bible.

Do you not see your constant circular reasoning?

My statement is not an example of circular reasoning.

You have no evidence whatsoever that the police made a deliberate attempt to
hit you. Nor have you suggested any plausible reason why they would attempt
to do so. Thus, all logic points to the probability that they simply did not
see you.

Predictable is not the same as safer.

You bet your accuary degree it is! What do you think the insurance
industry gambles on? For that matter, how do you think casinos make
their money?

It is decidely not the same. This is illogical. Very illogical.

Just as knowing that the odds are against you at the casino does not help
you come out a winner, knowing that the roads are dangerous does not make
them safer to travel.

Your case only attests to the fact
that there was one incident where you browned your shorts.

No, reddened my shirt is what happened. But your mentality speaks to
why you paddle in circles.

yawn

They might. You seem to have an irritating quality.

Sure -- you chase your own tail and blame me for your dizziness!

yawn

I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's
in
her jurisdiction, isn't it?

Oh, sorry, thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not alt.whatever.

I'll continue learning this sport, no thanks to you, but my advice to
you is to take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next
Presidential elections.

Take a look at what you have written here and give some thought as to
whether or not you are in a position to hand out advice of this nature.

Keenan & Julie wrote:


I live in Canada. As such, I am not well versed in the rules governing
police boats in New York. Since you actually use those waters, it would make
sense for you to find out what the rules are for that jurisdiction.

Wow, funny that after all the other advice you have for me, you're so
shy and humble over the one point which matters, that I'd originally
asked about!

I'm not everyone on this NG. I didn't have a meeting or talk to anyone else
here before responding to you. Try to focus, you are sounding paranoid.

I didn't say you were "everyone." Get rid of the water in your ears.

My statement is not an example of circular reasoning.

And here we have yet another example of your fine reasoning processes:
conclusion by fiat.

You have no evidence whatsoever that the police made a deliberate attempt to
hit you.

This was never an issue. Why do you insist on making it one?

Nor have you suggested any plausible reason why they would attempt
to do so.

Never an issue. Are you going to go on about WMDs next?

Thus, all logic points to the probability that they simply did not
see you.

Never an issue, said issue remaining being whether it makes any sense
to leave the middle of the river open for motorized traffic if said
motorized traffic will still just race up the shoreline anyway.

It is decidely not the same. This is illogical. Very illogical.

Sigh...like I said, go talk to your insurance company.

Just as knowing that the odds are against you at the casino does not help
you come out a winner,

No ****, Sherlock -- knowing the odds are against you "helps" you come
out a loser! Knowing the odds are with you helps you come out a
winner. You're mixing up odds for and against with what
predicatability/probability means vis-a-vis safety.

knowing that the roads are dangerous does not make
them safer to travel.

Knowing something's safer means knowing the odds FOR; knowing
something's more dangerous means knowing the odds AGAINST. But knowing
the odds for OR against is better -- because it makes for more informed
decision-making -- and thus safer, than not knowing. Hence the
relationship between safety and predicatability.

Hell's bells, but you really do have a screw loose up there.

And I say that not with malice, only exhaustion.

yawn

Sorry to have woken you up.

yawn

But don't forget your pills!

Take a look at what you have written here and give some thought as to
whether or not you are in a position to hand out advice of this nature.

OMG!!!

It's just like straight out of the Bible: guy walks up to Jesus and
asks, Teacher, why doesn't God just show Himself? And Christ looks him
straight in the eye and says that even if He did, folks still wouldn't
believe in Him.

Keenan & Julie wrote:


Why don't you look them up?

Funny that the only substantive thing you can offer, you don't.

I don't know why they were there.

The question is where they should be on a river.

Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant.
They didn't see you.

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?

Because it says so in the Bible.

Do you not see your circular reasoning going round and round?

Predictable is not the same as safer.

Ask your insurance why you pay the premium you do.

Your case only attests to the fact
that there was one incident where you browned your shorts.

Reddened my shirt, in fact.

Your response only attests to the fact that you're upset you can't
convince me I was wrong to have been paddling close to the shoreline.

They might. You seem to have an irritating quality.

Don't blame me for your dizziness chasing your own tail.

I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in
her jurisdiction, isn't it?

Oh, sorry, I thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not
alt.keenan.julie.whatever.

Take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next Presidential
election, please.

On 28 Jul 2005 07:31:04 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote:

...
because if one can't even be safe where one's supposed to be safe,
what's the point?
....

Personally, I think that this statement is indicative of a false
expectation. You aren't "safe" anywhere, people have been struck and
killed by lightning while in a church, and if you aren't "safe" there,
where can you expect to be? It is almost universally stated that operators
of watercraft are required to maintain a sharp lookout to avoid situations
such as you experienced, and to avoid any problems with their own craft as
well. It is almost as universally acknowledged that many operators neglect
to do so. I've paddled among stinkpots (power boats) a bunch, and assume
that they are all out to get me. While most are not, I have had far too
many experiences where they simply have not seen me, and seemed to be
trying their darnedest to hit me, along with a few that actually seemed to
play a game of "Sink the Kayak." One thing about stinkpots, you can
usually hear them coming and may have time to prepare. There is nothing
"safe" about crawling into a boat and there is certainly nothing "safe"
about being on the water, especially when there are larger boats about.
There are many things you can do to minimize the danger, but you can
never, ever be "safe." I go paddling because even with the risks involved,
I get benefits that to me far outweigh the relative safety of the shore.
Perhaps you should reconsider why you paddle. Having said all that, it is
indeed a bummer that you experienced what you did.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We'll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head

Galen Hekhuis wrote:


Personally, I think that this statement is indicative of a false
expectation. You aren't "safe" anywhere, people have been struck and
killed by lightning while in a church, and if you aren't "safe" there,
where can you expect to be?

A police boat is not an act of God.

It is almost universally stated that operators
of watercraft are required to maintain a sharp lookout to avoid situations
such as you experienced, and to avoid any problems with their own craft as
well. It is almost as universally acknowledged that many operators neglect
to do so.

And what no one has been able to advise yet is what more I could have
done!

I've paddled among stinkpots (power boats) a bunch, and assume
that they are all out to get me. While most are not, I have had far too
many experiences where they simply have not seen me, and seemed to be
trying their darnedest to hit me, along with a few that actually seemed to
play a game of "Sink the Kayak." One thing about stinkpots, you can
usually hear them coming and may have time to prepare.

Did you even read my post, or are you just getting something off your
chest here????

There is nothing
"safe" about crawling into a boat and there is certainly nothing "safe"
about being on the water, especially when there are larger boats about.

There's nothing safe about eating meat, there's nothing safe about
driving a car, there's nothing safe in living past 70...do you know
what "non sequitur" means?

There are many things you can do to minimize the danger, but you can
never, ever be "safe."

Uh, sorry, didn't realize this was alt.usage.english. Or should that
be sci.semantics?

I go paddling because even with the risks involved,
I get benefits that to me far outweigh the relative safety of the shore.
Perhaps you should reconsider why you paddle. Having said all that, it is
indeed a bummer that you experienced what you did.

I give now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist.
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."

Ogden Nash, "The Purist"


You folks actually want to advocate this sport, or do you like feeling
these exclusive airs?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We'll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head