Wiped Out by NYPD Harbor Patrol! (Sea Eagle Paddleski Review)
 

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

It was dark, nine-something, and so of course I'm paddling very close
to shore -- no more than ten feet at any given time. Then this NYPD
Harbor Patrol boat comes up the river towards me! I'm paddling even
closer to shore now, when suddenly it zips by like five feet away and
capsizes me with an eight-foot wave!! (I know it's at least eight feet
'cause that's how long the PaddleSki paddles are.)

I'm dashed to the rocks and all cut-up: right cheek, forearms, right
shoulder, right thigh....

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!

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?

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

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.

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

"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.

On 28 Jul 2005 13:23:38 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote:

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.

I didn't claim it was. I simply gave an illustration of people having a
false sense of safety.

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!

Let me spell it out for you then. Your insistence on being given advice on
what more you "could have done" depends entirely on the supposition that
someone else may have noticed or behaved according to some set of rules. I
am pointing out that no matter what you do, people (in your case, a police
boat) don't always notice nor do they always play by the rules, regardless
of who they are.

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????

I read your post, I also read many of the responses to it. Again I say
that you seem to be expecting something that is impossible to achieve.

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?

Yes, and in a discussion about safety in a boat on the water I discussed
your perception of safety, not how you feel about eating meat, or driving a
car, or any of the things you mention. Do you know the meaning of "non
sequitur"?

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?

Neither. Even a simpleton can see that a statement about never being safe
in the water is hardly a semantic or syntactical issue.

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"

In that particular case, the difference between an alligator and a
crocodile is quite dramatic. I live where there are several many
alligators, and the southern part of the state (where I also go paddling)
is the only place in the entire world where alligators and crocodiles
cohabitate. Alligators are generally harmless and for the most part not
aggressive at all, while crocodiles are quite frequently rather aggressive.
The instances of alligator attacks are minuscule when compared to crocodile
attacks. It would indeed be strange for anyone to be attacked by an
unprovoked alligator (although it has happened). I can understand,
however, that many people think that this is a "distinction without a
difference," as many consider "alligator" to be somewhat synonymous with
"crocodile."

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

I neither advocate this sport, nor do I actively try to discourage people
from taking it up. I've lived on sailboats, and have sailed from places in
Hawaii to the ICW on the east coast. Whenever you leave land for a boat on
the water there are things which can "get you" no matter what precautions
you take. I have found quite often that safety is frequently in the hands
of the sailor, not in being observed or noticed by others, and not in the
"Rules of the Road," no matter how much in the right you may be. If you
would rather argue (and that does seem to be the case, based on your
responses to this thread) than have risks pointed out to you, you'll have
to find someone else with whom to argue.

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

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.

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.

Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On 28 Jul 2005 13:23:38 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote:

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.

I didn't claim it was. I simply gave an illustration of people having a
false sense of safety.

AMAZING!!! Talk about apples and oranges -- no, apples and basketballs
-- and chutzpah on top of it all!

You compared the incomparable, and now say you didn't mean by that
comparison that they were comparable.

Astounding! And creepy, too.

Let me spell it out for you then. Your insistence on being given advice on
what more you "could have done" depends entirely on the supposition that
someone else may have noticed or behaved according to some set of rules.

THE WHOLE POINT of "what can I do" is PRECISELY BECAUSE of the
assumption that the other party will not have noticed or behaved
accordingly. The whole point of defensive driving is that the other
party's not going to be helpful at all.

I
am pointing out that no matter what you do, people (in your case, a police
boat) don't always notice nor do they always play by the rules, regardless
of who they are.

So then is the answer that I have done all I could have, after all?
After all this attempt at blaming the victim, can you finally admit
that I've done all I should have, had my lights and hugged the shore?

I read your post, I also read many of the responses to it. Again I say
that you seem to be expecting something that is impossible to achieve.

Impossible to achieve safety, you mean?

Safety is no accident. I guess we just have different philosophical
orientations towards life.

Y'all just have this very, very strange bias towards the victim of a
boating mishap through no fault of his own. I noticed it right away,
and I can only say that it's just like in the Book of Job....

Yes, and in a discussion about safety in a boat on the water I discussed
your perception of safety, not how you feel about eating meat, or driving a
car, or any of the things you mention. Do you know the meaning of "non
sequitur"?

Yes, and in a discussion about how safety in a boat is achieved it's
TOTALLY BESIDES THE POINT -- NON SEQUITUR, DOES NOT FOLLOW -- to
discuss how my expectation of safety following rules and such is like
expecting to be safe from lightening in a church.

NOW do you know what "non sequitur" means??

Neither. Even a simpleton can see that a statement about never being safe
in the water is hardly a semantic or syntactical issue.

Even less than a simpleton can see it's definitely a semantic issue
because you know what I mean but since you want to blame the victim --
how dare you think you can enjoy this sport safely! -- you want to make
"safety" mean "percetion OF safety."

In that particular case, the difference between an alligator and a
crocodile is quite dramatic. I live where there are several many
alligators, and the southern part of the state (where I also go paddling)
is the only place in the entire world where alligators and crocodiles
cohabitate. Alligators are generally harmless and for the most part not
aggressive at all, while crocodiles are quite frequently rather aggressive.
The instances of alligator attacks are minuscule when compared to crocodile
attacks. It would indeed be strange for anyone to be attacked by an
unprovoked alligator (although it has happened). I can understand,
however, that many people think that this is a "distinction without a
difference," as many consider "alligator" to be somewhat synonymous with
"crocodile."

LOL -- but for the purposes of "missing his bride," it doesn't matter
what she was eaten by, was she?

It's like the old Buddhist parable of Man as being struck by an arrow
but refusing treatment until first establishing the make of the weapon,
the identity of its bearer, the reason for its employment, the velocity
of its attack....

I neither advocate this sport, nor do I actively try to discourage people
from taking it up. I've lived on sailboats, and have sailed from places in
Hawaii to the ICW on the east coast. Whenever you leave land for a boat on
the water there are things which can "get you" no matter what precautions
you take.

Fine, but that's hardly the topic I was raising.

Again, I only inquired this much, really:

1) Was there anything more I could have done?

2) Were the cops in the wrong lane?

Very simple questions, truly. If y'all don't know, don't pretend to,
and get in a huff over my bewilderment, please? For your own sakes,
since you guys sound irritated, though by an itch indigenous to your
own characters.

I have found quite often that safety is frequently in the hands
of the sailor, not in being observed or noticed by others, and not in the
"Rules of the Road," no matter how much in the right you may be.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO what more could/should I have done???

God, it's like pulling teeth! It's like a manipulative little kid!
It's like separating a leopard from his spots!

If you
would rather argue (and that does seem to be the case, based on your
responses to this thread) than have risks pointed out to you, you'll have
to find someone else with whom to argue.

The amazing thing is that you people want to blame me for this
incident, while not responding to the simple questions I'd asked, and
then claim I'm the one being argumentative! And it's all recorded in
black and white, right in front of your eyes, but your need to find
fault with me is so great that your own contradictions and logical
fallcies all spelled out still remains invisible to you!

By Neptune's Beard, no wonder paddlers get no respect on the water!
Y'all are a bunch of push-overs! I'm glad bicyclists got more pride
and sense of rights, or else NYC wouldn't be the mildly bike-friendly
town it is! I **** you not, this is one sport full of ****ed-up folks,
from the 'yak salesman that pooh-poohs Prijon boats to y'all here
blaming one of your own for what is clearly something that at least not
his fault, if not the police's for not exercising caution as the more
powerful party!

I'm here being accused of almost provoking the whole affair, while only
the kops are presumed innocent??

Truly you are a sad and disgusting lot. Honestly, this is one sad
sport when its enthusiasts so easily assume obsequiousness.

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

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

Why do I feel our collective chains are being yanked by someone like
Mr. Weiser? Is it just me....?

BCITORGB wrote:
NYC: "You folks actually want to advocate this sport, or do you like
feeling
these exclusive airs? "

Why do I feel our collective chains are being yanked by someone like
Mr. Weiser? Is it just me....?


Terrorist! Coward! You pedophile!

You people are a real laugh: sheep paddling kayaks!

NYC XYZ wrote:



Fine, but that's hardly the topic I was raising.

Again, I only inquired this much, really:

1) Was there anything more I could have done?

Yes.


2) Were the cops in the wrong lane?


No. There are no lanes. It ain't the BQE.



Very simple questions, truly.


One's you could easily answer yourself by doing a little objective
review of the circumstances. Apparently not all of us are capable of
learning from our mistakes.


SOOOOOOOOOOOO what more could/should I have done???

Better (brighter) deck lights. A backup flashlight that you could raise
and shine directly at the oncomimg boat or a head mounted directional
light. Reflective tape on your boat and/or vest. An air horn or a loud
wistle. A water craft appropriate for the conditions in which you were
paddling (potential for large boat wake). Better developed skills before
putting yourself in such a situation. More knowledge of the potential
dangers of the waterway )potential for large boat wake). I guess in
your case, you could have worn a helmet. There's probably more.


God, it's like pulling teeth!

Heh...



Truly you are a sad and disgusting lot. Honestly, this is one sad
sport when its enthusiasts so easily assume obsequiousness.

Feel free to leave us for good.

Wow! What a thread!

What could have been done differently? Among the (understandably) heated
rhetoric, there has been some remarkably good advice, especially from Dave
Van (along with one small request - for polite language).

To build on DV's response:
__________________________________________________ _______________
-Knowledge of the potential dangers of the waterway: New York Harbor
requires advanced boating and paddling skills in the best of circumstances.
It is primarily a commercial waterway, with 24 hour operation of large
vessels. Small craft are the exception, not the norm -- they simply don't
expect to see you there, like a tricycle on the LIE -- though this has
changed a bit since I paddled there. Night-time paddling is inadvisable
even for experts. Talk to one of the experts in manually-propelled boats
there; join one of the community boating groups. (I can provide contacts,
if anybody is serious.)

-Develop relevant skills before putting yourself in such a situation.
Paddle only with a more experienced buddy. Beginners (less than, say, 100
hours on the water) should paddle alone only in ideal conditions, never at
night.

-Be aware of the risks and advantages of paddling in different parts of the
waterways. There are no 'lanes', and in my (not very current) experience,
the East River can be very difficult near-shore. In the shallows, you risk
breaking waves and obstructions, and near bulkheads and other vertical
surfaces reflecting waves are a real hazard. I think I would take my
chances with collision, further from shore, rather than hug the edges.

-Better (brighter) nav lights. Not required in a kayak, but a good idea.

-A backup flashlight that you could raise and shine directly at the
oncoming boat or a head mounted directional light. Lights on a boat are NOT
to help you see others, but to assure they see you. Consider carrying a
really bright spotlight, that will get a helmsman's attention. As noted by
many others, it is your responsibility to be seen. Even if the helmsman of
a commercial/official vessel is held at fault for a collision, it will be
too late for you. (If a Police boat had spotlights, they were for S&R and
other police work, not 'headlights'.)

-Reflective tape on your boat and/or vest. I don't like the idea of
"visibility flags" on principle, but if it keeps you from being run down in
daylight...

-An air horn or a loud whistle. Required, I believe.

-Aerial flares, ready for use. ( Probably illegal for use for collision
avoidance, but I'll cheerfully pay the fine ;-)

-A water craft appropriate for the conditions in which you were paddling
(potential for large boat wake). More importantly, develop the skills
required to handle the boat you are in, before entering a risky situation.

-Carry, learn to use, and monitor a VHF radio.
__________________________________________________ _______________
There's still probably more. But one issue I didn't see addressed - a
vessel is responsible for damage or injuries caused by its wake. A
principle which seems rarely to be applied.


Well, I finally took that Sea Eagle PaddleSki 435 out for a paddle!
I'm a noob with only six paddles to my credit, including the initial
instructional one, but I felt comfortable enough today to try out this
inflatable catamaran-kayak hybrid...and all on my own!

Yes, safety rule violation number one -- newbie alone on water. We'll
get to that in a bit, but for now I'd like to just chat about the
PaddleSki.
snip
A simple boat, really, for quick and easy pick-up-and-go recreation. I
think it's perfect for fla****er, but it handled the East River very
nicely for me today!