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.

"NYC XYZ" wrote in
oups.com:


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.

As I said, I only live a little over 200 miles from New York City so it's
not a stretch for me to conclude that if it's still quite dark where I live
at 7:00am it's going to be darker at 6:00am, especially considering that it
was still nearly an hour before sunrise. I also live near and paddle on a
water way that is frequently used by rowing teams out practicing in the
early morning and visibility certainly is an issue. I don't recall if the
any of the articles describing the incident indicated if there was a
coxswain aboard but without one all the rowers would typically be facing the
same direction (with the backs to the direction they may moving). That
could partially explain why they didn't see the oncoming motor boat.

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.

The way I see it, everyone using a shared waterway (or roadway/airspace)
should be exercise sufficent caution to the best of their ability to prevent
an accident. If anything, those that are in small paddlecraft should
exercise greater caution because, despite the best efforts of the pilot of a
larger vessel, the paddler is most likely going to suffer the greatest harm
should an *accident* occur.

What's so controversial about that???

It's not controversial as long as you're not suggesting that a motor boat
operator should assume all the risk simply because they're capable of
causing greater damage.

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???

When in comes to personal safety often common sense and acquired knowledge
will have better results than following the rules. For example, the rules
only dictate that an operator of a canoe or kayak carry a PFD on board
within arms reach. Paddlers with common sense will almost always wear their
PDF (I realize that there are exceptions when it's really not absolutely
necessary) whenever they're paddling because when a capsize occurs a boat
could easily be blown away faster that any human can swim. A PFD isn't
going to do much good if it's floating away with your boat. There *are* no
rules concerning what one wears otherwise. Paddlers with common sense and
acquired knowledge regarding hypothermia will dress for the water
temperature. As one very experience paddler put it when describing the
expeditions that she takes every year along the coast of Alaska, "if you
capsized in those waters and became separated from your boat, all a PFD is
going to do is keep you afloat while you slowly die of hypothermia and will
make easier for rescuers to recover the body".

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.

I could look it up in Google but I think my memory is pretty accurate on
this one.


"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.

Since ever vessel you might encounter on a waterway initially started from
shore and will end up on shore at the end of the day I would suggest that
you're more likely going to encounter traffic hugging the shore than while
on open water. Hugging the shoreline also has several other distinct
disadvantages.

1. You're more likely going to encounter breaking waves closer to shore
simply due to the fact that as the depth of the water decreases the crest of
the wave will become higher and will break when the water becomes shallow
enough.

2. When hugging the shore you may encounter reflective waves. Dealing with
larger waves coming from one direction can be difficult (especially if
they're breaking waves) but becomes much more difficult if you also have to
deal with waves coming from the opposite direction (or several directions).

3. If you're hugging the shore you have less room to manoever. Similarly,
other traffic along the shoreline would have less room to manoever as well.

4. If you're hugging the shore you're more likely going to be less visible
as your silhouette might not contrast with the shoreline as much as it would
with a open water backdrop.

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.

Here's where the primary issue lies. Having a light merely meets the
minimum legal requirements but doesn't necessarily end your responsibility
for your own personal safety. The fact is, we don't know how much attention
the police boat operator was paying. You're quick to conclude that the
operator was not paying any attention and just won't accept the possibility
that the light you were carrying was not bright enough to distinguish it
from a backdrop of city lights.

As I may have mentioned before I also had a near collision when paddling at
night. In that case, there were several kayaks together all carrying lights
and were flashing them at an oncoming motor boat on a collision course. I
have little doubt that the boat operator wasn't paying attention and likely
wasn't expecting other boat traffic on the water because it was only when I
blew a very loud whistle did he slow and veer off. The lesson I learned was
that sometimes just having a light isn't enough.



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!

That's most certainly not true. Most of the experienced paddlers that I
have encountered here and elsewhere assume non-zero levels of risk all the
time. The difference between them and you is that they understand and
assess the risks, exercise what they judge to be reasonable precautions you
mitigate the risks as much as possible, and then assume the risk and accept
the consequences if their risk assessment wasn't quite up to par. What you
did was go out in a waterway in which you underestimate the amount of
traffic you'd encounter nor what the navigational rules were in the area,
went out alone in conditions with limited visibility, and did so with
limited skill in what amounted to a craft that was only slightly more
seaworthy than a pool toy.


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.

It's not a straw man argument at all. What I've discoverd while
particpating on Usenet for about 20 years is that if you ask a question
there is a good chance that you're not going to get the answer you'd like to
hear. You wanted everyone to tell you that the police boat was totally at
fault that that hugging the shore with your candle light should have
guarenteed to keep you safe and warm. When you didn't get the answer you
wanted to hear you threw a hissy fit and you're still going on about it
weeks later.

O thank you, NYC XYZ! It's been so boring around here since our last
crackpot got wrapped up in the sleeveless jacket and taken off to the
house with the rubber-walled rooms. Thanks for stepping in and filling
the vacancy! Life on r.b.p is becoming interesting again.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================


NYC XYZ wrote:
I mean, even though it's broad ****ing daylight, if you paddle and you
get capsized by a powercraft, IT'S YOUR GODDAMNED FAULT -- right, speed
bumps?


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...
O thank you, NYC XYZ! It's been so boring around here since our last
crackpot got wrapped up in the sleeveless jacket and taken off to the
house with the rubber-walled rooms.

Would that be rubber-walled with sponsons?

--
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?

"A hero is one who would question the gods and thus arouses devils to
challenge his vision."



Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
O thank you, NYC XYZ! It's been so boring around here since our last
crackpot got wrapped up in the sleeveless jacket and taken off to the
house with the rubber-walled rooms. Thanks for stepping in and filling
the vacancy! Life on r.b.p is becoming interesting again.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================


NYC XYZ wrote:
I mean, even though it's broad ****ing daylight, if you paddle and you
get capsized by a powercraft, IT'S YOUR GODDAMNED FAULT -- right, speed
bumps?


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT