PaddleWise by thread

From: rebyl_kayak <rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:56:02 +1000
G'Day Paul and Craig,

Thanks for this discussion and Paul for the lighting analysis and potential
solution, something to think about.

Back to ColRegs: -

If there's no room for interpretation by a local maritime authority then
ColRegs seems to be imposing two unsafe alternatives on kayakers. Either run
the risk of night blindness in a group because of multiple lights capable of
being seen at 2 to 3 miles. Or use a torch or lantern and trust that in choppy
water in the dark, it can be found and switched on in time to avoid a
collision with a fast moving sail or powerboat.

I use two lights fore and aft because that way I get 360 degree illumination
while retaining an ability to roll. As mentioned previously, these are
relatively low luminance torches to avoid night blindness in myself and my
paddling buddies. This complies perfectly with our club regulations, those of
NSW Maritime and with ColRegs because of rules 1 and 2. Thank heavens that NSW
Maritime and our local insurance company allows this. Fortunately it's also
very clear that the ColRegs allows the use of local judgement and doesn't
intend to encourage unsafe practise.

Reference Rules 1 and 2 of ColRegs "Application" and "Responsibility" copied
below:-





Rule 1

Application

(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all
waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere in the operation of special rules
made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, rivers, lakes or
inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing
vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these
Rules.

(c) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of any special
rules made by the Government of any State with respect to additional station
or signal lights or shapes or whistle signals for ships of war and vessels
proceeding under convoy, or with respect to additional station or signal
lights for fishing vessels fishing as a fleet. These additional station or
signal lights or whistle signals shall, so far as possible, be such that they
cannot be mistaken for any light, shape, or signal authorized elsewhere under
these Rules.

(d) Traffic separation schemes may be adopted by the Organization for the
purpose of these Rules.

(e) Whenever the Government concerned shall have determined that a vessel of
special construction or purpose cannot comply fully with the provisions of any
of these Rules with respect to number, position, range or arc of visibility of
lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of
sound-signaling appliances, such vessel shall comply with such other
provisions in regard to number, position, range or arc of visibility of lights
or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of
sound-signaling appliances, as her Government shall have determined to be the
closest possible compliance with these Rules in respect to that vessel.

Rule 2

Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master,
or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these
Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the
ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to
all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances,
including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure
from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.



All the best, PeterO
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:03:19 +1200
[Please remove all old content that is not pertinent to your reply
including old headers and footers.  It's list policy.... 
this post was modified to meet policy]

Peter 

Thanks for the insight on the situation in NSW.

As I understand it, the NSW (State) Government has put out a 'Code of
Conduct' for rowers & paddlers which, although un-enforced, explicitly
claims to be a standard for 'good seamanship'. Having stated this
officially, there is little doubt that any civil or coroner's court would
frown an anyone not meeting this C-of-C's standards. 

That is an interesting approach - and one I've not encountered before. In
this area, regulators usually set themselves up to issue deterrents of the
'speeding ticket' type - of an immediate & painful nature - rather than
simply wait for a court to chastise the survivors ;-)

Do most night-time paddlers comply ? 
Do your 'relatively low-luminance' lights meet the 0,54 nm (1 km)
requirements ? 
Do you find them effective at keeping other boats at bay ?

Best Regards

Paul
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaks and Visibility
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:59:38 -0700
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote:

>
> Do most night-time paddlers comply ?
> Do your 'relatively low-luminance' lights meet the 0,54 nm (1 km)
> requirements ?
> Do you find them effective at keeping other boats at bay ?
>
>
The answer to these would be interesting. I'd also like to know how these
lights affect their vision at night (and the vision of anyone paddling near
them). But I cannot see how any steady light mounted anywhere on a kayak
could help but interfere with night vision. Your blue light is great for
being seen but terrible for your night vision, by the way. There is a reason
we have red lights on the bridge at night.

I have a lot of problems with these disparate local regulations. One problem
is that it makes it more difficult to know what rules to follow. Another
problem is that they are seldom written by people who have any experience in
the field they are attempting to regulate. But my major problem is that it
seems that local jurisdictions are finding it easier to target kayakers than
to target powerboaters. Imagine the uproar if a municipality decided to
require all pedestrians to wear special vests during the day and lights at
night because that made them more visible to drivers.

Requiring a kayak to have TWO white lights seems to me to be targeting the
potential victims because targeting the potential perpetrators is too great
a task. And it's easy because to the average citizen (and even, apparently,
to some kayakers) it's just common sense to make a kayak have lights; and
the more the better. But there are already rules requiring mariners to
operate their vessels at safe speeds and in a safe manner. Why not just
enforce these?

Politicians certainly love paper solutions. They can point to their
"solution" and proudly claim that they did something to stop the problem of
kayakers being run over by powerboats. Then they can use that to get
re-elected.

The average person already thinks kayakers are crazy people too stupid to
know how to be safe so we make easy targets. This is why I prefer to have
one set of rules (the ColRegs) applicable everywhere. It eliminates the
knee-jerk reaction of passing a rule after a local accident. Once you have
international regulations you can then use education - and the enforcement
of existing rules - to begin to solve the problems.

Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
www.nwpaddling.net
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:51 PDT