Right now there are quite a few paddlers who think that there is some USCG rule that requires showing a light on any kayak paddled at night. In the USA and on navigable waters under the authority of the USA this is decidedly NOT the case. Notwithstanding this, there are, apparently, quite a few navigation lights out there now for kayaks. Most of them seem to be white lights visible all-around and mount on a staff aft of the cockpit. The mounting system seems to be one of the main variables as well as the type of light. I have misgivings about using these - at least on "navigable" waters in the USA - because, there is no legal authority for mounting what is essentially an "anchor" light on a vessel that is under command and moving. This is all confusing and complicated by several individual states mandating such a light for waters not under the authority of the Feds; however, the ColReg "Rules of the Road" offer only two choices for "vessels under oars" in Rule 25. I'm going to quote the entire Rule below but basically a vessel under oars (and I suppose that would mean a kayak under a paddle) at night must have an electric torch (flashlight, one presumes) or a lighted lantern showing a white light which can be exhibited in time to avoid a collision OR the same lights as a sailing vessel PLUS the flashlight. But the lights for a sailing vessel are not one single white light visible all around. The lights for a sailing vessel are red/green (port/starboard) lights plus a white stern light. According to Rule 21 a stern light is strictly defined NOT to be all-around. To wit: "Sternlight" means a white light placed as nearly as practicable at the stern showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 135 degrees and so fixed as to show the light 67.5 degrees from right aft on each side of the vessel. So, under the ColRegs there is no mention of a white light visible all around for any vessel except for an anchor light, defined by Rule 30: "A vessel of less than 50 meters<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_30b.htm>in length may exhibit an all-round white light where it can best be seen instead of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule." I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you are displaying a white light that is visible all-around and get into an accident or cause damage while paddling in navigable waters under the authority of the USCG (in the USA) you could be liable for damages. If you do mount one of these new lights on your kayak then you would be prudent to also carry a flashlight for signaling. My reasoning for this is that such a flashlight (electric torch) is required EVEN IF YOU DISPLAY THE RED/GREEN SIDELIGHTS AND WHITE STERNLIGHT. I, personally, will be adhering to the USCG Rules prescribing the use of an "electric torch" and not be using any other lights when paddling in a kayak at night. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net RULE 25: SAILING VESSELS UNDERWAY AND VESSELS UNDER OARS (a) A sailing vessel underway<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25a.htm>shall exhibit: 1. sidelights<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/def21b_side.htm>; 2. a sternlight<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/def21c_stern.htm>. (b) In a sailing vessel of less than 20 meters in length<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/def_3ij_length_bredth.htm>the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule may be combined in one lantern <http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25b.htm> carried at or near the top of the mast where it can best be seen. (c) A sailing vessel underway<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/def3hi_underway.htm>may, in addition to the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule, exhibit at or near the top of the mast, where they can best be seen, two all-round lights in a vertical line<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25c.htm>, the upper being red and the lower Green, but these lights shall not be exhibited in conjunction with the combined lantern permitted by paragraph (b) of this Rule. (d) 1. A sailing vessel of less than 7 meters<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25di.htm>in length shall, if practicable, exhibit the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this Rule, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision. 2. A vessel under oars<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25dii.htm>may exhibit the lights prescribed in this rule for sailing vessels, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision. (e) A vessel proceeding under sail when also being propelled by machinery <http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_25e.htm> shall exhibit forward where it can best be seen a conical shape, apex downwards. *A vessel of less than 12 meters in length is not required to exhibit this shape, but may do so.* [Inld] *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I disagree with your conclusion as to liability, given that kayak speed is negligible. -----Original Message----- From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net] On Behalf Of Craig Jungers So, under the ColRegs there is no mention of a white light visible all around for any vessel except for an anchor light, defined by Rule 30: "A vessel of less than 50 meters<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_30b.htm>in length may exhibit an all-round white light where it can best be seen instead of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule." I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you are displaying a white light that is visible all-around and get into an accident or cause damage while paddling in navigable waters under the authority of the USCG (in the USA) you could be liable for damages. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Richard Culpeper <culpeper_at_tbaytel.net>wrote: > I disagree with your conclusion as to liability, given that kayak speed is > negligible. > > Well consider this. You are happily paddling in a local bay with your white light visible all-around stuck on the back of your kayak. It's dark but you aren't worried because you have a light so people can see you. However other boats think you are anchored and not moving so they will plot a course to avoid you and then ignore you because they believe you are not moving (anchored) and concentrate on other traffic. If they then get into a situation where they have to choose between running you down when they finally realize you are moving or running aground - or into another vessel. Or if someone on that vessel is injured in any sudden maneuvering, you could very well find yourself in court trying to explain why you were showing an anchor light when, in actual fact, you were under way. So your forward speed is not always the factor here. Another situation might be that they plot a course to pass near you but your forward motion surprises them and instead of just going by you they hit you. If you survived that you might find yourself paying for damages on their boat caused by your little kayak being hit. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
It says an anchor light is visible all around, but doesn't say that ONLY an anchor light may be visible all around. Actually in my case I have a white deck light about a foot or so behind me and maybe a foot tall, so I block the light from someone in front (which is why I have a headlamp ready but normally off). Even if I used a hand flashlight pointed at a boat, if held still long enough it will mimic an all around light to that boat I've aimed it at (i.e. all they know is they see a white light). At any rate this is a classic case of not to worry until you hear of at least one such court case anywhere. And I can use other means to mostly avoid any possible close calls. *************************************************************************** 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 is a good idea. Reading through my state's laws regarding automobile traffic I discovered that they also failed to say that one must ONLY drive on the right. And, if I rig up my headlights to look like tail lights I should be able to avoid traffic congestion. :P The Rules spell out what lights to use in certain circumstances. I suppose they never figured on someone deciding that just because they didn't say that ONLY those lights could be used people could make their own substitutions. I don't know of any court cases but I do know of a kayak with a white light that was cut in two by a power boater at night. This was on a lake in a state that actually mandated that a white all-around light be placed on a kayak. The cops didn't bother to do anything to the power boat driver (they didn't even try to find him) and it took a couple of years before they managed to get the power boater to ante up for the damages to the kayak. I would not be surprised to learn of cases involving rowboats and other vessels though. I encourage using all available means to avoid close calls. If they can't see me, they can't aim for me. :) Craig On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Clinton <jcbikeski_at_gmail.com> wrote: > It says an anchor light is visible all around, but doesn't say that ONLY an > anchor light may be visible all around. Actually in my case I have a white > deck light about a foot or so behind me and maybe a foot tall, so I block > the light from someone in front (which is why I have a headlamp ready but > normally off). Even if I used a hand flashlight pointed at a boat, if held > still long enough it will mimic an all around light to that boat I've aimed > it at (i.e. all they know is they see a white light). > > At any rate this is a classic case of not to worry until you hear of at > least one such court case anywhere. And I can use other means to mostly > avoid any possible close calls. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I think Craig has hit upon the secret of successful night-time kayak navigation and rum-running. If you don't present running lights, they can't aim at you (unless they have night vision goggles). You may also want to paint your kayak black, sort of like the blackbird spy aircraft. BRC Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > I encourage using all available means to avoid close calls. If they can't > see me, they can't aim for me. :) *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig & Others Don't get too excited about the legal consequences of a moving white light - you just haven't remembered the rules correctly ;-) A single white all-round light is, as you say, good for an anchor light. However, it is also good for a powered vessel underway - if that vessel is under 7m and incapable of exceeding 7 knots. If you don't believe me, check the Collregs - or the US Homeland Security RULE 23: POWER-DRIVEN VESSELS UNDERWAY. They even have a little pop-up illustration which shows exactly what they mean (and it looks just like a lot of kayak lights - http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/pops/nr_23cii.htm). So, the concept of a slowly moving small vessel being marked by a white light is absolutely valid. The leap to using this on a kayak (or on a row-boat or small sailing craft - under 7m) surely comes down to the definitions of 'exhibiting a lighted lantern' and 'in time to prevent a collision'. The original arguments for requiring display only when 'prevent(ing) a collision' may be lost in history. It is hard to argue against showing it as soon as you leave the beach. There is no requirement that you avoid showing it before 'time' - or that you dowse it after 'time'. The only requirement is that you show it 'in time'. This sounds like an old bit of rule-making, because 'lantern' is nowhere defined and sounds a bit historic. The 'torch' is required to be electric, but the lantern is not. There is nowhere a distinction made between a 'lantern' and a 'light'. Presumably, by the time powered vessels came along, it was felt that you could afford to carry sufficient fuel to keep (at least one) light burning continuously. So this is required of a powered vessel and it is called a 'light' and has defined requirements for brightness/visibility. I see no issues with choosing to do the same in one of the 'un'-powered small craft. You can never be accused of failing to display it in time - and at worst you may be confused with a small (and slow) powered vessel underway. Or, of lesser concern, you might be confused with a row boat or a small sailboat. It seems low-risk and manageable - you are visible as a slow-moving obstacle. The only drawback to being indistinguishable from a small powered vessel is in the right-of-way rules. I've never figured out how two vessels - one powered & one sailing - both legally showing a white all-round light or lantern are going to work it out. I guess the cases just don't make the front pages ;-) Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I had to pause and think about the light issue. It's clear to me that many paddlers want a light even though it's not required. Some think it is required, of course, but even some of those who recognize that it's not required still want to use them. Even if there are (or may be) legal issues with using them. So why was I being such a strong advocate for strict compliance with the Rules? My history as a merchant marine officer and sailboat cruiser could account for it. Maybe I was just slavishly paying attention to a set of rules that were no longer pertinent to the modern situation. Do I think that the ColRegs are likely to be changed in light of so many paddlers out there at night using lights that do not strictly conform to the current version of the Rules? Yes. It's quite likely that some wording to clarify what "under oars" means will come along whenever the various governments get together to do it. The two points of thought on this issue seem to be: A) Obeying the strict Rules keeps your legal liability low and also keeps you from being seen as a target; and, B) Putting a light up makes you safer because other boaters will see you and doesn't cause any harm. I fall into group A), obvously. At any rate, I still feel that the Rules - which professional mariners are supposed to learn (even though retired ones may forget some of the specifics now and then) are worth paying attention to. And this, conveniently, means I don't have to shell out any money for a kayak light. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > Craig & Others > > Don't get too excited about the legal consequences of a moving white light > - > you just haven't remembered the rules correctly ;-) > Actually, the "legal" consequences don't change. Just my illustration of how a paddler might get into trouble. > > A single white all-round light is, as you say, good for an anchor light. > However, it is also good for a powered vessel underway - if that vessel is > under 7m and incapable of exceeding 7 knots. > I had thought I remembered this part of the Rule and looked for it but didn't find it. > So, the concept of a slowly moving small vessel being marked by a white > light is absolutely valid. The leap to using this on a kayak (or on a > row-boat or small sailing craft - under 7m) surely comes down to the > definitions of 'exhibiting a lighted lantern' and 'in time to prevent a > collision'. > Yes, but it doesn't fit the definition of a vessel being propelled by oars. While this makes my point about a moving white light somewhat moot, it doesn't change the fact that the light is not authorized for kayaks. If there were not an explicit Rule dealing with a vessel propelled by oars you would be on more solid legal ground. But there is. > > I see no issues with choosing to do the same in one of the 'un'-powered > small craft. You can never be accused of failing to display it in time - > and > at worst you may be confused with a small (and slow) powered vessel > underway. Or, of lesser concern, you might be confused with a row boat or a > small sailboat. > The only issue would be liability. If you, as a paddler, get into any sort of kerfuffle with another vessel and are not in accord with the letter of the Rules the liability in the situation could be shifted; and not in your favor. In many states of the USA there are traffic laws which mandate the use of headlights when visibility is limited (fog, blowing sand, etc.) but which also forbid the use of parking lights in that situation. Nevertheless, many drivers use their parking lights instead of headlights in the situation and those who get into accidents can find that the issue makes a difference when assigning blame for the cause of the accident. (The theory is that parking lights, being smaller, distort the apparent distance the vehicle is from a viewer.) > > It seems low-risk and manageable - you are visible as a slow-moving > obstacle. > Just not in strict compliance with the ColRegs. > > The only drawback to being indistinguishable from a small powered vessel is > in the right-of-way rules. I've never figured out how two vessels - one > powered & one sailing - both legally showing a white all-round light or > lantern are going to work it out. I guess the cases just don't make the > front pages ;-) > A sailing vessel in these circumstances is supposed to shine the light on the sails to show that it is under sail. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
> Obeying the strict Rules keeps your legal liability low > and also keeps you from being seen as a target Craig - I was endeavouring to show that kayakers choosing to use one of the currently available lights _were_ doing just that ! Obeying the strict Rules. Not by changing or stretching them - just by following them as written. You originally said that such a light could only be used when anchored, whereas it clearly is legal when underway (for a certain class of vessel). So, your hypothetical case - of a skipper needing to take evasive action because a supposedly anchored vessel was moving - is just not true. Any skipper should be aware that a moving all-round white light may (quite legitimately) be a slow-moving vessel. You say that "doesn't change the fact that the light is not authorized for kayaks", but I beg to differ. It is just not required - as it is for a small & slow power-boat. On a small sailboat or a 'vessel under oars' (VuO), a 'lighted lantern' (not just a lantern) shall be 'exhibited in sufficient time to prevent a collision'. What part of this forbids you from displaying it continuously ? How will you reprimand a skipper for 'exhibiting' too early ? Surely in the absence of any limitation on 'in sufficient time' - he has a right to be as cautious as he feels appropriate ? You have several times referred to regulations for car headlights. Some jurisdictions require daytime 'headlights'. Most jurisdictions don't. I have never struck one where daytime headlights are illegal or would be considered to increase liability. I hope we are not disagreeing over whether a kayak is a 'vessel under oars' (VuO)? Our authorities are quite sure that a kayak is a VuO for purposes of the CollRegs. I thought that this also held true elsewhere - but maybe not ? The USCG does seem to accept kayaks as VuO in Pt 13 of their NavRules FAQ. As an aside, this 'VuO' category has traditionally covered one, two & many-man craft as well as those who scull over the stern with a single oar... Some rowers stand up and some even face forward. So the fact that a canoeist or kayaker uses but a single shaft is no reason to exclude kayaks, canoes, coracles, etc. Given an environment where a kayak is deemed a VuO, I cannot see how choosing to use a light continuously is in any way misleading or dangerous - practically or from a standpoint of increased liability. It is not required under the CollRegs - but I fail to see where it is either forbidden or deprecated... Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > What part of this forbids you from displaying it continuously ? How will > you > reprimand a skipper for 'exhibiting' too early ? Surely in the absence of > any limitation on 'in sufficient time' - he has a right to be as cautious > as > he feels appropriate ? > > Paul, in my opinion Rule 25 forbids you from displaying it continuously. If the Rules wanted a kayak to display a white light visible all around from a kayak then Rule 25 would have specifically stated that. I also believe that a light that is oculted by your body (e.g.: is not high enough) is also not appropriate for a kayak inasmuch as it neither conforms to the strict requirements for a stern light nor the strict requirements for a lighted lantern or electric torch. You and I are just going to have to disagree on this, I guess. I don't believe that a white light showing all around continuously displayed conforms to the Rules. Nothing the Rules explicitly says this except for powered vessels and anchored vessels. And you have to interpret the Rules in order to get to where your argument is going. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig - happy to agree to disagree - have enjoyed the discussion. Having just participated in a major battle (in support of kayakers against our metropolitan authority) to keep kayak visibility (day & night-time) from being over-regulated, it has been refreshing to debate it from the other side ;-) We successfully defeated regulation requiring coloured clothing & equipment (daytime) and a continuous all-round white light (night). One of the senior people from our National Maritime Authority spoke in favour of the local regulation and expressed their wish to see it introduced nationally for all VuO. It may come to that someday - but for now they are reduced from 'requirements' to 'recommended practice'. As they are (in theory, anyway) not allowed to run directly against the CollRegs (International Treaty) - they must have reconciled this with their interpretation of the CollRegs lighting requirements. I know that some jurisdictions in Australia have already implemented lighting regs for kayaks. In a Paddlewise discussion some months ago, somebody brought up a question as to how the CollRegs (International) could be 'trampled on' or overruled by a local regulation. That was a good question - and I resolved to find an answer. After the resolution of our recent war, a friendly coffee with the Harbourmaster gave me the opportunity. He smiled and said that about 20 years ago most of the regional authorities had quietly extended their 'Harbour Limit' jurisdictions out to the national maritime limit and along the coastline to the extent of their land domain. So that there were very few bits of NZ water remaining that were not officially in somebody's 'Harbour'. The CollRegs, of course, explicitly allow local authorities to make local rules that can extend or change the CollRegs within Harbours ;-) (That's in the first 50 words of Rule 1 of the CollRegs and it lists Harbours, Roadsteads and Inland Waterways - so it didn't really intend local authorities to have open slather on making their own rules...) Seems the actual reason for it here (at least the politically acceptable reason) was that people wanted their local authorities to police Jetskis ! The authorities got fed up telling irate citizens that their coastal bays were outside local jurisdiction - so the authorities decided to bring them all within local jurisdiction, by extending the Harbourmasters' limits. I wonder if there are similar situations in Florida or Maine - with coastal recreation areas that once fell outside working 'Harbours'; but which have now been pulled into the extended zone of a nearby Harbour - to allow local restrictions to suit the local burghers. Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > I wonder if there are similar situations in Florida or Maine - with coastal > recreation areas that once fell outside working 'Harbours'; but which have > now been pulled into the extended zone of a nearby Harbour - to allow local > restrictions to suit the local burghers. > > The harbor extension practice seems bizarre to me. According to that system they could claim that a cape or headland was a "harbor". I wonder if they are explaining all that to the international shipping. Has anyone taken that to the Federal Court system there? The only case I know of where internationally navigable waters have been declared to be within local jurisdiction is the San Juan Islands in Washington State where they County Commissioners made all the waters of the islands off limits to personal watercraft (e.g.: jet skis). They had that ruling upheld, eventually, by the state supreme court but I don't think it's gone to the U.S. Supreme Court yet. Turns out that they cannot cite a PWC for transiting the islands (international commerce, apparently) but they can, at least under state law, regulate the waters somewhat. Many people who otherwise would cheefully sink a jetski (any jetski) were upset by the rulings. The San Juan Islands encompass water directly adjacent to (on two sides - north and west) by Canadian water, after all. The reasoning for the ban was that the sheriff's department for that county does not have the manpower to police the PWCs which were, allegedly, creating havoc amongst the other boaters. I wonder if the USCG is citing PWCs under that local law. I spend a lot of time in the San Juans and I have not seen a jet ski since they passed the ruling. Interestingly enough, no jet skis off our community beach on Whidbey Island either. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen jet skis in Puget Sound. Maybe the 50F water discourages them. At any rate, as far as I know, the San Juan Island PWC ban has been the only attempt to extend local authority over what otherwise would be under the sole authority of the USCG. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
I don't like the 360 white light for use in our local waters because good night vision in the paddler(s) is more important than being seen by the skipper of a motor boat who may be limited in his ability to maneuver. Hearing is even more useful as boats come around oxbows on a plane. In an open bay or other situation where both the paddler and motor boat may criss cross on any course, I still prefer a good waterproof hand light that can be directed in the direction needed to a fairly weak 360 bulb. A strobe would be easier to see, but illegal here. A 360 white light only appears to be 360 to the person sitting under it. To everyone else it could be a power vessel moving in the same direction you are, or an anchored vessel. With respect to collision avoidance, a kayak may as well be treated like an anchored vessel, so long as you are not paddling at 90 degrees to the course of the power vessel, in which case you might be paddling into his evasive action. There is no mistaking a hand light being waived in your direction, and that light doesn't much bother the night vision of the paddler. I once thought myself clever mounting my 360 white light from my inflatable to the aft deck of my kayak. I spent the whole moonlight paddle unable to see much other than my own deck. Not very good actually. I feel it's the paddlers responsibility to make the motor boat realize they are there, and don't want to trust that job to a fixed white light. I want to be able to be as frantic as necessary in attracting the attention of the boater, and sometimes it's helpful to turn the light onto myself to show what I am. That said, we do affix chemical glow sticks to our hats and/or use other dim markers that allow the other paddlers to keep track of members of the group without harming anyone's night vision. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Carey Parks <carey_at_jimparksfamily.com>wrote: > > I feel it's the paddlers responsibility to make the motor boat realize they > are there, and don't want to trust that job to a fixed white light. I want > to be able to be as frantic as necessary in attracting the attention of the > boater, and sometimes it's helpful to turn the light onto myself to show > what I am. > I don't think this is unreasonable and think it's exactly what the Rules intended. > > That said, we do affix chemical glow sticks to our hats and/or use other > dim > markers that allow the other paddlers to keep track of members of the group > without harming anyone's night vision. > > We do the same when we are purposely going out knowing we'll be night paddling but don't always do it. Frankly, a lot of my night paddling is alone and the rest is when I can talk my wife into it and keeping track of one other paddler isn't that difficult to do. We have found that not all chemical light sticks are the same as some are brighter than others. Some of the units sold around our 4th of July barely glow at all. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
[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] I like the (almost) 360 degree light behind me OR a small shoulder light more for the sake of keeping track of fellow paddlers (compared to a light only lit at times). I agree having it shine to the front all the time hurts my night vision. But I always have the headlamp ready to turn on for boats heading my way. And if my way lands me in prison or the subject of a lawsuit well I'll just take my chances (evil scofflaw here). Most of my safety at night comes more from just staying well clear of boats especially by hugging the shore when practical. So if you aren't allowed to display the light continuously according to that Rule 25 then how often does it have to be off to be okay? How far in advance is one allowed to turn it on before the need becomes imminent and how quickly after must the light be turned off. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Carey Parks <carey_at_jimparksfamily.com>wrote: > I don't like the 360 white light for use in our local waters because good > night vision in the paddler(s) is more important than being seen by the > skipper of a motor boat who may be limited in his ability to maneuver. > Hearing is even more useful as boats come around oxbows on a plane. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:57 AM, John Clinton <jcbikeski_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > Most of my > safety at night comes more from just staying well clear of boats especially > by hugging the shore when practical. > I do this as well but hugging the shoreline does present its own set of problems. Floating docks, mooring buoys, unlighted boats, snags, etc. are more likely to be encountered closer to the shore. If you paddle next to a high bank it can block some of the (already limited) light from stars and moon. Nevertheless, I feel a lot safer where a power boat operator is likely to be more alert and I think this is likely to be near shore. > > So if you aren't allowed to display the light continuously according to > that > Rule 25 then how often does it have to be off to be okay? How far in > advance is one allowed to turn it on before the need becomes imminent and > how quickly after must the light be turned off. > > Rule 25 says "in sufficient time" to avoid a collision. It seems to me that if no collision is imminent then you shouldn't be showing the light (unless you have a "lighted lantern"). However the decision seems to be left up to the paddler. There are other Rules regarding seamanship which cover these sorts of things. As for turning the light off, well if there is no longer a danger of a collision then there is no need for a light. But where you are paddling also makes a difference in how fast you are in imminent danger of a collision. On my inland lake, for instance, there isn't much night traffic but what traffic there is (generally power boats) is often moving at 30 to 50 mph. But on Puget Sound at night it's much less common to see other vessels moving at more than 10kts at night but you see many more vessels. In fact, inland lakes are - at least to me - the most dangerous places for kayaks because so many power boats can achieve high speeds and the operators are so much less likely to be aware of (or able to avoid) other boats. Someone on another forum mentioned that they've never felt that power boats presented much of a real danger... that's absolutely not the case on my lake. In the summer, and especially on weekends, power boats are always a menace; with unlighted jet skis moving at 60mph the scariest (even though it's almost universal that jet skis are forbidden to operate after dark). And some lakes are much worse than others. So I'm a lot more vigilant here than I would be in, say, the San Juan Islands where the fastest vessel is likely to be a ferry moving at 17kts. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
I've stayed out of this discussion because so much of it seems moot for my use of kayaks. Paddling isolated areas for the most part (even on the Columbia River), and rarely at night -- not at all for the last ten years or so -- lighting is not very critical for me. Yet, it seems to me that a simple, clear message needs to get out to the average paddler: have _ready_ a _bright_ flashlight/headlamp/all around, in short, something! And, use it if/when an interaction with a power boat is imminent. That seems to fit the thrust of the rules, and will fend off attorneys in the event of a legal problem post-accident/incident. We can concoct various what-if scenarios which might represent a legal entanglement, but what is the likelihood of those occurrences? [I agree if you are on a lake, at night, such as Craig's, that has boat crazies about, your risk is much greater. But, my solution for that is to get the heck off that lake and paddle on a serene backwater on the Columbia.] I just completed a Boater Ed class with Becky, which is mandatory in Oregon for legal operation of a power boat. The class has sort of a lowest common denominator approach (no navigation, for example) and thereby establishes what might be reasonably expected of the "average" Joe/Jane boater in Oregon. It emphasizes the various requirements for lighting of vessels under power, at anchor, etc., and mentions that paddlers, rowers and sailors in very small boats simply need to show a light when needed. If you are within that envelope, in Oregon, your ass is covered legally, making most of the discussion here moot. You have behaved reasonably, in compliance with what is expected of you, as defined by the Boater Ed class. In effect the mantle of liability is transferred to, "Wull, dat's what I was taught by da Boater Ed guys!" BTW, the boater ed crowd has pretty good numbers illustrating the effectiveness of the now-widespread influence of mandatory boater ed classes, which have been phased in over the last ten years or so: about a 40% drop in accidents and injuries, but essentially no change in deaths, for the US, overall. Listening to the response of people in the boater ed class, it is plain that there are a lot of misconceptions amongst uneducated boaters, and that educating the nut at the helm is more important to us than whether _we_ show a light at night or not. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: > > Yet, it seems to me that a simple, clear message needs to get out to the > average paddler: have _ready_ a _bright_ flashlight/headlamp/all around, in > short, something! And, use it if/when an interaction with a power boat is > imminent. That seems to fit the thrust of the rules, and will fend off > attorneys in the event of a legal problem post-accident/incident. > Makes sense to me. > > I just completed a Boater Ed class with Becky, which is mandatory in Oregon > for legal operation of a power boat. Interestingly enough, the requirements in Washington exempt me. Not because of my vast experience and unquestioned prowess. No... I'm exempt because anyone my age is exempt. Perhaps on the theory that there is no use trying to teach us anything. Or that we're too feeble to push the throttle of a boat in any direction. This has annoyed my children. What luck!!!! > Listening to the response of people in the boater ed class, it is plain > that there are a lot of misconceptions amongst uneducated boaters, and that > educating the nut at the helm is more important to us than whether _we_ show > a light at night or not. Does Oregon still have a rule giving human powered vessels right-of-way over power and sail on waters not regulated by the USCG? I seem to recall that they did at one time. I notice that the lighting requirements for state waters there are the same as for the Feds. Misconceptions are really not surprising given the range of local rules which often contradict the ColRegs. But I totally agree about educating people who can drive a boat at 60mph. Paddlers could use some of that edumacating too. :D Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig, Thanks for a read of the actual regs, it's important for us to know the actual rules rather than the ones that we think we know. It's also useful to know the applicable differences between the various regions (colregs, inland waterways, etc.) Here's my cheat link when I'm trying to find a particular citation. I just use Google and put this into the search box: "vessel under oars" site:.gov It's interesting to see how many states have their own regs. > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:05:44 -0700 > From: Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Kayak Navigation Lights > > I had to pause and think about the light issue. It's clear to me that many > paddlers want a light even though it's not required. Some think it is > required, of course, but even some of those who recognize that it's not > required still want to use them. Even if there are (or may be) legal > issues > with using them. So why was I being such a strong advocate for strict > compliance with the Rules? > > My history as a merchant marine officer and sailboat cruiser could account > for it. Maybe I was just slavishly paying attention to a set of rules that > were no longer pertinent to the modern situation. > > Do I think that the ColRegs are likely to be changed in light of so many > paddlers out there at night using lights that do not strictly conform to > the > current version of the Rules? Yes. It's quite likely that some wording to > clarify what "under oars" means will come along whenever the various > governments get together to do it. > > The two points of thought on this issue seem to be: > > A) Obeying the strict Rules keeps your legal liability low and also keeps > you from being seen as a target; and, > > B) Putting a light up makes you safer because other boaters will see you > and > doesn't cause any harm. > > I fall into group A), obvously. > > At any rate, I still feel that the Rules - which professional mariners are > supposed to learn (even though retired ones may forget some of the > specifics > now and then) are worth paying attention to. And this, conveniently, > means > I don't have to shell out any money for a kayak light. > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > >> Craig & Others >> >> Don't get too excited about the legal consequences of a moving white >> light >> - >> you just haven't remembered the rules correctly ;-) >> > > Actually, the "legal" consequences don't change. Just my illustration of > how > a paddler might get into trouble. > >> >> A single white all-round light is, as you say, good for an anchor light. >> However, it is also good for a powered vessel underway - if that vessel >> is >> under 7m and incapable of exceeding 7 knots. >> > > I had thought I remembered this part of the Rule and looked for it but > didn't find it. > > >> So, the concept of a slowly moving small vessel being marked by a white >> light is absolutely valid. The leap to using this on a kayak (or on a >> row-boat or small sailing craft - under 7m) surely comes down to the >> definitions of 'exhibiting a lighted lantern' and 'in time to prevent a >> collision'. >> > > Yes, but it doesn't fit the definition of a vessel being propelled by > oars. > While this makes my point about a moving white light somewhat moot, it > doesn't change the fact that the light is not authorized for kayaks. If > there were not an explicit Rule dealing with a vessel propelled by oars > you > would be on more solid legal ground. But there is. > >> >> I see no issues with choosing to do the same in one of the 'un'-powered >> small craft. You can never be accused of failing to display it in time - >> and >> at worst you may be confused with a small (and slow) powered vessel >> underway. Or, of lesser concern, you might be confused with a row boat >> or a >> small sailboat. >> > > The only issue would be liability. If you, as a paddler, get into any sort > of kerfuffle with another vessel and are not in accord with the letter of > the Rules the liability in the situation could be shifted; and not in your > favor. > > In many states of the USA there are traffic laws which mandate the use of > headlights when visibility is limited (fog, blowing sand, etc.) but which > also forbid the use of parking lights in that situation. Nevertheless, > many > drivers use their parking lights instead of headlights in the situation > and > those who get into accidents can find that the issue makes a difference > when > assigning blame for the cause of the accident. (The theory is that parking > lights, being smaller, distort the apparent distance the vehicle is from a > viewer.) > >> >> It seems low-risk and manageable - you are visible as a slow-moving >> obstacle. >> > > Just not in strict compliance with the ColRegs. > >> >> The only drawback to being indistinguishable from a small powered vessel >> is >> in the right-of-way rules. I've never figured out how two vessels - one >> powered & one sailing - both legally showing a white all-round light or >> lantern are going to work it out. I guess the cases just don't make the >> front pages ;-) >> > > A sailing vessel in these circumstances is supposed to shine the light on > the sails to show that it is under sail. > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net > Saul Kinderis saul_at_isomedia.com cell 206.313.0107 http://www.isomedia.com/homes/saul *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
My take on paddling Moses Lake is that it is unsafe during the day, and unsafe during the night. Having been buzzed by jet skis, there is no love lost there. We should focus less on navigation lights, and more on offensive weaponry. I figure a well-placed RPG will make short work of a jet ski. Is a 50-calibre machine gun too heavy for a kayak? BRC > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:57 AM, John Clinton <jcbikeski_at_gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Most of my >> safety at night comes more from just staying well clear of boats >> especially >> by hugging the shore when practical. >> > > I do this as well but hugging the shoreline does present its own set of > problems. Floating docks, mooring buoys, unlighted boats, snags, etc. are > more likely to be encountered closer to the shore. If you paddle next to a > high bank it can block some of the (already limited) light from stars and > moon. Nevertheless, I feel a lot safer where a power boat operator is > likely > to be more alert and I think this is likely to be near shore. > > As for turning the light off, well if there is no longer a danger of a > collision then there is no need for a light. But where you are paddling > also > makes a difference in how fast you are in imminent danger of a collision. > On > my inland lake, for instance, there isn't much night traffic but what > traffic there is (generally power boats) is often moving at 30 to 50 mph. > But on Puget Sound at night it's much less common to see other vessels > moving at more than 10kts at night but you see many more vessels. > > In fact, inland lakes are - at least to me - the most dangerous places for > kayaks because so many power boats can achieve high speeds and the > operators > are so much less likely to be aware of (or able to avoid) other boats. > Someone on another forum mentioned that they've never felt that power > boats > presented much of a real danger... that's absolutely not the case on my > lake. In the summer, and especially on weekends, power boats are always a > menace; with unlighted jet skis moving at 60mph the scariest (even though > it's almost universal that jet skis are forbidden to operate after dark). > And some lakes are much worse than others. So I'm a lot more vigilant here > than I would be in, say, the San Juan Islands where the fastest vessel is > likely to be a ferry moving at 17kts. > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.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/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Bradford R. Crain <crainb_at_pdx.edu> wrote: > My take on paddling Moses Lake is that it is unsafe during the day, and > unsafe > during the night. Having been buzzed by jet skis, there is no love lost > there. > We should focus less on navigation lights, and more on offensive > weaponry. > I figure a well-placed RPG will make short work of a jet ski. Is a > 50-calibre > machine gun too heavy for a kayak? > > Unfortunately a 50-cal machine gun is too heavy for anything lighter than a pickup truck. More's the pity on the freeway. Their range and penetration is such that using them would endanger almost everyone within a mile or so. Ammunition is expensive and people tend to look at you strangely when you ask the Wal-Mart clerk if they have any in stock. A 50-cal gun would make a nice addition to Greenland rolling technique, however. I'm guessing that one shot fired to port or starboard could actually rotate the boat one complete turn. Sadly, I'm not an expert on the names of Greenland technique rolls so I have no idea what incomprehensible name would be assigned to it. Perhaps Duane could help us out here. :D Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.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 - 16:33:53 PDT