On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, "Lee Bell" wrote:
Sometimes that law doesn't exist or is not enforced and they just
follow the Law of the Jungle. If you talk about the channels their
speeds are not terribly willd, but still you are a sitting duck.

It exists everywhere you're ever likely to be in your kayak. There's more
enforcement on the intracoastal, per boater, than in any city or state
anywhere near here.

Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...

Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner. I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.

Then you realize you live in the jungle.

Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
http://webspwner.com/users/bananarevolution

On Aug 25, 4:52*pm, -hh wrote:

But your common sense tells you they are a real
threat. More than terrorists, say.

Common sense says that all parties should take responsibility for
their decisions, which includes wandering out into harm's way when you
suspect that there are operators of less than stellar skill levels
present. *Yes, it is "unfair", but life is unfair: you either deal
with it and roll with the punches, or die from being too inflexible.

-hh- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Life was very unfair when the Vikings went around pillaging and
killing left and right. But they are today very civilized people, even
showing respect for nature as well as for the little guy on the bike
or kayak.

So I hope other "less-than-civilized" people can evolve too.

On Aug 25, 6:07*pm, Morten Reistad wrote:
In article ,



-hh wrote:
Morten Reistad wrote:

Money to burn, indeed. I could buy a complete
set of diving gear for what a new Genua costs.
And I have a 22 year old 36' boat.

That might depend on what calls a 'complete' set.

As in everything else, there's the bare-bones basics and then there's
the more serious stuff, particularly when it comes to specialized
ares. *For example, the Ikelite SS-200 strobe heads I have for my old
35mm underwater camera cost me $1K each...and they aren't compatible
with going digital. *Another high ticket item is a quality drysuit for
use in colder climates. *Figure spending $2K for that with one basic
set of underwear. *Its all too easy to have the same stereotype of
'bubba diver' recreationalist as it is for power boating in a 17ft
fiberglass runabout with too much horsepower & beer.

Basic, cheap dacron 140% Genua for 14.65 meter mast : $3500
150% dacron with some fibres for stiffening * * * * : $4500
Mylar 150% deck-swiper with woven fibres * * * * * *: $6000
..
Kevlar/Carbon racing genua, 150% * * * * * * * * * *: $14000

I guess you could just squeeze in ABC/wetsuit/tank/bcd/reg+bottom timer for $3500.

$14k should buy you a decent computer, doubles, drysuit&undergarments and a camera too.

In the old days of 35mm film, a Nikonos V body was $700, the Nikkor
15mm WA lens with viewfinder was $2K, plus the strobe heads that I
currently have were $1K each, plus strobe arms, chargers & other
bits. I figure that I had spent around $6K for my current setup.

In going digital:

$~3.K - Canon 5D replacement that's rumored to be announced tomorrow
$1.6K - "cheap" (pexiglass) Ikelite housing
$0.6K - 8" port for above, with one modular extension
$0.8K - decent WA lens (17-35mm L)
$1.0K - Ikelite DS-160 strobe head, synch cord & charger
$0.8K - Ikelite DS-160 strobe head & synch cord
$0.2K - two spare strobe battery packs
$~.5K - Ultralite strobe arms (if I'm lucky)
--------
$8.5K and counting. Still haven't picked up the misc bits or a case
to transport it in.

If you want to take it to a high end system, add another $2-$3K to
move up from a pexiglass housing to metal casting, as well as another
$3K-$5K to go to a Pro camera body (1Ds Mark III)...and bump the
strobes up to the digital replacement model of what I have now
(DS-200)...and add a few more lenses and matching port extensions.
Very easy to crack $14K for just the UW camera.


-hh

On Aug 25, 5:51*pm, -hh wrote:

If you want to take it to a high end system, add another $2-$3K to
move up from a pexiglass housing to metal casting, as well as another
$3K-$5K to go to a Pro camera body (1Ds Mark III)...and bump the
strobes up to the digital replacement model of what I have now
(DS-200)...and add a few more lenses and matching port extensions.
Very easy to crack $14K for just the UW camera.

Not sure the pro camera bodies are worth it. Plenty of u/w "pros" are
using "semi-pro". Speaking of which, I picked up an extra D200 body,
brand new, for under $1,000 from B&H. That's the problem with digital
camera housings, once your camera becomes obsolete and it floods,
prepare to buy a new housing or find what you can on eBay. This will
be an insurance policy to extend the life of my expensive housing,
plus serve as a land camera since I can leave the strap on full-time.

So now, packing my camera for Bonaire next week, I'm bringing 2 camera
bodies, 4 lenses, 4 camera batteries, camera battery charger, various
filters and diopters, 3 strobes, 4 strobe battery packs, 3 strobe
battery chargers, 2 sync cords, focus light, assorted arms and clamps,
camera housing, extended viewfinder, two ports, various extension
rings and focus gears, all packed in a nice indestructable case that
comes out to just over 65 lbs full. Oh, and the laptop, memory cards,
and memory card reader, can't forget those. The cameras and lenses
and laptop obviously have to go in carry-on, along with the regs and
computers, and now the airlines have cut luggage limits to 50 lbs, one
bag per passenger.

Which reminds me, time to renew my insurance on all that since I dare
not lock any of it for TSA, and Bonaire isn't exactly the most crime-
free destination.

10 Cyclists Struck by a Taxi on the Causeway to Miami Beach

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=457751


"A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak."

And why should we protect the monkey, not the lion? Because then the
lion will eat the monkey, stupid. And that keeps the other monkeys
terrorized, which is not what we want. We want them to come out,
right?

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe)
mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more
rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is
always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even
completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way
traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate
cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two
cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).

A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak.

The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that
they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not
bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it
can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly."

Posted by PCC | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._hierarchy.php

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:52:22 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

ComandanteBanana wrote:
-hh wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:

Many people that are into motorboating
are poorly educated and...

Kind of an interesting self-contradiction
you're making, by first talking about how
these boats are huge and expensive, yet now
they're owned by uneducated high school
dropouts, which is a demographic with
very low incomes...

First of all, there are "lions" out there
and "wannabes." Meaning there are many big
yachts and cigarette boats owned by the filthy
rich, and then crappy motorboats of all kinds
...
It's a matter of STATUS. Just like cars.
"Money to burn"=3DBig Yacht & SUV.
"Survivor"=3Dold car and boat.

Agreed, but this is hardly new news. Mahogany hulled Chris-Craft
powerboats have been around since the 1920s, as well as efforts over
the years to broaden the market base to the middle class; one can
suggest that Boston Whaler contributed to this trend too, staring in
the mid-1950s.


But motorboat pollution contributes to
"the soup" out there too...

You sure that you're not smelling naturally
occurring organics? Afterall, the ICW runs
through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries.

I can tell the smell of gas. And you can see
it floating all over the place.

Maybe in a marina. Gas is a light aeromatic and disappears quite
rapidly. If its not natural marsh stuff, its more likely to be
diesel, which tends to be more of what larger working boats tend to
use, not your generic commercial pleasure boat 30ft.

And when a motorboats goes by, you can get
some serious second hand smoke.

While there's always going to be the occasional gross polluter, they
generally are quite uncommon. Turbo-diesels will smoke when under
heavy load, such as a 40 footer trying to get home on one engine.


0.04% incidence. =A0Yes, very 'startling'. =A0
You would have to boat for over 25 years just
to get up to a 1% risk.

I bet many of those registered boats don't
even make it to the water (they look good parked
on the driveway).

Catch-22 alert: if these are your high risk "unskilled" boaters, if
they're parked at home, they can't be a risk at sea.

And the kayaks stay away from those motorboat
highways, so the statistics may be misleading.

Kayaks aren't a class of boat requiring registration, so the actual
total numbers are higher, which means that the actual statistical risk
is even lower.


But your common sense tells you they are a real
threat. More than terrorists, say.

Common sense says that all parties should take responsibility for
their decisions, which includes wandering out into harm's way when you
suspect that there are operators of less than stellar skill levels
present. Yes, it is "unfair", but life is unfair: you either deal
with it and roll with the punches, or die from being too inflexible.


-hh

Totally untrue, if I spill gas while refueling. THe gas doc will
surround the area with absorption material, and clean it up, I have to
file an EPA report on how it happened, and how I will prevent it in
the future

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:19:41 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
wrote:

On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, "Lee Bell" wrote:
Sometimes that law doesn't exist or is not enforced and they just
follow the Law of the Jungle. If you talk about the channels their
speeds are not terribly willd, but still you are a sitting duck.

It exists everywhere you're ever likely to be in your kayak. There's more
enforcement on the intracoastal, per boater, than in any city or state
anywhere near here.

Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
you can't be safe. I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...

Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner. I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.

Then you realize you live in the jungle.

Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
http://webspwner.com/users/bananarevolution
Sounds like you are suffering from "lack of sack" desease and whinning
about it. Bycyles have as much right on our roadways as cars do, and
have no right on the side walks.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
wrote:

10 Cyclists Struck by a Taxi on the Causeway to Miami Beach

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=457751


"A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak."

And why should we protect the monkey, not the lion? Because then the
lion will eat the monkey, stupid. And that keeps the other monkeys
terrorized, which is not what we want. We want them to come out,
right?

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe)
mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more
rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is
always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even
completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way
traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate
cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two
cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).

A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak.

The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that
they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not
bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it
can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly."

Posted by PCC | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._hierarchy.php
As are the laws here, hit a bycyclest here and you are in trouble.
What happened to the cab driver ?

Why would anyone care unless they were planning to sue or something?
I've been kayaking all over the east coast, from Maine to the
Everglades, and I find personal water craft far more irritating,
hazardous, and likely to be in unskilled hands than any kind of
smudgepot (power boat).

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

Smart except for being completely wrong. The purpose of the police power is
to investigate, apprehend and bring criminals to the judicial portion of the
American system.