Crunching the stats on collisions involving paddle craft in NZ
Sources of paddle craft incidents
Three sources of recorded incidents have been used
(i) Maritime New Zealand incident database with reports of incidents from 2004 to the present
(ii) Kiwi Association of Sea Kayakers (KASK) incident database with reports of incidents from 1992 through 2005. KASK incident database contains people's so is not included here.. See KASK analysis of all incidents (colision and otherwise) by Dr Iona Bailey - MBChB ( Aberdeen Scotland ), FRNZCGP, Post Grad Cert GP (Travel Medicine) with funding from New Zealand water safety Council and KASK.
(iii) the ARC Harbourmaster’s office verbal reports at at 12/3/09
Combined summary of all collision incidents from all sources above for last 13 years
KASK kayaker fatalities analysis from all incidents
NOTES: (1) New Zealand
Police also investigates incidents where there is likely to be a procecution.
This report was prepared by kevin Dunsford 12/3/09 for ARC submission on SAFETY BYLAW rule 2.17 review
shows paddle craft collisions are not a significant problem in New Zealand and a bylaw is ineffective as a means to alter the rate of collisions Incident records have been kept on all known paddle craft collisions since 1992. In the 13 years till now there have been only 7 recorded collisions for the whole of New Zealand (including sea, lakes and rivers)
The average collision rate in New Zealand is about 1 each 2 years
The average collision rate in ARC controlled waters is about 1 each 5 years
In New Zealand in the last 13 years there have been 2 fatalities, in 1997 and 2004.
Compared with drowning or fatalities on roads the number of fatalities from paddle craft collisions is very minor indeed.
However it should be noted that almost one third of paddle craft collisions result in fatality.
The only recorded incidents of collision in Auckland were in the Auckland Inner Harbour in 2008. The previous 12 years had no recorded collisions in any ARC controlled waters. During the last 10 years th e numbers of kayaks and paddle craft have been rapidly increasing without any corresponding increase in collisions. Three incidents in one year out of 13 cannot be perceived to be a trend.
The Harbourmaster has already taken action to reduce the speed limit in the inner Auckland Harbour to 12 knots where all three of the incidents occurred. This is more likely to reduce the potential for collision in future as well as mitigating possible consequences.
Kayak and paddle craft training has increased from almost nothing 10 years ago to now many organisations providing training courses, education and guidelines. These include Coastguard, kayak retail stores, commercially run paddle clubs, traditional kayaking clubs, universities and technical training organisations. More recently kayak fishing clubs and fishing yak retailers are training as well.
For example, in the biggest New Zealand fishing forum http://www.fishing.net.nz/asp_forums/, the kayak fishing forum called Yak Yak Yak had 22,493 posts from online users, as at 11/3/09 . One safety topic alone has had 4,503 viewers and this is just one example of many, where kayakers are educating themselves.
Yak Yak Yak kayak fishing forum safety topics showing 73 posts and 4,503 readers.
also KayakFishingNZ. Kiwi Assiciation of Sea Kayakers,
and many others...
The reasons for this are conjecture but may include the following:
(i) With the increase in the number of kayaks, other vessels are now taking more notice of them. This includes the knowledge of the risk of collision which translates into a more informed attitude and hence more anecdotal reports.
(ii) Over the last few years vessel skippers have become more fearful of the consequences of a collision with a paddle craft resulting in a shift of perceived potential responsibility to the other paddle-craft party. This is especially relevant after the recent prosecution in Auckland .
(iii) However, the increase of anecdotal reports does not bear any relationship to actual collisions based on evidence.
To be able to determine this, the reported incidents need to be analysed. Incidents are rarely caused by one factor but the primary cause factors are shown below.
Table of major contributing factors from all known paddle craft collision incidents
Note* this column indicates whether the application of requirements of Rule 2.17 (current or proposed) would likely change the outcome of the collision occurring
In almost half the incidents Sunstrike was stated as the main contributing factor. This occurs when the sun is low to the horizon and the paddle craft is between the sun and the other vessel. If the paddle craft could be seen, it would appear as a dark object against the intense glare of the sun. Because of the glare, the eye adjusts to let less light in and consequently less image resolution so that even objects quite close are not seen. Usually there are no reflections from the paddle craft because the sun is behind it, unless the sun hits a feathered paddle (paddle blades that are offset at about 45% to one another common to sea kayaks, but not other paddle craft).
As every vessel owner knows, sunstrike can obliterate all objects on land when looking to the west setting sun. It is notable that, where sunstrike was quoted as the major contributing factor, inattention was not. This is probably because the vessel skipper would have known there was a condition of reduced visibility - and paid particular attention to what was in front - yet still did not see the paddle craft ahead. There is very little a paddle craft may do to avoid the problem except stay out of the path of all vessels and not depend on the other vessel seeing them.
. The most prominent cause is skipper inattention and in all 4 cases investigated - and possibly the one that was not - the skipper did not know until after the collision there was a paddle craft ahead. This means the skipper could not see an object at least one metre high above sea level and probably very animated (in the Auckland case the kayaker was waving a bright yellow paddle above his head and, similarly, in the case of the 6 person waka, they were also waving oar’s above their heads). And this is even at close quarters.
In all inattention cases either the skipper was talking to another person or just plain not keeping a lookout ahead. It is clear, in these cases, that any changes to the paddle craft would not have altered the outcome.
In the case of dangerous driving, speeding and loss of vessel control, the maturity, intelligence and experience of the skipper has to be a large factor. No amount of alteration to a paddle craft could affect these outcomes. Again in the case of the Auckland incident, the Judge noted the kayaker had not done anything wrong. The kayaker was waving a bright yellow paddle and had a yellow kayak according to MSA records.
Despite the perception, in all investigated incidents, . The perceived need of “paddle craft visibility” to prevent collisions does not hold.
It is worth noting there were no reports of collision at night. This may be due to increased paddler awareness of the risks at night; by paddlers keeping well clear of other traffic; and most paddlers who venture out at night have more experience.
In none of the recorded instances would the application of the current or proposed bylaw Rule 2.17 have changed the outcome.
This is because
(i) One third of the collisions occurred within 200m of shore which is outside the scope of the bylaw rule.
(ii) In the cases where sunstrike was identified (already discussed), the only way of improving the image reaching the other skipper would be make the paddle craft appear larger, which is beyond the scope of the bylaw.
(iii) In the incidents where the other vessel was simply not keeping a watch ahead, or distracted, by talking to another person in the boat, a bylaw affecting the paddle craft would be ineffectual. In these cases the only way of avoiding a collision is for a paddler to anticipate a collision and take quick evasive action.
(iv) There will always be a small number of collisions involving paddle craft.
