Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Thank you for for pointing out the obvious. I think the discussion comes down to whether the poster has ever singlehanded and whether that was a good experience for them. I'm quite sure we all speed, because we like getting there in less time.

Nope just 4 pure pleasure.. dont have to be going anywhere..

[deblen]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's not my interpretation.

That is a straight quotation from "A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules" by Cockcroft and Lameijer (commonly know as "Cockcroft"). It is the seminal work on interpreting COLREGs with copious case historiesn of Admiralty Court decisions. Anyone who really wants to understand COLREGs should have a copy. I will take his interpretation over yours any day

Cockcroft includes dragging anchor & becalmed as N.U.C. situations.

[TeddyDiver]

Saying it again with another words. Anyone claiming singlehanding a risk for them is not following the COLREGS and is in fact an accident waiting to happen. Shame on you

Teddy

[Mark Johnson]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

It was suggested today that singlehanding more than 24 hrs is morally wrong.



Personally, I don't see it that way, and I am aware it has been discussed at length in a number of previous threads.



I'd appreciate it if we can all be respectful and friendly in the posts...



To be very clear, I think we need to respect the singlehanders, and provide support for them just as much as we do for other cruising sailors. For the singlehander, it is the bits close to land, with its rocky outcroppings that are most dangerous.



I have written elswhere on CF about unlit boats, and they're the bane of my sailing miles. Singlehanders, not so. We entertain them on the beach and boat, and would try to avoid them when going the same direction.



Maintaining a proper lookout has worked so far for us, and I do not begrudge attentiveness to anyone out there (except those unlit boats! )



There is basis in the Colregs for suggesting that the long term singlehander cannot maintain an effective watch 24/7. No one disputes that. But is it immoral to singlehand because it may place other people at risk?

It is and always has been illegal for good reason! “All vessels must maintain watch, 24/7”...

There are easily 10,000 X as many small and large vessels on our over crowded oceans on an over populated planet, VS decades ago.

To think that “the other guy” will watch out for me, so why should I watch out for them too, is the height of irresponsibility.

Modern gadgets, like RADAR guard zones, help, but do not see many small vessels, especially third world fishermen, with no radar reflection.

When it is rough, visibility is poor, and both skippers a bit ill, we ALL need to watch out for each other.

[boatman61]

For those armchair sailors and harbour hoppers who spout the rules verbatim I dont think you even begin to realise the thought and planning that goes into the exercise..
Until you do I will just mark you down as the cruising worlds version of Jehovah's Witnesses.. the world will end..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

Stu, you are very fortunate to have found someone to do your thinking for you. However, you might want to try interpreting some things for yourself. It can be fun to form your own ideas about things.

Fun, yes. Appropriate where safety is concerned, no.

I prefer to make up my mind after considering other peoples opinions, and I tend to put more weight on what they say if they are experts who have studied the issues and case law in detail.

I find it makes me much better informed than just dreaming up my own interpretations of the facts.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boatman61

If a risk is unacceptable then its time to stop single handing.. or stop sailing on crewed boats..
Risk is a fact of life.

Certainly everyone agrees that life inherently has risks.

I'm sure we all agree that singlehanding has more or at least different risks than sailing with a full crew (assuming basic competency of the crew which is a different discussion altogether).

I think most if not all of us agree that a person has the right to incur whatever risk to themselves that they choose.

The important questions that keep getting lost in the discussion

1. Does sailing solo bring additional risk to other boaters?
2. Does the solo sailor have the right to make that decision?

My opinion, answer to Q1 is definitely yes. It may be statistically insignificant (not in my personal experience) but can anyone say with 100% certainty that sailing solo and not keeping a continuous watch does not add any risk at all to other boats? Not asking if it's a great risk or a highly dangerous risk, just is there any risk at all.

The second question is the hard one and in my opinion depends how much the risk to others increases and the seriousness of the results if that risk becomes a reality.

To take it to the extreme, if there is 100% chance that someone's actions will cause me a serious problem then I don't think that person should have the right to make that choice. So at what level is it ok for someone to do something that could add risk to my life? 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 1,000,000?

The other part of that question, what is the worst case scenario if a risk become reality, for example if a collision occurs. Again, extremely unlikely but a collision between two sailboats could result in a death.

I don't know the answer or where to draw the line but there is a line.

[RaymondR]

I choose to live on a boat and single hand for the benefit of my physical and mental health. Occasionally I do voyage legs of greater than 24 hours as a necessity.

Does that make me any less moral than say four drunken morons on a day trip?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Certainly everyone agrees that life inherently has risks.

I'm sure we all agree that singlehanding has more or at least different risks than sailing with a full crew (assuming basic competency of the crew which is a different discussion altogether).

I think most if not all of us agree that a person has the right to incur whatever risk to themselves that they choose.

The important questions that keep getting lost in the discussion

1. Does sailing solo bring additional risk to other boaters?
2. Does the solo sailor have the right to make that decision?

My opinion, answer to Q1 is definitely yes. It may be statistically insignificant (not in my personal experience) but can anyone say with 100% certainty that sailing solo and not keeping a continuous watch does not add any risk at all to other boats? Not asking if it's a great risk or a highly dangerous risk, just is there any risk at all.

The second question is the hard one and in my opinion depends how much the risk to others increases and the seriousness of the results if that risk becomes a reality.

To take it to the extreme, if there is 100% chance that someone's actions will cause me a serious problem then I don't think that person should have the right to make that choice. So at what level is it ok for someone to do something that could add risk to my life? 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 1,000,000?

The other part of that question, what is the worst case scenario if a risk become reality, for example if a collision occurs. Again, extremely unlikely but a collision between two sailboats could result in a death.

I don't know the answer or where to draw the line but there is a line.

Using your arguement I could argue that a crewed boat offers 100% danger to me..
I have never come close to being run down by a single hander.. I have however been t boned by a fully crewed boat motor sailing at 6kts.. and a hit and run at that.
Therefore if all crewed vessels were banned.. for me the seas would be safer.. Much fewer dickheads on the water.. less pollution.. Ahh the bliss.

[kellyp08]

Is single handing your car (like when I drive from Manhattan to Northeast Harbor, Maine to get to the boat ) “morally wrong”? Seems to me that one can do a helluva lot more damage driving along in a car at 65 mph than cruising along in your boat at 7kts in, like, the ocean?

[CSY Man]

. For those armchair sailors and harbour hoppers who spout the rules verbatim I dont think you even begin to realise the thought and planning that goes into the exercise..
Until you do I will just mark you down as the cruising worlds version of Jehovah's Witnesses.. the world will end..

The world has certainly ended for some solo sailors, never to be heard from again.
(Same with properly crewed vessels of course, but at least those guys tried to do the right thing)

As for the Question of the day: Is it Morally Wrong?
No idea, but I see it as selfish and irresponsible. Sure the risk is small to big ships, but not to smaller boats. Especially the round the world record breaker chasers: Surfing along at 25 knots while you are taking a nap. Selfish and irresponsible in my book.

(Yes, I have driven above the speed limit, guilty of being in the same boat)

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Using your arguement I could argue that a crewed boat offers 100% danger to me..
I have never come close to being run down by a single hander.. I have however been t boned by a fully crewed boat motor sailing at 6kts.. and a hit and run at that.
Therefore if all crewed vessels were banned.. for me the seas would be safer.. Much fewer dickheads on the water.. less pollution.. Ahh the bliss.

And I could say the same. Never been hit by a singlehander but have been hit (fortunately with little damage) by fully crewed boats. But the question is not about relative risks. I could make up a million activities that are more risky than singlehanding.

The question is about the risk of singlehanding itself, not whether it is more or less risky than crewed or any other kind of boating.

[hellosailor]

Jim?
While we're indulging in moral superiority...Is it "moral" at all to be spending time on a pleasure craft, when one could be helping villagers who have no clean water? Or aiding in the fight against repressive warlords? Or simply, helping to cook and serve and clean at the local homeless shelter and food line?

Exactly where is the zero axis on the morality scale? And at what point does that intersect with "Darwin Awards" ?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by kellyp08

Is single handing your car (like when I drive from Manhattan to Northeast Harbor, Maine to get to the boat ) “morally wrong”? Seems to me that one can do a helluva lot more damage driving along in a car at 65 mph than cruising along in your boat at 7kts in, like, the ocean?

This obfuscates the main question. The question is not one of relative risk. Of course many, many things are more risky than singlehanding. No disagreement on this point by anyone on the planet.

The question is whether singlehanding in and of itself is an issue or as the original question was posted, immoral.

I said before, I think immoral is too strong a word or the wrong word to use in this situation.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Jim?
While we're indulging in moral superiority...Is it "moral" at all to be spending time on a pleasure craft, when one could be helping villagers who have no clean water? Or aiding in the fight against repressive warlords? Or simply, helping to cook and serve and clean at the local homeless shelter and food line?

Exactly where is the zero axis on the morality scale? And at what point does that intersect with "Darwin Awards" ?

All interesting questions but still avoids answering the question posed on this thread. The question is not whether any other activity is better or worse, more or less moral, more or less dangerous to the person involved or to others.

The question is about single handing itself, not relative to other activities. There are an infinite number of things that are more or less dangerous, more or less moral, etc, etc, etc than singlehanding. OK. But what about the "morality" of singlehanding without regard to how it relates to anything else?