Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by skipmac

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.

Must be more risky, in many ways to the sailor for sure. Mid ocean asleep isn't so black and white- a well equipped solo boat with radar, ais alarms & transponder with a skipper wary of anything could well be argued to be keeping a better watch than a crewed boat, instruments off the save power and crew on watch head in a kindle. Not as black and white as you might initially think.
Coastal is very different often just plain unpleasant solo, plus there are a fair few gung-ho singlehanders out there not as wonderful as they think they are, fatigue can be very tiring

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by conachair

, plus there are a fair few gung-ho singlehanders out there not as wonderful as they think they are, fatigue can be very tiring

Old and Bold.. or as the guy going past the 23rd floor was heard saying.. "So far so good"
But its not what I think.. its what others may think I am.. Or am not..
Not my problem..

[JohnHutchins]

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.

While it seems like an intuitively sensible way to think about the problem, I don't think risk has much value here as an analytical tool because the risk differentials we're talking about are small enough that adopting any rule that says something like "it's immoral to do x if it's creating a q risk delta" generates an oppressively restrictive rule that no reasonable person would want to live under.

Does going to sea in a 11 ton boat instead of a 1 ton boat create risks for others? Yes. Especially when that 11 ton boat is traveling at 7.5 knots instead of four knots. And a twenty ton boat -- what kind of uncivilized ass would do that or take out a cat capable of making 20 knots? To say nothing of land based recklessness like driving a car ever.

All of these are just the core risk we accept as part of being alive in a world where people are free to do magnificent things like take to sea or drive from DC to New York in five hours.

Is your freedom to create safety curtailed? No. You can reduce the risk posed to you by keeping an adequate watch, using technological aids like radar, or simply staying on land. And that's ultimately what the question comes down to:

Is the single hander required to stay on shore so you can feel more confident at sea or do you stay onshore because you feel uncomfortable about the single hander?

Saying that single handing is morally objectionable because of the degree of risk it creates to others allows you to condemn much too much and so is not useful as a way to think about the problem.

As a pedantic but also possibly illuminating terminological aside, "statistically insignificant"is the wrong phrase. Statistical significance is a property of sample statistics and it really means something more like "repeatable" than "meaningful". If I put a hundred red or white marbles in an urn and you draw a marble blind and it's red can you conclude that the marbles are all red? No because you can't have confidence, from a sample of one, that the next sample you take will be similar. If you draw f ten samples of ten marbles each and you keep getting something close to half red and half white then your estimate that half the marbles are red is a statistically significant one. The risk we're taking about has no urn and we're not interested in repeatability or statistical significance; we're interested in meaningfulness or moral significance. And some risks are closely enough related in size to the background risk we've all decided we have to accept to make life less than miserable that they are ignorable.

In the end, single handed sailing creates no burden on you that you don't already accept -- the need to keep an adequate watch and stay out of the way of a vessel that's not going to get out of your way either because it's not obligated to or not able to.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Old and Bold.. or as the guy going past the 23rd floor was heard saying.. "So far so good"
But its not what I think.. its what others may think I am.. Or am not..
Not my problem..

One thing from reading this thread - if anyone does feel the pull of the ocean alone - get out there and go sailing, if bits work great, if not change it, practice, again and again. A solo boat never stays the same for too long, always little tweaks make life easier. After every long trip I get in and think that's enough for a while, but a day or so later it's - messed that bit up, should try it this way next time, that bit of kit would be better changed then the urge to get back out there for another go it just gets stronger ..

But don't listen to the doom and gloom.

Then one day you'll be making landfall across an ocean wondering what all the fuss was about

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by JohnHutchins

While it seems like an intuitively sensible way to think about the problem, I don't think risk has much value here as an analytical tool because the risk differentials we're talking about are small enough that adopting any rule that says something like "it's immoral to do x if it's creating a q risk delta" generates an oppressively restrictive rule that no reasonable person would want to live under.

Does going to sea in a 11 ton boat instead of a 1 ton boat create risks for others? Yes. Especially when that 11 ton boat is traveling at 7.5 knots instead of four knots. And a twenty ton boat -- what kind of uncivilized ass would do that or take out a cat capable of making 20 knots? To say nothing of land based recklessness like driving a car ever.

All of these are just the core risk we accept as part of being alive in a world where people are free to do magnificent things like take to sea or drive from DC to New York in five hours.

Is your freedom to create safety curtailed? No. You can reduce the risk posed to you by keeping an adequate watch, using technological aids like radar, or simply staying on land. And that's ultimately what the question comes down to:

Is the single hander required to stay on shore so you can feel more confident at sea or do you stay onshore because you feel uncomfortable about the single hander?

Saying that single handing is morally objectionable because of the degree of risk it creates to others allows you to condemn much too much and so is not useful as a way to think about the problem.

As a pedantic but also possibly illuminating terminological aside, "statistically insignificant"is the wrong phrase. Statistical significance is a property of sample statistics and it really means something more like "repeatable" than "meaningful". If I put a hundred red or white marbles in an urn and you draw a marble blind and it's red can you conclude that the marbles are all red? No because you can't have confidence, from a sample of one, that the next sample you take will be similar. If you draw f ten samples of ten marbles each and you keep getting something close to half red and half white then your estimate that half the marbles are red is a statistically significant one. The risk we're taking about has no urn and we're not interested in repeatability or statistical significance; we're interested in meaningfulness or moral significance. And some risks are closely enough related in size to the background risk we've all decided we have to accept to make life less than miserable that they are ignorable.

In the end, single handed sailing creates no burden on you that you don't already accept -- the need to keep an adequate watch and stay out of the way of a vessel that's not going to get out of your way either because it's not obligated to or not able to.

Who is this guy?? Another superbly insightful contribution. A couple of levels too deep for much of this crowd I'm afraid

But this really gets to the heart of the matter, especially the last paragraph. The Rules and the whole idea of the Rules do not give you any right to expect or demand that another vessel will see you or take any particular action, so it's not really appropriate to comment on other people's single handed practices, just like a real seaman never gets aggravated because a give-way vessel fails to give-way.

The Rules command us to avoid collisions. If you smash into a sleeping single hander, or an unlit drifting hulk, or a boat drifting with a broken rudder -- you have no right to complain about it -- you were supposed to have seen and avoided it yourself in any case.

I don't worry about sleeping single-handers just like I don't worry about he much more common oblivious fishing boats on autopilot with no one in the pilothouse -- my watchkeeping and collision avoidance practices must be adequate to deal with such situations, and they are.

And by the way, I agree with Conachair about technology -- we are obligated to keep a continuous visual watch, and there is good reason for that, but that does not mean that a visual watch alone is enough. Properly managed electronic systems enormously increase safety offshore. I don't believe it is humanly possible to keep your eyes on the empty sea 24/7 over days or weeks, and even a disciplined regular horizon scan is doomed to miss something sometime. Radar never blinks; nor does AIS. Not a substitute for the visual watch, but an enormous enhancement, so much so that I agree with Conachair that a skillful and well equipped single hander is likely much safer than the average full crewed but slackish yacht.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by skipmac

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.

No, it is about whether it is morally wrong.

There are many other boating activities (water skiing, PWC in general, or just going fast) that are statistically (USCG keeps these and they are easily refferenced) far more dangerous, yet I hope we can agree they do not rise to the level of morally wrong.

Thus, it cannot be considered immoral. Illegal, perhaps, but not immoral. I hope know one here believes morality and legality are the same thing. Legality is only one of many factors used to measure if an action is wrong, and we don't all measure the same way.

[CSY Man]

. skillful and well equipped single hander is likely much safer than the average full crewed but slackish yacht.

Comparing apples and oranges:
Compare a slackish solo sailor to a slackish full crewed Yacht: Which is better?
Or a skillful solo guy to a skillful fully crewed boat. Which is better?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Comparing apples and oranges:
Compare a slackish solo sailor to a slackish full crewed Yacht: Which is better?
Or a skillful solo guy to a skillful fully crewed boat. Which is better?

Last one not that much in it IMHO.

Is a slack crewed boat morally wrong?

[OldManMirage]

Originally Posted by JohnHutchins
While it seems like an intuitively sensible way to think about the problem, I don't think risk has much value here as an analytical tool because the risk differentials we're talking about are small enough that adopting any rule that says something like "it's immoral to do x if it's creating a q risk delta" generates an oppressively restrictive rule that no reasonable person would want to live under.

Yes yes and yes. Again, even if you're not a sci-fi fan, read Jack Williamson "With Folded Hands" and you can see where this type of restrictions can only end up. Essentially, to go to the end of the story, you will sit "with folded hands" ad nauseum, indefinitely.

Truthfully ( this may stir up the hornets nest, but here goes nuttin ), we are becoming less a world of moral character and more a world of law. So it could be we are having a discussion of "the writing on the wall" whether we realize it or not.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Jim, you are assuming that just because it was Jessica's fault for not keeping a watch, that this somehow makes it NOT the fault of the ship which hit her.

But that is not the case. It is fundamental to the COLREGS that one thing has very little to do with the other. This is not indeed contrary to the "routine interpretation of the COLREGS" -- it's basic and has always been like that. If you fail to do something to prevent a collision, you share the responsibility, no matter how guilty the other vessel was.

Not so, DH. Post 137, to which I was replying suggested that all court decisions would blame a SH sailor involved in a collision because he was not maintaining a proper watch, and had done so for a century or more. The JW decision apportioned the majority of the blame to the ship.

This did not seem to help restore the mast on JW's boat,

Incidentally, I'm curious as to what a watchkeeper on an anchored ship with cold engines could do to escape a collision. It takes hours to bring them on line in most ships so evasive action seems impossible in a useful time span. Is blowing the siren enough to escape blame?

And the NUC ploy ... seems at least as justifiable as the drifting colliers that litter the sea E of Oz... but I've not ever heard of a small SH vessel being fitted with the proper lamps and using them. Maybe the bigger racers ? I dunno!

But with all the sturm und drang about theoretical court responses, the fact seems to be that there is no official condemnation of SH sailing, and damn few instances of collisions between SHers and other vessels.

Jim

[conachair]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Or a skillful solo guy to a skillful fully crewed boat. Which is better?

Going off topic a bit here but thinking a bit more on this one - very very little in it IMHO.
Bad things happen on boats a very long time before they happen. Sailing is such a cerebral activity, if it all goes mad on the water then you haven't thought it through enough. Accidents happen before you lift the hook.

Solo or not, top end skillful you've thought through "what's the worst" a hundred times and it didn't happen.

[mcneilms]

I rarely post, as I haven't been out there...But, if I was the cause of someone else's death because I did not have a watch, right or wrong, I would be gutted.
All of you can say, well the other should had a watch, and he was asleep. But for those who choose to have no watch you are putting others in danger. The chance of collision avoidance is double if both boats have a watch.
As far as technology, all well and good, but how many of you have slept through your alarm clock.
If you can live with killing someone. That is between you and God.

Enough said.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Not so, DH. Post 137, to which I was replying suggested that all court decisions would blame a SH sailor involved in a collision because he was not maintaining a proper watch, and had done so for a century or more. The JW decision apportioned the majority of the blame to the ship.. . .

I say again, the JW decision does not contradict the century of court decisions correctly cited by Paul L in Post 137. It has ever been the law, that you will be condemned for not keeping a proper watch. Nothing has changed. That even more blame might be apportioned to the other vessel has nothing to do with it -- that was also ever the case. You are working a false dichotomy here. Paul L was right, and the Jessica Watson case doesn't represent any change of how the Rules are interpreted.

[Jim Cate]

Paul L was right, and the Jessica Watson case doesn't represent any change of how the Rules are interpreted.

I must not be communicating well! I agree that this case does not represent a change. I think it shows that in a collision involving a SH vessel, the entire blame is not automatically laid upon the SH sailor... a position that has been taken by some posters here... and suggested by those who espouse the immorality view.

But enough! I'm pretty sure that SH sailors are not gonna be sent to the gulag by the Admiralty courts and that St Peter won't deny them access to the Elysian seas on the grounds of their demonstrated immorality. Having been guilty of SH racing in the past,and considering my age, perhaps I'll find out before long!

Jim

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Ha ha, I didn't say I wasn't safe as I believe I always am, I simply said I wasn't that good at it. I set that "good" bar quite high because I've seen some really good single handers in action..say someone like Alex Thomas on Hugo Boss. I simply suggested that I didn't fit into that group. I have managed to sail offshore for well over 35 years without any accidents so my personal concept of safety is backed up by performance. That of course and the fact that I like having company when at sea for long periods of time. [emoji2]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to pick on you just pointing out that it's a silly question (sorry, Jim) because morality is such a subjective factor. Our concepts of "safe" and "risk" are also perceptive ones and that's why the question is unanswerable and constantly debating with no resolution. The courts establish precedents, but even there, time and changes in society often cause a redirect from established opinions/decisions.