Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[estarzinger]

This debate has been repeated in various variation 100's of times. The conclusions never change:

#1 there is no meaningful history of single handers hurting others on passage. They kill themselves, they sink their boats, and very very infrequently they make a small dent in a fishing boat (mike golding vendee 60) although less so since AiS.
#2 the case history suggests that the officials broadly judge it possible to single hand within the colregs. There are various national authorities (NZ and SA come to mind) who would flat out stop single handers from clearing for passage if it was clear it could not ever be done within the colregs. And there have been a few cases (like jessica) where the single handers have not been given more than proportional fault.
#3 It is pretty clearly riskier (I say that from incident reports and personal experience) to single hand than to double hand (which most cruising couples do) and riskier to double hand than to tripple (or more) hand. But even fully crewed boats make mistakes. Look at aegeon with 5 on board and they ran right into the side of a lit island. My personal impression is that relatively few double handed boats keep a 7 x 24 continuous visual watch on open ocean passages, and it is arguable whether that is the 'best/safer' action compared to a different program which would minimize fatigue in order for both hands to be in prepared for the most difficult moments.
#4 and even given all that as fact, some people will still judge it (and motor boating) to be morally wrong.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

" at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing "

Your understanding of English appears somewhat different than mine.

In Stu's quote there are 3 statements separated by the word "by" and "so as to make"
If your understanding of this phrase were correct then all the nations who allow, permit, single handed's to leave their shores are breaking the interational law.

There is a solo race across the Tasman about to start. NZ are pretty tight on experience required to exit NZ but allows solo.
This tells me that the interpretation of proper watch does not mean exhausting yourself to insanity when good watchkeeping equipment is available to allow napping in the cockpit.

Napping should be encouraged so you can keep proper watch.

[CSY Man]

. This tells me that the interpretation of proper watch does not mean exhausting yourself to insanity when good watchkeeping equipment is available to allow napping in the cockpit.

Wow.
Make sure to verify that with those who have more common sense.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

The devil reads the Bible and draws his own conclusions.

The "accuser of the brethren" interprets the rules to restrict our freedoms.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

The devil reads the Bible and draws his own conclusions.

I thought he was the author..

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Only thing I can think is he was steering by remote below and altered his heading a few degrees without looking as he hit me just at the fwd lower
Or that other reason to keep watch - to keep an eye on the gear. Autopilots sometimes have minds of their own, winds shift, seas change, rudder picks up a load of kelp or a fishing net; dozens of things can change the course.

Thats why it was a 50/50 fault.. regardless of the motor vs sail situation..

Of course it's 50/50 - neither one of you was watching, so both assuming 100% of self-risk. By extension, you assume all liability for yourselves too.

I'd argue there was no "motor vs sail situation" - rules in section II apply to vessels within sight of one another.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

It says maintain proper lookout at all times.
It does not say by sight and hearing at all times.
This is why single handed sailing is acceptable.

BTW, some people can really pick appropriate screen names

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Of course it's 50/50 - neither one of you was watching, so both assuming 100% of self-risk. By extension, you assume all liability for yourselves too.

I'd argue there was no "motor vs sail situation" - rules in section II apply to vessels within sight of one another.

Never said it was not my fault.. Lesson learnt and never repeated in the 18yrs since..
Hard hard end to my 1st solo transat..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Of course it's 50/50 - neither one of you was watching, so both assuming 100% of self-risk. By extension, you assume all liability for yourselves too.

I'd argue there was no "motor vs sail situation" - rules in section II apply to vessels within sight of one another.

<pedant mode on>
"Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other."
Note "can be", not "is". If either vessel had been maintaining an adequate watch, the other would have been "observed visually". Failure to maintain watch doesn't render the other vessel invisible.
</pedant mode>

Added:

Indeed, Cockcroft agrees:

"A vessel is unlikely to be excused for not complying with the appropriate Rule of Section II if it is considered that failure to sight the other vessel was due to a bad visual look-out"

Although "unlikely to be" is not an absolute.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

If your understanding of this phrase were correct then all the nations who allow, permit, single handed's to leave their shores are breaking the interational law.

When a government chooses not to enforce a law they are not breaking the law themselves. And not enforcing the law is not the same as permitting something.

It's like with drugs in the Netherlands. All drugs technically still forbidden. The government just has chosen not to enforce that law in all cases anymore. That does not mean that now marijuana is permitted.

In the case of the solo races leaving from NZ that the government permits those races does not mean they agree that solo sailing is in accordance with the COLREGS. It just means that they consider the activity not unsafe.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by StuM

<pedant mode on>
"Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other."
Note "can be", not "is". If either vessel had been maintaining an adequate watch, the other would have been "observed visually". Failure to maintain watch doesn't render the other vessel invisible.
</pedant mode>

Added:

Indeed, Cockcroft agrees:

"A vessel is unlikely to be excused for not complying with the appropriate Rule of Section II if it is considered that failure to sight the other vessel was due to a bad visual look-out"

Although "unlikely to be" is not an absolute.

If a tree falls in a forest...

If no-one is on watch on either vessel, then there is no way that one can be observed visually, is there? It's not a bad visual look-out, it's a non-existent one. Arguably, of course.

[boatman61]

Technically I was at greater fault in my mind as I was aware of the other boat whereas as it turned out he was oblivious to me..
My error was in assuming he would stay on his course for the next 10mins and clear my stern.. he did not.
As I said.. since that day everyone is a potential threat till I see their stern..
I guess 47days at sea had chilled me to much and.. I was only 90miles from home..
Here Endith the Lesson..

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I guess 47days at sea had chilled me to much and.. I was only 90miles from home..
Here Endith the Lesson..

It's interesting you mention this. This is much more common than people think, and there are corollaries in other activities also. In auto racing, we were always told to be careful coming into pit row even after the race was over. There are a large number of accidents on pit row due to a relaxation of the driver. The speed on pit row is still fast, just not as fast as on the track. In my case, the fastest we would run is around 140mph (SCCA G Production 1958 and 1964 Alpha Spider) and we'd enter the pit lane between 80 and 100. Not really fast but fast enough to be dangerous. Flying a long distance can yield similar issues.

In all cases, there's more traffic concentrated in a smaller area, and the operator often is tired and perhaps anxious to get home, to at least some extent.

[buzzstar]

This entire discussion is an illustration of the old statement about the Western Democracies and much of the rest of the world: In the Western Democracies, that which was not specifically prohibited was OK. In most of the rest of the world, that which was not specifically permitted was prohibited. Of course, now, with the change in legislative activity from part time to full time and the vastly increased size and power of the related bureaucracies, there far less difference since almost all human activity is regulated one way or the other. Once upon a time, sailing, including solo sailing was a way of avoiding that. No more, unless you can escape unnoticed.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If a tree falls in a forest...

If no-one is on watch on either vessel, then there is no way that one can be observed visually, is there? It's not a bad visual look-out, it's a non-existent one. Arguably, of course.

A nice question of interpretation, but from a legal point of view, it's pretty clear that a judge would never agree that the other vessel couldn't be observed visually, in the sense discussed here, just because someone was not looking out, and thus the the Rules for Vessels in Sight of One Another (Part 2, Steering & Sailing Rules) don't apply.

The clue, as always in questions of legal interpretation, is the intention of the drafters and the logic of the whole construction. The Steering & Sailing Rules are broken down into three sections according to different conditions of visibility -- Part 1 is for "Conduct of Vessels in Any Condition of Visibility"; Part 2 is "Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another", and Part 3 is "Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility."

From this it is obvious that "vessels in sight of one another" and "can be observed one from the other" refers to the condition of visibility -- whether or not it is possible under the conditions for the vessels to see each other, not indeed whether someone is simply not looking out.

If that were not the case, you would get an absurd result -- so if a sleeping or slacking off watchkeeper means Part 2 doesn't apply, then what Part applies, and why? Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility? Obviously silly. Part 3 cannot be made logically applicable to that case, and the logic of the structure of the Steering & Sailing Rules requires one or another of Parts 2 and 3 to apply in all cases, plus Part 1 in any case.

The added definition in Rule 3(k) cannot have any purpose other than to emphasize that Part 2 applies when vessels can be observed from another, not necessarily are observed from one another. The distinction would have no meaning or purpose if someone simply not looking out, means the other vessel can't be observed.

So such an interpretation would violate two basic rules of statutory interpretation -- a strong presumption that the drafters did not intend an absurd or illogical result, and a presumption that anything included in a statute is intended to have some effect and meaning.


I think Lodesman was just playing around with the ideas, like we love to do around here, not that he actually believes that this is what the Rules mean Bringing out the inner pedant in a few of us!