Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by cuffy

Having never been on the bridge of a big ship what can you actually see at night and the other side do crew step outside to hear anything? Or just cosies up inside?

You can see a great deal.

Modern bridge designs have step back (island) control consoles, so that lookouts and the watchkeeper's have a clean view at windows with no reflection due to the reverse angled windows.

On commercial ships..... lookouts are often posted at the wings outside when there is a lot of passing traffic at night (especially small stuff)

Also, in good weather the watchkeeper or captain may post someone at the bow when in constrained waters with a lot of small crossing traffic like after a New Years fireworks display when all the yachties are out. Or during a heavy concentration of fishing boats.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I always get nervous when anyone tries to define or grade Morality as if it exists.

My point was that “most of us are sinners” ...... if the standard of morality is set such that single handing is “immoral”.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Sure let's be serious a moment lol . . . you pick on others lack of preciseness all the time. The point I made is exactly why various very picky officials do not take action against single handers. Because there is no violation per say. That is a relatively serious distinction.

I don't agree with your premise. Single-handers do get involved in collisions from time to time, and in every case I've ever read, lack of watchkeeping is considered as one of the various factors which caused the collision, contributing to the allocation of fault like any other factors.


If by "taking action against" you are talking about preemptive action -- well, which authorities take any kind of pre-emptive action with regard to COLREGs violations? How often are COLREGs violations penalized without an accident involved? It's fairly rare. So I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this.


And anyway, are you arguing that you can be asleep and still be NOT in violation of Rule 5? Surely not.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Again, let's be serious . . . for a 1-day passage you say it would be "impossible"? For a 2 day passage? For 4 days? You are making a blanket statement that singlehanding is a sure violation and that is just absolutely not true, even with adding the 'ocean passage' qualification which you did you initially include (because there can surely be 2-day ocean passages.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

................

The premise of this thread is "more than 24 hours". It is implied that sleeping is involved. I would of course agree with you that if the single-hander is (perhaps taking amphetimines) able to stay awake for 48 hours and keep a "proper lookout by sight and hearing at all times during those 48 hours, then -- sure, there's no violation. But no one would disagree with that, and that is not at all what we are talking about.


The question is whether it can be permissible under the Rules to do what ocean passaging single handers practically always do (excluding the rare short passage with uppers), which is to sleep from time to time, either taking short naps with an egg timer, or just sleeping from time to time and relying on alarms, without violating Rule 5, and I don't think that there is any even vaguely reasonable argument that this is not a violation of Rule 5, which is exceedingly clearly written. I would say that it is simply silly to suggest that you can be asleep, and at the same time be "keeping a proper lookout by sight and by hearing at all times."



But the way the COLREGS work is more flexible in actual practical application, than this. Yes, it's a violation. But the violation, however clear, does not, for example, make you entirely at fault if an accident occurs, for goodness sake even if you plow into an anchored vessel, which is a good illustration of how the COLREGS are different than, say, traffic laws. The violation does not necessarily create ridiculous dangers for other mariners, who are at all times equally responsible for avoiding collisions -- totally unlike the situation if for example you were sleeping while driving a car.




THAT is the reason why single handing (over long periods with sleeping involved) is tolerated. And why I would not get upset at all over encountering a sleeping single hander's vessel at sea. It's not that big a deal -- I am not in any case entitled to rely on another vessel, in a risk of collision situation, doing any particular thing. If I hit him, it's my fault anyway -- it's everyone's fault.



Furthermore, if the sleeping single hander is using his radar and AIS alarms intelligently, he is not even creating any kind of risk, which is greater than the risk created by idiots in charter boats having animated conversations in the cockpit instead of looking around, or by any number of other situations, and in fact is probably creating less of a risk. So in my opinion it's just not a big deal, and I think that's exactly the way "picky officials" look at it, and judges, too. Yes, I know Pelagic has said that the actual lookout is "the last and best defense against hitting something" -- very true, and a proper lookout at all times is highly desirable and certainly is required on my boat.



But I think we need to take a balanced, practical view of all this. There's very little to be gained by picking on long-distance single-handers, who simply have no way of fulfilling Rule 5. And much more to be gained by trying to improve our own culture of watchkeeping, which as I've written, is in my opinion dreadfully poor.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't agree with your premise. Single-handers do get involved in collisions from time to time, and in every case I've ever read, lack of watchkeeping is considered as one of the various factors which caused the collision, contributing to the allocation of fault like any other factors.

sure, but your statement which I objected to above is like sailing that “drinking is a certain violation of the driving rules” (because you are arguing, people with some blood level occasionally get in accidents). You are attributing violation to a statue to something which is NOT a violation, but may be a causal factor.

If by "taking action against" you are talking about preemptive action -- well, which authorities take any kind of pre-emptive action with regard to COLREGs violations? How often are COLREGs violations penalized without an accident involved?

you said that single handing was a certain violation. If that was true then various officials I know would not issue clearance to single handlers. But it is not a violation so they do issue clearances. I have asked, this is what they have explained to me.


And anyway, are you arguing that you can be asleep and still be NOT in violation of Rule 5? Surely not.

i am not arguing that here, but I could certainly argue that the rule could be parsed that way. It can be parsed that the requirement is a proper watch at all times, and that proper watch means not allowing a risk of collision to develop, and includes by watch sight and sound as needed to be proper, and that one can do that with tight discipline and an egg timer.



The premise of this thread is "more than 24 hours". It is implied that sleeping is involved. I would of course agree with you that if the single-hander is (perhaps taking amphetimines) able to stay awake for 48 hours and keep a "proper lookout by sight and hearing at all times during those 48 hours, then -- sure, there's no violation. But no one would disagree with that, and that is not at all what we are talking about.

i can stay awake for 3 days. I have done so. My decision making is adequate to that point but then collapses.


The question is whether it can be permissible under the Rules to do what ocean passaging single handers practically always do (excluding the rare short passage with uppers), which is to sleep from time to time, either taking short naps with an egg timer, or just sleeping from time to time and relying on alarms, without violating Rule 5, and I don't think that there is any even vaguely reasonable argument that this is not a violation of Rule 5, which is exceedingly clearly written. I would say that it is simply silly to suggest that you can be asleep, and at the same time be "keeping a proper lookout by sight and by hearing at all times."

as I have said above, I was not arguing that point but if you want to I can.


My sole point was that you have been picky in the past about precise language, and your language in the post I called out was sloppy and inaccurate. That was my sole point. I would not have made it to many other posters but felt it was fair turn around because of your interest in precision..



But the way the COLREGS work is more flexible in actual practical application, than this. Yes, it's a violation. But the violation, however clear, does not, for example, make you entirely at fault if an accident occurs, for goodness sake even if you plow into an anchored vessel, which is a good illustration of how the COLREGS are different than, say, traffic laws. The violation does not necessarily create ridiculous dangers for other mariners, who are at all times equally responsible for avoiding collisions -- totally unlike the situation if for example you were sleeping while driving a car.

yes, I presume you have read the decision in the collision with Jessica?



.

………………

[john61ct]

And a bit of a stretch IMO to say it is "illegal".

Yes, in violation of some international agreement, or against some agency's regulations.

Many deaths resulting from the pursuit of US foreign policies are "illegal" in the same sense, but when there's no effective enforcement. . .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

And a bit of a stretch IMO to say it is "illegal".

Yes, in violation of some international agreement, or against some agency's regulations.

Many deaths resulting from the pursuit of US foreign policies are "illegal" in the same sense, but when there's no effective enforcement. . .

No, sorry, this is not correct -- on the contrary, it is literally illegal. Navigation of a vessel in violation of any rule in the COLREGS is either a crime or an administrative violation (depending on the country), under NATIONAL law -- that is how the contracting states agreed to implement them. In the U.S., the Rules are made part of U.S. law by the International Navigation Rules Act of 1977, and 33 USC 1608 provides for fines of up to $5,000 per violation. That's federal law, not "some international agreement" or "some agency's regulation.


In the U.K., violation of the COLREGS is a crime, drawing jail time up to 2 years and/or fines of up to £50 000.



We discussed it here: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...es-188216.html




Enforcement is a different question, and it is not very common for fines (or jail time) to be handed out for violations of COLREGS which do not result in an actual accident. However, it does happen from time to time, such as the case where Marc Guillemot was criminally prosecuted and found guilty by the Southampton Magistrates Court, and ordered to pay fines and costs for a total of £13,506 for going the wrong way up a TSS while competing in the Vendee Globe.



Uncommon, but there IS effective enforcement, if the authorities feel like exercising it. The COLREGS are implemented as national law in the contracting states. They are the law. Following the COLREGS is a legal obligation. This is important to remember.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think that there is any even vaguely reasonable argument that this is not a violation of Rule 5, which is exceedingly clearly written.

since you're only setting the bar at "vaguely reasonable" I'll have a go:


Rule 5 does not say that you have to be using sight and hearing at all times, it says that you must have a "proper look-out" at all times, and that this look-out must include sight and hearing. The closest it comes to defining "proper" is "so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision". This allows you to take your eyes and ears off the horizon as long as the situation isn't going to change in that time ... nothing prohibits recharging the watchkeeper's batteries during that time as part of your "proper look-out" process. So the question is how long is ok? 8 hours is obviously too long, but 5 minutes? 15 minutes?



ps. are going to tell us about your Greenland cruise ... I'd love to see a write up and some pics.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

……sure, but your statement which I objected to above is like sailing that “drinking is a certain violation of the driving rules” (because you are arguing, people with some blood level occasionally get in accidents). You are attributing violation to a statue to something which is NOT a violation, but may be a causal factor.

With respect, I think you misunderstood something that I wrote. Driving with blood alcohol over x% is a violation, which can get you a fine or jail time, whether or not this is a "causal factor" in any accident. Simple enough?



Failing to maintain a proper lookout by sight and by hearing at all times while in charge of a vessel is a violation, which can get you a fine or jail time, whether or not this is a causal factor in any accident. It's exactly the same. I never said anything different.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

you said that single handing was a certain violation. If that was true then various officials I know would not issue clearance to single handlers. But it is not a violation so they do issue clearances. I have asked, this is what they have explained to me.

I'm not sure what officials or what clearances you are talking about, but the COLREGS are legal obligations. The fact that they may not always be enforced rigorously does not contradict that.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

i am not arguing that [that you can be asleep and still be in compliance with Rule 5] here, but I could certainly argue that the rule could be parsed that way. It can be parsed that the requirement is a proper watch at all times, and that proper watch means not allowing a risk of collision to develop, and includes by watch sight and sound as needed to be proper, and that one can do that with tight discipline and an egg timer.

Good luck with that in court. Rule 5 says very clearly HOW a proper watch must be maintained -- "by sight and by hearing at all times". It does not say anything like "or by egg timer, or by radar alarm, or by substituting some other procedure which leads to a similar level of safety." I think I've read every published court case involving collisions with yachts (I'm writing a book on collision avoidance), and I never saw such an argument made even once. Although there are some pretty stupid judges and some pretty egregiously wrong decisions. As an aside, the exact conditions and procedures of watchkeeping was probably the number one issue in these cases -- you can be quite sure that any judge hearing any case concerning a collision you might get involved in, is going to care very much whether you were actually following Rule 5.



That being said -- the COLREGS are designed with a great deal of deference to good seamanship, and they are generally interpreted that way (although not all judges have much of a clue). So if you are in technical violation of Rule 5, but you have a good reason for the violation (you are single handed so just don't have the resources) and you are following really good procedures to make up for that -- you can expect that to be taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

i can stay awake for 3 days. I have done so. My decision making is adequate to that point but then collapses.

You are tougher than I am. But again, this was never the subject of discussion. Everyone on the thread understood that we were talking about navigating with no one awake.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

My sole point was that you have been picky in the past about precise language, and your language in the post I called out was sloppy and inaccurate. That was my sole point. I would not have made it to many other posters but felt it was fair turn around because of your interest in precision..

No one would disagree that if you are actually awake, and actually looking out, that you are not in violation. But now we understand that you have hammered on this thing, which no one was talking about, and which cannot be interesting to anyone -- just to "put me in my place". Well, fine -- consider me put in my place, and let's get back to the real discussion.

[OldManMirage]

Well, I may be wrong (its happened once or twice), but the real discussion has nothing to do with regulations. Quoting Colregs and arguing point of law doesn't actually apply to a moral argument.

I think someone once said "You can't legislate morality."

And again, I am of the opinion its not a moral argument.

And I am and will continue to be a solo sailor.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

since you're only setting the bar at "vaguely reasonable" I'll have a go:


Rule 5 does not say that you have to be using sight and hearing at all times, it says that you must have a "proper look-out" at all times, and that this look-out must include sight and hearing. The closest it comes to defining "proper" is "so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision". This allows you to take your eyes and ears off the horizon as long as the situation isn't going to change in that time ... nothing prohibits recharging the watchkeeper's batteries during that time as part of your "proper look-out" process. So the question is how long is ok? 8 hours is obviously too long, but 5 minutes? 15 minutes?

A good attempt, raising along the way a couple of interesting side questions.


The first thing I would say is that the Rule does not say "proper lookout FOR EXAMPLE by sight and hearing at all times." It says "proper lookout BY SIGHT AND BY HEARING AT ALL TIMES. So what we consider to be proper or improper does not change the obligation to do it (properly or improperly) by sight and by hearing AT ALL TIMES. Get it?



But the interesting side issue you raise is -- what indeed does "at all times" mean. That is a fair question without an obvious answer. The extremes I think are quite obvious -- of course you are allowed to blink. And at the other end of the scale -- if you are sleeping, then obviously you are not using your sight and hearing AT ALL TIMES. But what about the middle cases? Going below to take a leak? Ok, but then what about make a sandwich for 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Where is the line?



As a legal matter -- this is something which a judge will interpret, the same way he interprets the word "reasonable", for example, which appears so often in contracts. Like with the word "reasonable" -- the lack of a clear line, does not make the phrase meaningless or devoid of legal effect.

Originally Posted by Kelkara

ps. are going to tell us about your Greenland cruise ... I'd love to see a write up and some pics.

Ha, ha -- yes, I will put some photos up as soon as I've been through them. I'm still not back yet -- just finished the leg from Iceland to Faroes and now waiting for a crew change. But the short version is -- it was entirely different from what I expected, the most dramatic landscapes I've ever seen, it was totally amazing. It was also somewhat terrifying -- incredibly remote, empty, hostile, somewhat like finding yourself on another planet. No safe haven, no secure anchorage, not to speak of shelter, no charts with any meaningful information. The sea ice was particularly intimidating, also icebergs drifting into the anchorage. I hope I will be in a metal boat, when I go back.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by OldManMirage

Well, I may be wrong (its happened once or twice), but the real discussion has nothing to do with regulations. Quoting Colregs and arguing point of law doesn't actually apply to a moral argument.

I think someone once said "You can't legislate morality."

And again, I am of the opinion its not a moral argument.

And I am and will continue to be a solo sailor.

You are absolutely right, and thanks for bringing us back to the subject.


I don't agree that it's not a moral question. Do you have the moral right to possibly endanger others by sailing single handed (OK Evans -- to be precise, "sailing single handed for long enough passages that you can't get through them without sleeping"). It's a coherent moral question.



In my opinion, simply endangering others, is not immoral per se. We do it all the time. You can't live without endangering others. Every time you get in your car, you endanger others. The question, I think, is whether it's an unreasonable danger to others, or not. Driving drunk at 90 mph through a school zone is obviously an unreasonable danger to others, to name an example.


In my opinion, although sailing without keeping a lookout is clearly illegal, it is not immoral at all, provided you take sensible precautions and exercise good seamanship. In that case, you are creating little danger of any kind, much less an unreasonable danger. As I've said, I think that a diligent single hander might be much safer than an ignorant bunch of charterers. As someone said -- just having someone on watch doesn't magically make you safe or guaranty that you won't hit anyone, nor does it even make it less likely compared to a skillful and careful single hander, in my opinion.


So as far as I'm concerned -- single hand, and be happy.





By the way: note well that Rule 5 applies just as much when you are at anchor, as it does when you are underway. Who of us does not violate Rule 5 at anchor?

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

by sight and by hearing AT ALL TIMES

It's probably just pedantry and may not change your argument at all ... but the wording does not say "by sight and hearing at all times" what it actually says is "shall at all times maintain a proper look-out" ... I read them differently ... of course, a "proper lookout" does not result in a collision, so it matters little.

Attachment 175613

Fantastic!! it's scenery like this that attracted me to Greenland as a climber, really looking forward to your descriptions of sailing there.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

It's probably just pedantry and may not change your argument at all ... but the wording does not say "by sight and hearing at all times" what it actually says is "shall at all times maintain a proper look-out" ... I read them differently ... of course, a "proper lookout" does not result in a collision, so it matters little..

Well, you needn't worry about being pedantic, in conversing with me


What you are talking about is not mere pedantry -- it goes to the heart of interpreting legal language.



A lot of non-lawyers think that because we sometimes argue endlessly about what seem like small points of language, that we can twist anything into anything, and no legal language really means anything. It's not so!



Rule 5 sez:


"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and risk of collision."



It is generally very clearly and well drafted.


It means:



* Every vessel must maintain a proper lookout. The means of maintaining a "proper lookout" is specified -- by sight and by hearing, PLUS all available other means etc. (Not OR, rather PLUS).

* This proper lookout (sight and hearing as a minimum, plus anything else available and appropriate etc.) must be maintained at all times.

* The purpose of this is to enable the crew to make a full appraisal of the situation and risk of collision.


It is very clear that you cannot be maintaining a "proper lookout", as required by the Rule, without sight and hearing.


It is very clear that you cannot make a "full appraisal of the situation and risk of collision" while sleeping.


This really cannot be controversial.





This poster is in my boat safety manual:


COLREGSRule5LookOut.pdf

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, you got me!


You are absolutely correct. A single-hander, if he is bionic and never sleeps, or never sleeps more than whatever is -- objectively! -- a period of time which is not so long as to prevent him from keeping a "proper lookout by sight and hearing" "at ALL times" -- is in compliance with the Rules.

You keep twisting this to suit your argument. It does not say sight and hearing at all times. It says proper lookout at all times.

“Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing, as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.”

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

You keep twisting this to suit your argument. It does not say sight and hearing at all times. It says proper lookout at all times.

“Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing, as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.”

I am not twisting anything. The Rule plainly says that the lookout must be maintained at all times, AND by sight and by hearing as a minimum. Is that really not clear to you? It is not written ambiguously.