Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by scallowayuk

hi theres lots on utube mostly crewed yachts racing, how many have you seen with singlehanders after 24 hrs sailing i would say far less if any. i welcome you to prove me wrong

Go back and read the posts. My reply has nothing to do with singlehanded or crewed, The claim was a collision between two 40' sailboats could not cause an injury. I say otherwise.

There are plenty of videos of collisions between 40' or smaller sailboats, some where a mast fell. Don't think a mast on the head would cause an injury?

[Mr B]

Because you cant do some thing, Why not legislate, so that no one else can either,
Its the way its going, Nanny State,

Why not bring in a law that states no one over the age of 65, can be in charge of a boat, Whether its a fishing boat, Sailboat, Motor boat, Ship, Daysailor or RTW,

They are prone to Heart attacks, Failing health, Physically Incapable of performing any manual tasks that may need doing, Usually overweight, Vision impaired, Half Deaf, Very Slow, Cant respond if any thing goes wrong, Most have Chronic Medical problems, Possibly Alziemers, Arthritis, The list goes on,

These Old Farts are an extremely serious danger to every one on the water, Including them selves.
They put the lives of the rescuers on the line trying to save them, Usually from Known Medical Problems,

No craft should have less than 3 people on board at any time, So that no one would be tired if they have to maintain a watch, Hahahahahaha
The second person to watch the watch keeper, to make sure they are awake during their watch,
A signed log book to be maintained that every one on board has had an 8 hour sleep period,

FWIT, Your a lot safer in the middle of the ocean on your own, By a very large margin, Than any where on land,

Compare single handing on the ocean, To the numbers of people killed due to falling coconuts,

[250224]

Strange question in times where zerohand cars and autonomus boats are being developed. With the right technology there won't be any problems. And besides, the scope of damage is limited for relatively small and slow boats.

People seeking a zero-risk life should stay in the house (or marina).

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by scallowayuk

with respect read the col regs article 13. overtaking vessels keep clear there are no exceptions. this rule overrides all other rules it cannot be misunderstood. but i would welcome any proof this is not the case. regards.

Apart from Rule 2 which allows an exception to all rules ... Rule 17b clearly outlines the responsibility of the overtaken vessel not to allow itself to be hit.

Rule 13(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

Rule 17 (a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

[boatman61]

So far the record for zerohand cars is not looking to bright..

[scallowayuk]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Go back and read the posts. My reply has nothing to do with singlehanded or crewed, The claim was a collision between two 40' sailboats could not cause an injury. I say otherwise.

There are plenty of videos of collisions between 40' or smaller sailboats, some where a mast fell. Don't think a mast on the head would cause an injury?

apologies for miunderstanding, any claim a headon between any sailboats regardless of size could not cause injury is rediculous but the thread was is singlehanding immoral i dont need to read the posts your post has nothing to do with this thread.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by blu3534

Strange question in times where zerohand cars and autonomus boats are being developed. With the right technology there won't be any problems. And besides, the scope of damage is limited for relatively small and slow boats.

People seeking a zero-risk life should stay in the house (or marina).

And stay off the stairs and out of the tub! Actually just stay in bed and order delivery.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So far the record for zerohand cars is not looking to bright..

Probably a lot safer than the average numskull driver I see!

[JohnHutchins]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Baylocks.. the only time it may become criminal is if someone is injured or killed.
In my case.. despite rendering my boat un sailable and reversing away while a duvet was draped over the stern to hide the name.. and then trying to sneak into port after dark there was no prosecution.. and insurance was settled 50/50..
There was nearly an assault case but the harbour master and Coastguard officer held me back

Hoping to add clarity here -- the COLREGS don't provide penalties for their violation. They are not analogous to the criminall law. And there isn't an enforcement body on the high seas anyway. What they are is an agreement among countries that countries will adopt laws that give effect to the ideas set out in the COLREGS. Any country could incorporate the regs in its laws and attach, a criminal penalty for violating those regs in its tertitorial waters (or anywhere in the world for a person over whom the country can assert world-wide jurisdiction). As a result, you run legal risk for disregarding them in the tertitorial waters of a country that requires you to follow them especially if there is a penalty for not following then. You ALSO run legal risk for your conduct anywhere on the sea -- tertitorial waters or no -- if you are a party to a dispute in the courts of a country whose laws incorporate the COLREGS.

As to the morality of single handing -- it takes at least two vessels for vessels to collide. Back in the '20s an economist, AC Pigou, defined the economic concept of an externality -- conduct by one person that imposes costs on people other than the person acting -- and pointed out that any sort of laissez faire treatment of a person engaged in conduct that creates externalities will fail to discourage conduct that should be discouraged. In the sixties, another economist, RH Coase realized that this view was missing something. He suggested we consider the example of a candy manufacturer that used an automated mortar and pestle that created a lot of noise and vibration next door to a dentist's office where the noise and vibration made it impossible to do delicate work. Pigou would have said externality but Coase realized that this conclusion depended on an unexamined assumption about property rights -- that people effectively have a right to silence or a right to make noise depending on who you think I'd creating the externality -- the candy maker by using its machinery or the dentist by obtaining a legal injunction against use of the machine. Really what is at issue here is an incompatible joint use of property. and what we want are rules that help avoid such incompatible joint uses. He went on to argue that under the typical economist's assumptions, Pigou was wrong and that laissez faire actually worked fine and that the specific assumption that guaranteed that result -- zero transactions cost -- turns out to be the thing we need to think about most carefully when decidingwhether there should be rules and what they are.

The rambly point I'm getting to is that a collision between vessels is caused because two (at least) captains acted in such a way as to bring multiple vessels into a position where they occupy the same space at the same time. If one is a single handed and the other is a vessel with multiple crew members does the single hander always bear some fault? Under the COLREGS the answer to that might possibly be yes. Can we think of scenarios in which the crewed vessel is much the more blameworthy? ABSOLUTEY!

Is the single hander doing something morally blameworthy? I think the answer is pretty clearly "not necessarily.". It is definitely possible for a single hander to navigate in ways that create no more burden on others than we generally accept they ought to bear. Eg, if a single hander fails to keep watch under conditions he can expect that anyone keeping adequate watch will see him and displays signals indicating that the vessel is not under command so that other vessels know they should not assume he will give way then other vessels aren't being asked to assume any risk that they don't assume the instant they put to sea. That doesn't strike me as conduct worthy of condemnation and an insurance that it is it's really not different from a boorish insistence that "the sea is mine and everyone should stay out of my way"

Also apologies for spelling issues and baffling wrong words -- they are the consequence of typing long things on a phone

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

"That hysterical laughter you hear" is me.

Most would agree that life itself has risks, so is it fair to conclude that men and women do not have the right to have children? I am stopping here because I want to remain more or less civil.

First let me state, I am not saying i agree or disagree with the original statement by boatpoker. but I do want to point out the flaw in your logic.

Boatpoker's argument was that one does not have the right to put others at risk to which you replied with scorn.

So because life has risks that means it's OK for you to do whatever you like no matter the potential risk (yes I know, it is a small risk) to others? So is it OK to go out in your yard and shoot a gun in the air because life is a risk anyway? Maybe you like to drive fast so it's OK to drive 100 mph down the road because driving is an inherently risky undertaking anyway.

Your logic is faulty.

[Mr B]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

And stay off the stairs and out of the tub! Actually just stay in bed and order delivery.

Staying in bed versus single handing,
Your chances of an airplane coming thru your roof and killing you in bed would be higher than single handing on a boat in the middle of the ocean,

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by scallowayuk

apologies for miunderstanding, any claim a headon between any sailboats regardless of size could not cause injury is rediculous but the thread was is singlehanding immoral i dont need to read the posts your post has nothing to do with this thread.

My post is very specifically relevant to the thread because the original claim was to justify singlehanding as completely acceptable because a collision between two 40' boats could not cause harm.

I am refuting that argument.

[scallowayuk]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Apart from Rule 2 which allows an exception to all rules ... Rule 17b clearly outlines the responsibility of the overtaken vessel not to allow itself to be hit.

hi yes i agree. the col regs cover any situation. and yes if you see a boat aproaching on a collision course you do have a duty to take avoiding action. but this is an ambiguous point i think, it would be easier to prove an overtaking boat hit the boat it was overtaking than to prove the overtaken boat being slower did not take avoiding action i think were both a bit right on this one, regards.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by scallowayuk

with respect read the col regs article 13. overtaking vessels keep clear there are no exceptions. this rule overrides all other rules it cannot be misunderstood. but i would welcome any proof this is not the case. regards.

So the overtaken vessel at night fails to display navigation lights and you think 100% of the blame will be laid on the overtaking vessel? That is not what happens in Admirality courts.

[scallowayuk]

Originally Posted by skipmac

My post is very specifically relevant to the thread because the original claim was to justify singlehanding as completely acceptable because a collision between two 40' boats could not cause harm.

I am refuting that argument.

hi skipjack, im getting confused, the original post was wether its morally acceptable to singlehand 24 hrs it was questioning rather than justifying no size of boat was mentioned but certainly the bigger the boat the more damage its likely to do. ive sailed solo since 1985, ive dont 8 atlantic crossings 55 thousand miles in small boats, 4 crossings in a 22ft falmouth workboat. do i need to morally justify my actions. i dont think so but others might think i do. life is a risk and i think most people who do long passages accepts that. im old not politically correct and dont do the nanny state, lifes a slight risk. i dont want to die of boredom this an interesting thread and everyones point of view is valid, regards