What Is The Big Deal About Single Handling?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Does anyone know for certain that operating a vessel single handed, alone, solo, is illegal ANYWHERE in the world?

If you know of a place can you find the legislation applicable so the rest of us can read it.

What the law says in every country is that you are obligated, on pain of fines, sometimes imprisonment, sometimes seizure of your boat, to maintain a "constant proper lookout by sight and hearing". Word for word, applicable in every country which is a signatory to the COLREGS convention. Whether the COLREGS are law themselves or have been made law through enabling laws -- the question from the other thread -- is irrelevant.

What a "constant proper lookout by sight and hearing" means exactly is a matter of interpretation. But the interpretation which matters is not yours, but that of the Coast Guard which is arresting you, and the judge who is sentencing you or applying a fine. You can argue all you like, but the judge will decide based on precedents or other authorities, and based on his own interpretation, not yours.

Single handing is widely tolerated, and in my opinion should be tolerated. I don't think it creates any unreasonable hazards as long as it's done properly (egg timer horizon scans, radar guard zones, AIS alarms, well out of shipping lanes) and I think that's why single handers are mostly left alone.

But there is no legal guaranty of this tolerance, so you do it at your own risk. There is nothing to stop a signatory state from adopting a law interpreting the COLREGS and making single-handing specifically legal subject to whatever conditions as long as the Rule 5 requirement is maintained according to some defensible standard. But as far as I know, such laws or regulations do not exist anywhere.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What the law says in every country is that you are obligated, on pain of fines, sometimes imprisonment, sometimes seizure of your boat, to maintain a "constant lookout by sight and hearing". Word for word, applicable in every country which is a signatory to the COLREGS convention. Whether the COLREGS are law themselves or have been made law through enabling laws -- the question from the other thread -- is irrelevant.

What it actually says, word for word, is 'proper lookout', not 'constant lookout'... there is a difference.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

What it actually says, word for word, is 'proper lookout', not 'constant lookout'... there is a difference.

You are right! Brain fart on my part. The difference is important. Thanks for the correction.

[weavis]

You might like this book from one of our members.

http://sfbaysss.net/resource/doc/Sin...irdEdition.pdf

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What the law says in every country is that you are obligated, on pain of fines, sometimes imprisonment, sometimes seizure of your boat, to maintain a "constant proper lookout by sight and hearing". Word for word, applicable in every country which is a signatory to the COLREGS convention. Whether the COLREGS are law themselves or have been made law through enabling laws -- the question from the other thread -- is irrelevant.

What a "constant proper lookout by sight and hearing" means exactly is a matter of interpretation. But the interpretation which matters is not yours, but that of the Coast Guard which is arresting you, and the judge who is sentencing you or applying a fine. You can argue all you like, but the judge will decide based on precedents or other authorities, and based on his own interpretation, not yours.

Single handing is widely tolerated, and in my opinion should be tolerated. I don't think it creates any unreasonable hazards as long as it's done properly (egg timer horizon scans, radar guard zones, AIS alarms, well out of shipping lanes) and I think that's why single handers are mostly left alone.

But there is no legal guaranty of this tolerance, so you do it at your own risk. There is nothing to stop a signatory state from adopting a law interpreting the COLREGS and making single-handing specifically legal subject to whatever conditions as long as the Rule 5 requirement is maintained according to some defensible standard. But as far as I know, such laws or regulations do not exist anywhere.

They would not have to "interpret" the Colregs. Every signatory state has their Sovereign right and authority to make any laws they desire as long as they don't contradict or clash with the Colregs as in Rule 1. Therefore, if a member state wants to pass a law that said, 'No person is to operate a vessel over 15 feet without a crew member', then they would be entitled to do so. Exactly the same as a member state can dictate the age to which person's can operate a vessel and for that matter the terms to which they can operate the vessel. For that matter, I don't think women are permitted under the law to operate a vessel.

That's what my question was in relation to Solo Sailing. Is anyone aware of anywhere, where solo sailing is unlawful? Nothing to do with the Colregs. I'm simply asking if anyone knows of some place?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by weavis

You might like this book from one of our members.

http://sfbaysss.net/resource/doc/Sin...irdEdition.pdf

That's a really really interesting read thanks Weavis. Someone a while ago referred me to it. I've printed it out and bound it and read through once already. Thank you.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

Boy is there a lot of nonsense here. You may be worried by the supposed risks me and my small boat may add, but it is nothing compared to what is already out there. It makes no sense to require a minimum crew unless there are also minimum standards on crew training and experience (and I do indeed mean to include the wealthy retirees who think they can just buy a nice boat and take off without having spent the time and effort to acquire that training and experience, and who consider crewing beneath themselves - how can you learn without that experience?).

I happened to be crossing the English Channel the day the SS Norway t-boned an unlimited tonnage container carrier; the accident happened when the Norway was departing the Thames and the container ship was outbound in the TSS. Both ships were well staffed and equiped with multiple radars, there was shore-based radar overseeing the TSS to boot. If you wish to worry about something then worry about what passes for competence in the "professional" world aboard these massive ships. And don't get me started about Hazelwood and Schettino...

Greg

|yep.. Sydney Harbour, especially around the famous Sydney to Hobart race each year is frightening for that very reason. Get yourself a motor boat license and go buy yourself an 80 foot motor cruiser worth 1 1/2 million.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What the law says in every country is that you are obligated, on pain of fines, sometimes imprisonment, sometimes seizure of your boat, to maintain a "constant proper lookout by sight and hearing". Word for word, applicable in every country which is a signatory to the COLREGS convention. Whether the COLREGS are law themselves or have been made law through enabling laws -- the question from the other thread -- is irrelevant..

Well, take a look at the New Zealand Maritime Transport Act of 1994, 36 (g) and 36 (u) your after, part 22. Not word for word Dockhead

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead;1844860Genny which thetys in every country is that you are obligated, on pain of fines, sometimes imprisonment, sometimes seizure of your boat, to maintain a "[S

constant[/S] proper lookout by sight and hearing". Word for word, applicable in every country which is a signatory to the COLREGS convention. Whether the COLREGS are law themselves or have been made law through enabling laws -- the question from the other thread -- is irrelevant.

What a "constant proper lookout by sight and hearing" means exactly is a matter of interpretation. But the interpretation which matters is not yours, but that of the Coast Guard which is arresting you, and the judge who is sentencing you or applying a fine. You can argue all you like, but the judge will decide based on precedents or other authorities, and based on his own interpretation, not yours.

Single handing is widely tolerated, and in my opinion should be tolerated. I don't think it creates any unreasonable hazards as long as it's done properly (egg timer horizon scans, radar guard zones, AIS alarms, well out of shipping lanes) and I think that's why single handers are mostly left alone.

But there is no legal guaranty of this tolerance, so you do it at your own risk. There is nothing to stop a signatory state from adopting a law interpreting the COLREGS and making single-handing specifically legal subject to whatever conditions as long as the Rule 5 requirement is maintained according to some defensible standard. But as far as I know, such laws or regulations do not exist anywhere.

Absolute bludi tosh..
In 2005 I was 5 miles off Start Point.. day 47 of a nonstop solo from SMX.. drifting E toward Portland Bill in a light NW breeze doing about a knot.. perfect visibility and calm sea.. around 1730 I decided to knock up some grub.. had a look around and saw 3 W bound boats between me and land and 1 motor sailing towards land about 3 miles to seaward.
So I popped below and flashed the grill prepped the tray.. popped it under then popped up for another look.. same thing just the boat to my S was now about a mile away and tanking along at around 6kts
So as he appeared to be passing astern I went back to my grill..
Next thing I know there's an almighty crash and I'm thrown over the cooker.. I dash up top to find I've been T-boned just by my shrouds.. 18ft split along hull deck joint and buckled toe rail.. 4ft vertical split from front shroud down to w-line..
As I appeared on deck 2 couples emerged from the saloon of the ramming vessel.. the skipper promptly banged into reverse and backed away quite a distance then did a runner leaving me with my disabled sailboat drifting
Under main alone.. the genny which was poled out now was ripped halfway up the luff and my pole had a 20* bend.
Should add.. also had no engine due to battery failure after electric storm 1000miles previously
So.. Dug out my mobile hoping it still had some charge.. Yes 2 bars so dialed 999 and got the Coast Guard.. they put out a general call for boats in the area to assist but none in sight responded so the Salcombe Lifeboat came out and towed me in..
The rammer was caught sneaking into Salcombe after dark..
No prosecution for hit and run, nor watch keeping failures.. in fact no law at all.. just statements from all parties involved which were then used to settle damage claims.. 50/50 was the French Insurers verdict.
Oh.. Should add.. I came close to an aggravated assault charge when this superior know it all Plonker and his crew came down to where I was tied up and enquired if I was the boat that was towed in..
"I heard the call and was 2 miles away but thought.. Bludi fool can't sail and has no engine.. Serves him right.. So I kept going.."
Were it not for the Harbour Master and the Coast Guard official grabbing each arm before I cleared my lifelines I'a kicked the **** outa that pompous Yacht Club Twat..
Just coz you say it does not make it law.. This is the Free World.. Not the USA Dockhead..

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Absolute bludi tosh..
In 2005 I was 5 miles off Start Point.. day 47 of a nonstop solo from SMX.. drifting E toward Portland Bill in a light NW breeze doing about a knot.. perfect visibility and calm sea.. around 1730 I decided to knock up some grub.. had a look around and saw 3 W bound boats between me and land and 1 motor sailing towards land about 3 miles to seaward.
So I popped below and flashed the grill prepped the tray.. popped it under then popped up for another look.. same thing just the boat to my S was now about a mile away and tanking along at around 6kts
So as he appeared to be passing astern I went back to my grill..
Next thing I know there's an almighty crash and I'm thrown over the cooker.. I dash up top to find I've been T-boned just by my shrouds.. 18ft split along hull deck joint and buckled toe rail.. 4ft vertical split from front shroud down to w-line..
As I appeared on deck 2 couples emerged from the saloon of the ramming vessel.. the skipper promptly banged into reverse and backed away quite a distance then did a runner leaving me with my disabled sailboat drifting
Under main alone.. the genny which was poled out now was ripped halfway up the luff and my pole had a 20* bend.
Should add.. also had no engine due to battery failure after electric storm 1000miles previously
So.. Dug out my mobile hoping it still had some charge.. Yes 2 bars so dialed 999 and got the Coast Guard.. they put out a general call for boats in the area to assist but none in sight responded so the Salcombe Lifeboat came out and towed me in..
The rammer was caught sneaking into Salcombe after dark..
No prosecution for hit and run, nor watch keeping failures.. in fact no law at all.. just statements from all parties involved which were then used to settle damage claims.. 50/50 was the French Insurers verdict.
Oh.. Should add.. I came close to an aggravated assault charge when this superior know it all Plonker and his crew came down to where I was tied up and enquired if I was the boat that was towed in..
"I heard the call and was 2 miles away but thought.. Bludi fool can't sail and has no engine.. Serves him right.. So I kept going.."
Were it not for the Harbour Master and the Coast Guard official grabbing each arm before I cleared my lifelines I'a kicked the **** outa that pompous Yacht Club Twat..
Just coz you say it does not make it law.. This is the Free World.. Not the USA Dockhead..

you poor sod. No wonder you swear a lot
I'm a little surprised at the 50/50. I can see you hold some small blame but 50/50 seems grossly unfair.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

you poor sod. No wonder you swear a lot
I'm a little surprised at the 50/50. I can see you hold some small blame but 50/50 seems grossly unfair.

HAHAHAHA

Law does not work like that.

BOth parties were not on deck at the time of the collision.
Had one of the parties been on deck the collision would have been avoided.

In the 'Judges' eyes, its a 50/50 split regardless of who was more at fault.

Bummer aint it..?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by weavis

You might like this book from one of our members.

http://sfbaysss.net/resource/doc/Sin...irdEdition.pdf

Weavis, Ivé only just realised you said it was written by a member. Would you mind putting me in touch with the member who wrote this? Maybe PM me or get the writer to?

[brownoarsman]

I'm amazed there wasn't any penalty to the other boat for leaving the scene ... I guess these really aren't cars! (Kidding, kidding).

-reluctantly single handing


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Weavis, Ivé only just realised you said it was written by a member. Would you mind putting me in touch with the member who wrote this? Maybe PM me or get the writer to?

Would Mr Evans Step forward please?

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by boatman61

...This is the Free World.. Not the USA...

Ouch! Does this mean I have to sell my guns?