All about the Colregs no 3 - single handed sailing and keeping a look out

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

The only time there is "no risk of collision" is when you are hauled out. At any other time, I can think of a situation where another vessel could run in to you.

So as long as your bottom is wet, they do apply.

If your in the water there is 'risk'. Mitigating that risk is then what it's about.

[FamilyVan]

I don't believe the answer is black and white. There is so much subjectivity in the ColRegs, many people make a career of deciphering, and it is not a long document.

Very rarely is anybody fined if no collision occurs. It could be argued that if you avoided a collision then your lookout was adequate.

The only times I'm aware of people being fined under the ColRegs without a collision occurring are when there has been malicious disregard for the ColRegs. I'm aware of some Tour boat operators in the Vancouver area that were having a turf war and were pushing their RoW to the point where they were endangering lives, they got a slap on the wrist.

Another instance I'm aware of threats being made is where Greenpeace or some similar type organisation pushes there luck with the authorities. Even then, the authorities threaten, but rarely follow through because it is so difficult to verify a rule has been broken if no collision or grounding has occurred.

They're regulations, they are not prosecuted the same way as, for example, the criminal code.

In Canada for example, the RCMP would not likely prosecute a violation of the ColRegs, that would fall to a totally separate, non police entity- Transport Canada, who is unlikely to bug Joe Singlehander unless a very direct complaint was made by somebody who was endangered by Joe Singlehanders watchkeeping practises.

For these reasons, I'm going to pass on answering the question with a Yay or a Nay, because I'm not sure the legality of singlehanding is relevant unless an incident or near miss occurs. At which point the investigation will look at all of the individual elements-including the quality of the look out.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Educating others. Oh. Whatever.

Look: These are "...regualtions for preventing collisions ..."

When there is no collision (and no risk of collision), they do not apply.

Fair winds,
b.

If everyone would just stay out of the 'shipping lanes' there would be no problem, even big ships could reduce the risk of collision to zero and their watchkeepers could get a good night's sleep if they didn't get involved with the 'shipping lanes'... in fact the whole world would be a better place

[jongleur]

"This feeds in nicely to managing risk."

But you sailing while asleep with no watch puts
me at risk and I didn't choose that extra risk.

Why do you get to choose to increase my risk?

[TeddyDiver]

Colregs part A 2 Responsibility, common sense over the rules. As I understand it for a single hander, sleep when it's safe so you are a safer sailor..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

No.

You are turning the matter upside down. You are putting it the way some politicians like us to think it is the case. But it is not the case.

The case is that what is illegal is set by the law and the rest of our actions are free for us to do. We do not have to ask and we do not have to check any regulations for making sure things are legal. We check what is illegal and once we find what is illegal, the other actions we take up are up to our liking.

Can you see this difference at all?

Now please point to the legal paragraph which states that sailing solo is illegal.

If you cannot find find one, start thinking why you can't.

If you find one, PLS send it to Vendee Globe, Minitransat, Solitaire Figaro and ARC organizers and let us know what their lawyers think of your discovery.

I say this with all respect. We must try to avoid being pushed into unreasonable thinking by people who cannot reasonably think.

It is legal to sail solo. Full point.

b.

The paragraph was already quoted and is pretty clear cut.

If you really believe what you wrote, you must be getting rich defending speeders since they don't "prohibit" speeding, they just say you have to stay below the speed limit or some such nonsense.

Probably an even better example is following too closely. There is no clear and measurable definition. You could get ticketed for it but almost never do...until you rear end someone.

[laika]

Originally Posted by jongleur

"This feeds in nicely to managing risk."

But you sailing while asleep with no watch puts
me at risk and I didn't choose that extra risk.

Why do you get to choose to increase my risk?

A strong inclination for individual liberty coupled with the responsibilies of sharing the world with others in a way that often presents known but reasonable risks.

We're all in it together. If I can be of help to you out there, you can bet on it.

[CSY Man]

. Rule 5 requires that "every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out 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.

Pretty clear isn't it?

No idea why there is an argument as to the legality of solo passage making, or of sleeping while on watch.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Pretty clear isn't it?

No idea why there is an argument as to the legality of solo passage making, or of sleeping while on watch.

It's actually not pretty clear as it oscilates between "at all times" and "in the prevailing circumstances and conditions". It would be much cleare if it just said "at all times", period.

Just like with the RoW rules after all the minutia of who is the stand on or give way vessel the last paragraph goes back to (in so many words) - "no matter that you may be a stand on vessel you must give way if... blah-blah". That is the reason Colregs are not so much "rules" as they are tools to assign the blame after the fact.

I'd much rather see the blame clear out of the rules without the need for long trials and convoluted legal proceedings, i.e. if the Colregs say "do A in these circumstances" and you do B you are to blame for any collision. Period. No need to expect that the other boat which is doing A (as the rules specify initially) has to do something else if the Colregs require it to do A.

It is a proven fact of rule following mentality that if the rules are clear and are enforced the people tend to obey them to a much greater extent than when they are murky and/or not enforced on top of that murkiness.

I bet you that the lobbyists from marine insurance industry had a lot of input into Colregs so as to have plenty of excuses to pay as few claims as possible.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Stu, you don't have to respond. There are new people on CF all the time who want to get involved in discussions and not just read what others had as a discussion one, two or five years ago. CF is not a once it's stated, it's time to move on. And as much as I have a lot of respect for Dockhead, he's not the final statement on the subject.

Nor do I claim to be the final statement on this or any other subject

Anyway, on the subject of this thread, Estarzinger has covered it. I don't have anything to add to Post #3, which explains it better than I could have.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

It's actually not pretty clear as it oscilates between "at all times" and "in the prevailing circumstances and conditions". It would be much cleare if it just said "at all times", period.

Just like with the RoW rules after all the minutia of who is the stand on or give way vessel the last paragraph goes back to (in so many words) - "no matter that you may be a stand on vessel you must give way if... blah-blah". That is the reason Colregs are not so much "rules" as they are tools to assign the blame after the fact.

I'd much rather see the blame clear out of the rules without the need for long trials and convoluted legal proceedings, i.e. if the Colregs say "do A in these circumstances" and you do B you are to blame for any collision. Period. No need to expect that the other boat which is doing A (as the rules specify initially) has to do something else if the Colregs require it to do A.

It is a proven fact of rule following mentality that if the rules are clear and are enforced the people tend to obey them to a much greater extent than when they are murky and/or not enforced on top of that murkiness.

I bet you that the lobbyists from marine insurance industry had a lot of input into Colregs so as to have plenty of excuses to pay as few claims as possible.

I agree that it would be terrific if the Colregs gave clear answers to every collision avoidance situation. I would also love to have clear answers to other questions, too, like "what is the true meaning of life"?

Unfortunately, not all questions in life have simple, clear answers, and collision avoidance at sea can't be regulated by a few simple rules, and certainly not by just making one party always totally responsible for avoiding the collision, even if that's the way it generally works on land as we've discussed in other threads.

So that's why the COLREGS don't tell you clearly who is right and who is wrong in every situation, or what you clearly must and clearly must not do. It's because collision avoidance at sea doesn't work that way in practice. It's a complex process, very different from collision avoidance on roads, different at the very deepest levels.

Rule 2 is the very key to the COLREGS, and is also the source of the answer about single handing. It's probably a violation to make way at sea with no one awake, and there are good arguments that you just shouldn't do it, but there is very little in the COLREGS which is really that categorical, and there are pretty good arguments on the other side that you can, indeed, sleep while underway if you have decent procedures and other effective means to manage the risks. As Estarzinger wrote, there are different interpretations and there is not a universally accepted answer. That's ok, because neither the rules nor procedures of collision avoidance themselves require categorical answers.

Collision avoidance at sea is designed so that ideally both vessels do what they are supposed to, but it only takes one vessel doing what it is supposed to, to prevent a collision. A collision simply cannot take place without violations on BOTH sides. That is why both skippers are always at fault when a collision takes place at sea, unlike on land. It's also why the system has enough slack in it to deal with a limited number of single handers not keeping a watch, without breaking down, and why they are not generally and categorically condemned.

[Rustic Charm]

Just to clarify a little about what seems a common misconception of the Colregs. At least it seems a misconception on CF.

The Colregs are not 'law'! You can't be fined for breaching the Colregs. Not anywhere.

The Colregs are put out by a United Nations agency called the International Maritime Organisation or IMO. The IMO has put out a heap of other conventions, one of which is the Colregs as we are discussing here which are a multilateral treaty which member states of the IMO agree to abide by.

Then, each member of the IMO is responsible for appointing an Administration to implement the rules (Colregs) into their own legislation. When they do this as a signature to the IMO, they do so with the expectation that their legislation or laws will conform as much as possible to these rules.

It then becomes the local legislation that you breach and can be fined for. Not the Colregs. Typically, many nations will incorporate the Colregs by referencing them to their own legislation, but it's still the local legislation you breach and can possibly be found guilty in a court of law for breaching.

In addition to the Colregs being referenced or sited in legislation, in Civil complaints (where one party sues another party), the courts will also refer to the transgressing of a rule of the Colregs. But again, it's because as a member state to the IMO, we acknowledge the place of these rules.

So, is it illegal to single sail or solo sail? Well, that depends on the local laws, nothing to do with the Colregs at all.

Does a single handed sailor/solo sailor break this Colreg rule? Well, that is where the debate is and the post in number 3 quite well spelt out the three areas of thought on it.

[Jim Cate]

Collision avoidance at sea is designed so that ideally both vessels do what they are supposed to, but it only takes one vessel doing what it is supposed to, to prevent a collision. A collision simply cannot take place without violations on BOTH sides. That is why both skippers are always at fault when a collision takes place at sea, unlike on land. It's also why the system has enough slack in it to deal with a limited number of single handers not keeping a watch, without breaking down, and why they are not generally and categorically condemned.
Dockhead is online now Report Post

Nicely put, DH! As good a summary of the intent of the COLREGS as I have seen... bravo!

Jim

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

The Colregs are not 'law'! You can't be fined for breaching the Colregs. Not anywhere.

Yachtsman fined for sailing wrong way - Yachting Monthly

In total, the Safran travelled 28 nautical miles in the wrong direction in both separation schemes. This was in breach of Rule 10(b)(i) of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972.

“We have heard this afternoon that Mr. Guillemot is an experienced and confident yachtsman. However, Mr. Guillemot did travel the wrong way in the shipping lanes. For the offence on the 6 June, we fine you £13,000 reduced by your early guilty plea to £8,700. For the offence on the 7 June, we fine you £1,000 reduced to £666, once again for your early guilty plea.”

Skipper fined £20,000 for TSS violation - Practical Boat Owner

The owner of a 105-year-old former ice-breaking tug that saw action in the Baltic in WWII was fined £20,000 for travelling the wrong direction in the Traffic Separation Scheme through Dover Straits.

At a hearing yesterday in Folkstone Magistrates Court, Mr Keith Jonathon MacGregor, from Flimwell, East Sussex, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Regulations for preventing collisions at Sea (COLREGS).

These seem to refer directly to the IRPCS, is that what you mean by referencing?


EDIT- More in WIKI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...lisions_at_Sea
At the bottom of History. The above examples look technically not the colregs, but Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations.

[FamilyVan]

RC, I can't speak for other countries, but in Canada you can most definitely be fined (Administrative Monetary Penalty) for a violation of any code or regulation that falls under the umbrella of the Canada Shipping Act, including "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian modifications".

Your question was about whether it was legal to single hand. Well if it's a legal question you must be referring to some nations legal system. So while you may or not be fined in Australia for violations of the ColRegs- In Canada you can be.

If you are viewing the ColRegs as simply a guideline, not a legal document falling under the umbrella of Port State Control, then maybe your initial question should not have been is it unlawful to single hand. Maybe you should have asked do the ColRegs philosophically support single handing.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app