Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

.. . Sleeping is not illegal under rule 5 - the response of authorities to the Watson incident demonstrates that. Sleeping and colliding with someone is, just as reading a book and colliding is illegal, updating the chart and colliding is illegal - colliding is illegal!

Roll out all those cases of 99.99% of singlehanders prosecuted for sleeping where no risk of collision existed (at anchor, or far from shipping among coral atolls) and we may start to believe you. You and I both know no such case exists and no judge has ever hinted at such.

. . .

All of these points are false and have been addressed in detail already. I will not repeat myself.



And we do not agree that there have been no prosecutions for navigating with no one awake (or looking out) in the absence of a collision. I cited one already. There may have been dozens more as far as we know -- such violations do not normally to to court and are not normally published even when they do. I also cited a specific thread by the USCG to prosecute sleeping single handed fishermen, with no mention about any risk of collision.



Believe what you want, of course, but the law is what it is, and not what you would wish it to be.

[BigBoater917]

As per the USCG 2017 recreational vessel accident report there were 23 deaths due to improper lookout and an additional 45 due to operator inattention. So it clearly is having an impact on people using the water. I'm also pretty sure most of those were motor boats and inland, so not as relevant to the discussion but the facts are available through a quick Google search.

https://www.uscgboating.org/library/...stics-2017.pdf


Edit-18 deaths were on sailboats (sail only), auxilliary sail, and sail (unknown). A great majority died by drowning, so wear your PFD.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

All of these points are false and have been addressed in detail already. I will not repeat myself.

. . . .

Sorry DH, but your word is not final here!


You have failed to acknowledge the fact that laws can be unlawful and rejected on appeal. Or, that laws are subject to interpretation based upon tradition, implementation, and higher laws.


IMHO, it would be your advise on how to show a court that we recognized the challenges of solo sailing, and have used best practices to meet the intent of rule 5, that would be most helpful.


On future voyages I plan on carrying a notarize ship safety plan. This will include equipment onboard, when and how the equipment is to be used, watch standing procedures, lookout practices, .etc. Hopefully, this will show good seamanship and my intent to meet the requirements of rule 5.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

You (DH) have failed to acknowledge the fact that laws can be unlawful and rejected on appeal. Or, that laws are subject to interpretation based upon tradition, implementation, and higher laws.

Actually, it is mostly those who have criticized DH that have failed to come forward with legal citations or examples of other ways that laws have been interpreted by Courts or have been overturned on appeal.

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

IMHO, it would be your advise on how to show a court that we recognized the challenges of solo sailing, and have used best practices to meet the intent of rule 5, that would be most helpful.

There is an entire separate discussion ongoing on this subject for the express purpose of separating it from the legal discussion.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...es-206147.html

[NevisDog]

So many falsehoods and misleading statements repeated in last 2 pages that I totally agree with DH - not worth pursuing the dozen or more clear mis-statements above.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

Actually, it is mostly those who have criticized DH that have failed to come forward with legal citations or examples of other ways that laws have been interpreted by Courts or have been overturned on appeal.

There is an entire separate discussion ongoing on this subject for the express purpose of separating it from the legal discussion.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...es-206147.html

As far as examples of ways in which laws can be interpreted by the courts or that have been overturned on appeal see post #717.


BTW, this is not the first thread to discuss this subject. On a much older thread I cited a court case where a lighted fishing boat was drifting of the California coast when sunk by a merchant ship. Unfortunately, I can't remember enough about the case, and a search of my posts do not go back far enough, to find it again. So I have not cited it here solely based upon my memory.


DH and I have Both posted to the best practices thread many times. In particular you might want to check out post #150 where I suggest a strawman example of a lookout practice that might be acceptable.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

As far as examples of ways in which laws can be interpreted by the courts or that have been overturned on appeal see post #717.

I don't think anyone would disagree that laws can be overturned by Courts of Appeal. You noted in post #717 an example of the US Supreme Court finding a law unconstitutional. It did not, however, have any relevance to the obligations of mariners to obey ColRegs.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

Sorry DH, but your word is not final here!


You have failed to acknowledge the fact that laws can be unlawful and rejected on appeal. Or, that laws are subject to interpretation based upon tradition, implementation, and higher laws.


IMHO, it would be your advise on how to show a court that we recognized the challenges of solo sailing, and have used best practices to meet the intent of rule 5, that would be most helpful.


On future voyages I plan on carrying a notarize ship safety plan. This will include equipment onboard, when and how the equipment is to be used, watch standing procedures, lookout practices, .etc. Hopefully, this will show good seamanship and my intent to meet the requirements of rule 5.

Of course my word is not final. We're not in court. Everyone will make up his own mind.


Of course courts do interpret laws, and on rare occasions they even make them up. But normally courts do not interpret laws in a way which contradicts their plain meaning and intention, and appeals are not accepted if there is no significant doubt about the original decision. As I said before -- the law, to some lay people, seems bewilderingly complex and full of loopholes, and some people start to get the idea that a good lawyer can twist anything into anything -- but that's not true -- mostly what is forbidden and what is permitted is reasonably clear.


As to how to show good seamanship while single handing even if you can't fully comply with Rule 5 -- we have a separate thread about it. Having a written plan is a great idea -- and not just from a legal point of view.

[Uricanejack]

My conclusion
Single handled sailing is not I league or immoral.
The law requires every vessel to maintain a look out.
Not keeping a look out is ileagle.
Failure to keep a lookout on a commercial vessel is ileagle and might have significant consequences.
Failure to keep a lookout on a pleaser yacht. Is a technically ileagle but common practice and nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

One day someone alone on a pleasure yacht will hit another boat while they are asleep and someone will be hurt or die.

Then it will be ileagle.

[jmorrison146]

A written plan that shows intent to violate Rule 5 will not help you if, God forbid, something goes wrong. There is only one way to comply with Rule 5 and that's with your eyes and ears. Every vessel, at all times, every means possible. "Appropriate to conditions" doesn't mean no lookout if you need a nap, it means extra precautions in low visibility.

Single-handing is not illegal or immoral. Neglecting to stand a proper lookout is clearly illegal and if you hurt someone by your negligence the morality will be judged by others. It's your choice to violate the rule but do so at your peril.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

A written plan that shows intent to violate Rule 5 will not help you if, God forbid, something goes wrong. There is only one way to comply with Rule 5 and that's with your eyes and ears. Every vessel, at all times, every means possible. "Appropriate to conditions" doesn't mean no lookout if you need a nap, it means extra precautions in low visibility.

Single-handing is not illegal or immoral. Neglecting to stand a proper lookout is clearly illegal and if you hurt someone by your negligence the morality will be judged by others. It's your choice to violate the rule but do so at your peril.

The Golden Globe Single Handed Round the World Race was recently sailed by I believe 18 single handed sailors.

To my knowledge, none of the boats had a problem as far as lookouts but I understand many had an EchoMax Active Radar Reflector that gave warning when 'painted' by radar plus they had AIS output/transmit

[ErnestV]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

A written plan that shows intent to violate Rule 5 will not help you if, God forbid, something goes wrong. There is only one way to comply with Rule 5 and that's with your eyes and ears. Every vessel, at all times, every means possible. "Appropriate to conditions" doesn't mean no lookout if you need a nap, it means extra precautions in low visibility.

Single-handing is not illegal or immoral. Neglecting to stand a proper lookout is clearly illegal and if you hurt someone by your negligence the morality will be judged by others. It's your choice to violate the rule but do so at your peril.

There is the small phrase "every means possible". So if you're singlehandling and need a nap, physical lookout is not one of the possible means.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by ErnestV

There is the small phrase "every means possible". So if you're singlehandling and need a nap, physical lookout is not one of the possible means.

Isn't that like saying "if you're double handing but both crew members wish to be down below for happy hour or the evening meal, physical lookout is not one of the possible means." I don't believe your convenience is the criterion regarding compliance with Rule 5.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

A written plan that shows intent to violate Rule 5 will not help you if, God forbid, something goes wrong. There is only one way to comply with Rule 5 and that's with your eyes and ears. Every vessel, at all times, every means possible. "Appropriate to conditions" doesn't mean no lookout if you need a nap, it means extra precautions in low visibility.

Single-handing is not illegal or immoral. Neglecting to stand a proper lookout is clearly illegal and if you hurt someone by your negligence the morality will be judged by others. It's your choice to violate the rule but do so at your peril.

Please explain what is "Moral" is? There is no law which describes morality.

[ErnestV]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

Isn't that like saying "if you're double handing but both crew members wish to be down below for happy hour or the evening meal, physical lookout is not one of the possible means." I don't believe your convenience is the criterion regarding compliance with Rule 5.

For a crewed boat, be it two or more, tagging it as "convenience" would certainly be ok. Being singlehanded it might not be so easy to attribute the need for rest as being a "convenience", IMHO.

BTW, the colregs never mention anything like "convenience". No need to introduce new entities here.