Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by StuM

"becoming"? it "became" many pages back


(I really don't know why I'm continuing to follow this thread - the chance of any new insight departed long ago.)

It serving as great soporific; maybe I should print, bind it and keep it on board for when I am having trouble nodding of while single handing

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Wotname

... keep it on board for when I am having trouble nodding of while single handing

Another darned criminal!

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Another darned criminal!

And CF (or at least this thread) is my enabler

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So leaving the vessel underway without a watchkeeper awake -- if you have a good understanding of what you are doing, if you do it in the right sea area, and if you use good technical means to help, might be a fairly decent gamble

Do you mean to imply that heaving to in order to get some (very necessary for sanity proper) sleep would be "more legal"?

I know you said you thought it would be safer, but of course that is only marginally related to the de jure legal question.

[john61ct]

Less than .00001% of crimes that are known to LEO and officials or which could easily be discovered are ever prosecuted.

There are tens of thousands of laws even felony level that are literally never enforced.

Many here are confusing that **de facto** legality from a practical POV, with the more theoretical de jure topic at hand.

You are perfectly right in this case 99.99999% of the time, the authorities wait for a significant incident, conflict, accident before **choosing** to prosecute this crime.

But the incident does not change the de jure legality, just the intention of those able to enforce it.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I doubt any country could prosecute a solo voyager for solo voyaging across an ocean and win, unless that country passed a specific law banning the practice. (This may well happen if we continue to promote solo racing in very large, very fast yachts, unless they stick to the Southern Ocean; it may already be the case in Ireland.)

Inadequate watchkeeping is a whole other ballgame - illegal in any country, regardless of numbers on watch.

Almost all countries have adopted the COLREGS. The only question is what penalties have been assigned. That will depend on the country. In some countries it will be that penalties are not assigned but courts have discretion to assign appropriate penalties.

In the US:
46 CFR Chapter I § 15.850 Lookouts.
The requirements for the maintenance of a proper lookout are specified
in Rule 5 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
1972 (33 U.S.C. 1602(c)), and Rule 5 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 2005). Lookout is a function to be performed by a member of a navigational watch.

For violation of 33usc1602(c) 33USC1608 authorizes a fine of up to $5,000 with seizure of the vessel as a means of ensuring payment. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...30-sec1608.htm

USC 2072 indicates that for violation of 33USC2005 a fine of up to $5,000 may be assessed or the vessel may be seized in pursuit of that fine.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...II-sec2072.htm

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Do you mean to imply that heaving to in order to get some (very necessary for sanity proper) sleep would be "more legal"?

I know you said you thought it would be safer, but of course that is only marginally related to the de jure legal question.

I think that the more carefully you do it, and the more seamanlike your tactics are, the more legal it is -- Rule 2. Rule 2 doesn't let you off the hook.



Does that matter? I'm not sure it really does -- you're going to get done if you have an accident in any case, and as we've discussed, it's quite unlikely that you will be caught far offshore if no accident occurs. Furthermore, if you do get into a collision like this, your legal position is going to be the least of your problems.



However, I do think that if you did get into an accident, but you were hove to and showing NUC, you will most likely have a smaller proportion of liability than you would if you were just barrelling along under sail while sleeping and showing no signals to indicate that no one is at the switch. Look at it the other way: If you're the ship crew, what is more heinous -- to run down a hove-to vessel which has clearly indicated that it is not capable of maneuver, or to get into a collision with another vessel which apparently could maneuver? I think there's a clear difference.


I also think there is far less risk of gross negligence being attributed to you, something which might have wide-ranging legal consequences.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I doubt any country could prosecute a solo voyager for solo voyaging across an ocean and win, unless that country passed a specific law banning the practice. (This may well happen if we continue to promote solo racing in very large, very fast yachts, unless they stick to the Southern Ocean; it may already be the case in Ireland.)

Inadequate watchkeeping is a whole other ballgame - illegal in any country, regardless of numbers on watch.

If "inadequate watchkeeping" is illegal, how could no watchkeeping at all possibly be legal?


This is a total collapse of logic.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by capt jgw

That's what I was trying to say back at the beginning of this very long thread. It's the collision (or close call) that makes the watch improper. If you can cross an ocean single handed without hitting anything then your system, whatever it was, is working for you. Hit something, you proved it was not.
Same thing with Rule 6, Safe Speed. If you run your speed boat at 100mph through an area without a defined speed limit without hitting anything, then that speed was safe enough for those conditions. Hit something, you proved it was not. Those two Rules are written as gotchas to be applied after the wreck.
So IMO single handing is legal as long as you don't hit anything. Having a collision under any conditions is not.

Except that this is not true at all.


If you run your speed boat at 100mph through a crowded anchorage and somehow manage not to hit anything, that does not indeed make it legal, as thousands of prosecutions show.


And in fact this is a very good example.


Getting into an accident make it far more likely that you will be prosecuted for speeding or for inadequate watchkeeping. But likelihood of prosecution and legality are two entirely different things. Same thing on the road -- causing an accident is not an element of the offence of speeding.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Less than .00001% of crimes that are known to LEO and officials or which could easily be discovered are ever prosecuted.

There are tens of thousands of laws even felony level that are literally never enforced.

Many here are confusing that **de facto** legality from a practical POV, with the more theoretical de jure topic at hand.

You are perfectly right in this case 99.99999% of the time, the authorities wait for a significant incident, conflict, accident before **choosing** to prosecute this crime.

But the incident does not change the de jure legality, just the intention of those able to enforce it.

Correct.


I passed a traffic policeman on the M3 at 85 mph in April. The speed limit it 70, but he didn't pull me over.


So it's legal to drive 85 on the M3? Of course not.


The fact that they didn't arrest Jessica Watson or don't stop single hand races is completely irrelevant to the legality of navigating with no one awake.

[Seaslug Caravan]

"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look‑out by sight and hearing'

Does this task have to be carried out by a Human?

With the advent of unmanned sail drones , do the regulations need to be viewed from a different vantage point?

How does "NUC" fit into this discussion? Maybe its already been discussed , but time is short and I'm about to head off single handing.

Thanks to the Brains Trust in advance.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look‑out by sight and hearing'

Does this task have to be carried out by a Human?

With the advent of unmanned sail drones , do the regulations need to be viewed from a different vantage point?

How does "NUC" fit into this discussion? Maybe its already been discussed , but time is short and I'm about to head off single handing.

Thanks to the Brains Trust in advance.

This is a great question and entirely relevant; thanks for bringing it up.



Presently, yes, and the legality of drone ships has been one of the biggest COLREGs topics in the professional literature over the past 10 years.



Most commentators believe that the law will need to be changed in order to allow autonomous ships (and that it WILL be changed), although there is some argument that a remote controlled ship (as distinguished from a fully autonomous one which makes its own decisions) might be able to fulfill the requirements of Rule 5 with a shore-based lookout continuously monitoring a really good sensor suite.


This is similar to the question of self-driving cars and traffic laws. My own opinion, for whatever little it may be worth, is that self-driving cars and self-driving ships are coming soon, and that both of these things will be a boon for road safety/safety of navigation.

[capt jgw]

Originally Posted by weavis

I 'nearly' agree with you.

Hitting something does not imply a wrong watch. I have been involved in a mild collision whilst our boat was 100% on watch. The other vessel was passing safely when the operator had a seizure, fell forward onto the throttles and turned the wheel into our boat. Our captain managed to turn behind him and the impact was slight. This because a continuous watch was being maintained.

A crew member on his boat neutraled the engines, and we came alongside. We saw the issue and 2 of the 4 people on our boat jumped on board the other to render aid. He got lucky.. 4 drs on our boat.

As long as rule 5 is complied with, even in an accident all factors are taken into consideration. Even if single handing.

accidents happen.

Well right, not all collisions can be attributed to improper lookout. If your 5mph dinghy or sailboat got hit by a 50 mph speedboat, I'm sure everyone would agree that there was nothing you could have done whether you saw it coming or not. Or in the case cited here where the other vessel made a sudden speed and or course change (not Maintaining Course and Speed as required) negating your attempt to avoid.
But assuming the crash could be attributed to improper lookout, then obviously the collision itself is proof the lookout was not proper. If you didn't see it coming, and would have been able to avoid if you did, that's an improper watch.

[capt jgw]

Originally Posted by StuM

"becoming"? it "became" many pages back


(I really don't know why I'm continuing to follow this thread - the chance of any new insight departed long ago.)

Bravo!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

"becoming"? it "became" many pages back


(I really don't know why I'm continuing to follow this thread - the chance of any new insight departed long ago.)

Its just an exercise by the prejudiced to ensure that the stringy old guy living on the slightly shabby '72 Elizabethan across the pontoon in some marina on the Hamble does not diminish the sense of acomplishment of a skipper and 4 crew aboard a 50+ftr by giving them a cheery wave as he drops anchor next to them in say the Caribe..