Hitting an anchored boat in a sparsely populated anchorage while under sail

[smj]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Absolutely agree with everything you said! Spot on!

You guys crack me up!

[kubota]

i do live in an off grid cabin in the woods in a national forest miles from anywhere or any neighbors.

i have run off meth cookers trying to break in on several occasions.

how did they find me?
why google earth of course.
(yeah, the sheriff interrogated them weeks later).

chotu is right, home invasions and drug runners/cookers acquiring means to transport or manufacture use internet
to facilitate. so do thieves who view isolated locations as facile marks.
AIS and a social media profile just make their jobs easier.

after 45,000 cruising miles, i find the old adage is correct, i dont need to be invisible, just less visible than you.

so please leave your ais on in the anchorage advertising to marine traffic and advertise your equipment and travel plans on social media.
post pictures of you visiting the grandkids miles away.
you are the best part of my security system.

i will be the quiet boat in the anchorage as far from shore as reasonable flying proper lights, flags and shapes. And in really sketchy places posting a 24hr anchor watch aboard or with other boats.

as an aside for those who actually leave the florida/bahamas region. its not just random thieves. in venezuala and Nicaragua the theft was organized by coast guard and military who certainly were tuned to your ais.
in columbia natives on remote islands had military grade encrypted trunking radios in the trees for smuggling. dont think they check ais? transiting these waters and anchoring while blabbering your position to the world is not safe. and yeah, they would love to have the mmsi u just so helpfully provided them so they can appear to be you on next run.
course they gotta make sure you arent transmitting and they are. think bout how they might ensure that.

[sailorboy1]

heck in Florida I could find an empty derlick boat to "cook" on without such a complex proess.

Just because something CAN be done is not a reason to become paranoid it will

[Chotu]

And you might not get hit by a random boat sailing under main and Genoa at night, out of control with no nav lights on. Yet here we are.

“Kevin Kolbye, a former fbi swatting expert who is now assistant police chief of Arlington, Texas, reckons annual swatting incidents have climbed from roughly 400 in 2011 to more than 1,000 today.” https://www.economist.com/united-sta...-federal-crime


“ The U.S. Coast Guard reported 658 boating-related deaths in 2021—81% died by drowning, and 83% of these people were not wearing life jackets.”
https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/i...life%20jackets.

“ On average, over one million home burglaries happen annually in the U.S.”
https://www.forbes.com/home-improvem...on-statistics/

“ firm Credit Sesame interviewed 50 ex-burglars in England and discovered 80 percent of the robbers used Facebook, Twitter, Google Street view, and Foursquare.”
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-offic...curity-camera/


That’s 546 people drowning on boats per year and more than 1000 people getting SWATted per year. Over 1 million break ins occur per year in the USA and 800,000 of them involve the burglar using social media to determine if it’s a good time to strike.

Annual break ins involving social media: 800,000
People getting swatted annually: 1,000
People drowning on boats: 546

So do you have lifejackets? Do you keep those on board? Why?

You’d have to be pretty thick not to look at these numbers and understand your odds of falling victim to one of these things above is a lot higher than all of the other precautions we take on boats. Added together.

[Cynara]

I haven't seen any thing mentioned about maintaining a safe speed which the sailboat wasn't. Also the rules don't mention common sense. Colregs failure? If they contained every possible situation you would need an Aircraft carrier to hold them all.

The person who loves to copy/paste the should be thankful for modern technology.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Cynara

I haven't seen any thing mentioned about maintaining a safe speed which the sailboat wasn't. Also the rules don't mention common sense. Colregs failure? If they contained every possible situation you would need an Aircraft carrier to hold them all.

The person who loves to copy/paste the should be thankful for modern technology.

You haven't seen anything mentioned about safe speed, because it isn't likely applicable. From the OP's description and pictures, the visibility was not restricted, although it was dark. How fast is a sailboat? How fast do you think is too fast in this situation? Do you care to add your analysis of the situation?

Not sure what your issue with copy and paste is? Many people post the relevant sections from the Rules, or commentary on those Rules to illustrate their point, and assist in the general edification of the forum. Most of us like to see an authoritative reference, rather than just some punter's opinion. YMMV.

[Cynara]

I mentioned earlier he was in my opinion going to fast. He could have avoided contact if he was slower.. I also said the almighty Colregs don't mention common sense.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Cynara

I mentioned earlier he was in my opinion going to fast. He could have avoided contact if he was slower.. I also said the almighty Colregs don't mention common sense.

Common sense (not so common, eh?) is implied by Rule 6 Safe speed “Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.”

You’ll note that a knot value is not provided so this rule does not prescribe a certain speed limit as on the roads. Instead, it requires that each master use their own common sense to determine what boat speed is safe.

Obviously, the sailors in the original example were not travelling at a safe speed. Just one among several breaches of the COLREGs.

[JebLostInSpace]

Originally Posted by Chotu

And you might not get hit by a random boat sailing under main and Genoa at night, out of control with no nav lights on. Yet here we are.

“Kevin Kolbye, a former fbi swatting expert who is now assistant police chief of Arlington, Texas, reckons annual swatting incidents have climbed from roughly 400 in 2011 to more than 1,000 today.” https://www.economist.com/united-sta...-federal-crime


“ The U.S. Coast Guard reported 658 boating-related deaths in 2021—81% died by drowning, and 83% of these people were not wearing life jackets.”
https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/i...life%20jackets.

“ On average, over one million home burglaries happen annually in the U.S.”
https://www.forbes.com/home-improvem...on-statistics/

“ firm Credit Sesame interviewed 50 ex-burglars in England and discovered 80 percent of the robbers used Facebook, Twitter, Google Street view, and Foursquare.”
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-offic...curity-camera/


That’s 546 people drowning on boats per year and more than 1000 people getting SWATted per year. Over 1 million break ins occur per year in the USA and 800,000 of them involve the burglar using social media to determine if it’s a good time to strike.

Annual break ins involving social media: 800,000
People getting swatted annually: 1,000
People drowning on boats: 546

So do you have lifejackets? Do you keep those on board? Why?

You’d have to be pretty thick not to look at these numbers and understand your odds of falling victim to one of these things above is a lot higher than all of the other precautions we take on boats. Added together.

1. If 81% of boat deaths are from drowning, and 83% of those are people not wearing a life jacket, we can infer that non-life jacket wearers drowning account for 67% of all boating deaths. And since drowning is a substantially worse outcome than being robbed, my tolerance for drowning risk is lower than my tolerance for the risk of being robbed. Now, if there were 658 boating deaths, out of just shy of 12 million registered boats in the US (1), then that means .005% of boats will be involved in a boating death. (Actually not quite since some boats may be involved in multiple deaths, but it's pretty close). That's a very small number. But, when evaluating risk it is important to account for both severity of the negative outcome and likelihood of the negative outcome. Death is a high severity negative outcome, so that very small number gains extra importance in the risk evaluation. Combine that with the fact that wearing a life jacket reduces that number by about two thirds for essentially zero effort, and I'm willing to wear the life jacket. Particularly when I'm in a situation that makes it more likely than usual for me to go overboard.

2. If there are 1 million burglaries annually, and 142 million homes in the US (2), that means 7% of homes will experience burglaries. This of course assumes that every home is equally likely to be burgled, which is not the case. High crime areas will be substantially higher, and low crime areas will be near zero. But if we roll with the average of 7% of homes will be burgled, that means the incidence of burglaries is 140 times higher than the incidence of boating deaths. If we consider our risk assessment in terms of severity as well as likelihood, then we must next ask whether drowning is 140 times more severe than being robbed. I would vote yes, but there are arguments to be made that a burglary may also result in injury or death, so others are free to disagree. If we say that the combined likelihood and severity of the two risks are somewhere in the ballpark of equal, then I should be willing to put about as much effort into burglary avoidance as I am willing to put into drowning avoidance. Since donning a life jacket takes very nearly zero effort, that means I probably don't need to try very hard to avoid being burgled. Which is in fact how I live my life. If I'm in a high crime area where the likelihood of a burglary appears high, I will take some precautions, up to and including locking entryways and turning on lights. I might even reduce the amount of time I spend off the boat and try to make the boat look like it is occupied by more than just me. But it's rare that I'd go so far out of my way.

In this comparison we might also compare the value of the mitigating actions. We know that donning a life jacket will reduce my risk of a boating death by around two thirds. I haven't found any useful data on how much I might reduce my likelihood of being robbed by employing locks and lights. My guess is that the locks and lights reduce my likelihood of being burgled by a small percentage, but I could easily be wrong on that one. Perhaps most burglaries are crimes of convenience where the burglar finds an unlocked door. Your stat that 80% of burglars use social media to identify targets would indicate that a low-effort mitigation for being burgled would be to avoid posting my whereabouts on social media. So I won't put online which mooring ball I'm on tonight in St Augustine, FL. It's also worth noting that checking social media is different from scrubbing the whole internet. It's highly unlikely that someone perusing my facebook to find out where the boat is would also be able to find my account on CF and discover that I'm on a mooring in St Augustine. And I'm confident that the 80% of burglars who check social media is a much larger percentage than those who attempt to scrub the whole internet for a pre-identified victim's information.

3. 1000 people get "Swatted" every year. There are 330 Million people in the US (2). So the likelihood of being "Swatted" is .00003%. "Swatting" is done to individuals, so I used the full population as the denominator. It is possibel to be impacted by "Swatting" without being the individual targeted, so my estimate might be a little low, but probably not by enough to matter. So "Swatting" is around 167 times less likely than a boating death, and 233,000 times less likely than being burgled. Since the worst case scenario from being "Swatted" is death, the same as drowning, then I should put 167 times less effort into avoiding "Swatting" as I put into avoiding drowning. And since the effort I put into avoiding drowning is to simply don a life jacket, the effort I should put into avoiding "Swatting" is pretty much zero. Any amount of time I spend mitigating that risk would be better spent mitigating one of the other risks we're discussing. Now the problem with this analysis is that I've again assumed a uniform risk of "Swatting" for everyone in the US. If I knew I had upset a mentally ill person, I may raise the likelihood on the "Swatting" risk. But even then it will be substantially lower than the risk of drowning. So I still wouldn't put any more effort into mitigating that risk than I put into donning a life jacket. Realistically that might take the form of not engaging in arguments with mentally ill people I don't trust? Not really sure what the actionable mitigation even is on that one.

So now I've had a decent look at your numbers. I could certainly have been more rigorous in analyzing all the stats, but a quick look seems to support the conventional wisdom. Wear a life jacket because it's easy and has a meaningful impact on risk. Lock your doors because it's easy and might have a meaningful impact on risk. Don't get caught up in the fear mongering about silly nonsense like "Swatting" because any time spent on that is time wasted. Or am I just being thick?

(1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/...els-in-the-us/

(2) https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...e/US/VET605221

[kubota]

so just to be clear, when a group of criminals whom I have personally and forcibly removed from my premise tells law enforcement they targeted me by using the internet, I am just being paranoid if in future I curtail the availability of my location information and social media profiles at home and on my boat?

[Jim Cate]

If there are 1 million burglaries annually, and 142 million homes in the US (2), that means 7% of homes will experience burglaries.

Umm... would you believe 0.7%? Bloody maths...

Jim

[JPA Cate]

^^^^

Not being paranoid at all. Demonstrating learning from experience.

Not everyone can learn from someone else's experience; but some, do, and will take what you wrote to heart.

Ann

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Cynara

I mentioned earlier he was in my opinion going to fast. He could have avoided contact if he was slower.. I also said the almighty Colregs don't mention common sense.

You don't know enough about the situation to make that determination. How fast were they going? What is too fast? What would have been a "safe speed"? Sounds more like they weren't paying attention to where they were going - poor lookout. Possibly doing something beyond their level of competence - sailing in close quarters with anchored vessels - Rule 2 infraction.

What's rule 2? -

Rule 2 - Responsibility
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Wait? That sounds a lot like "all sailors are expected to exercise common sense", so the 'almighty colregs' do mention it.

Your use of the term 'almighty Colregs' seems to suggest a disdain for the Rules. This usually comes from ignorance or misunderstanding of the Rules. I encourage you to continue participating in these Rules discussions and bring your questions. You should also invest in a guide to the colregs - such as Cockcroft, Farwell, Dokmar, etc. If you keep an open mind, you can learn a lot about the Rules.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by kubota

so just to be clear, when a group of criminals whom I have personally and forcibly removed from my premise tells law enforcement they targeted me by using the internet, I am just being paranoid if in future I curtail the availability of my location information and social media profiles at home and on my boat?

Well, statistically at least you aren’t as paranoid as people who keep lifejackets on their boat.

[Chotu]

Speaking of this crazy anchorage, we had a dragger last night.

I am kind of perplexed why the dinghy is tied to the stern. I imagine maybe this person is aboard? Kind of hard to imagine they aren’t taking evasive action however.


They are just sitting there pounding the keel into the ground.

Wind (quite a bit of it) is coming from the aft in this picture.

Small white object amidships is the dinghy. Tied to the aft of the boat.