Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[yttrill]

Originally Posted by surf_km55

I just came upon this thread & was astounded to see 11 pages of discussion, yet the statement above from page one pretty much sums it up.
Discussion closed, AFAIC.

No it doesn't, in fact the claim is clearly incorrect: you would only be in violation at such time as you failed to maintain an adequate watch. It is then a matter of some interest exactly what "adequate" means.

In particular, if it some time one comes to the reasonable belief a collision is not possible for a certain period, then during that period, one might do other things (like nap, or go to the toilet, or make a coffee). Maintaining a watch doesn't mean one has to observe visually the water in all directions simultaneously and continuously because that is clearly impossible -- humans have directional vision. One looks "often enough", and for more time in the direction of greatest danger.

If any crew is in violation it is just about ALL small fishing vessels, since they're always short handed, and the skipper and sole deckhand are playing with the nets of lines illuminated by massively powerful floodlights guaranteed to ensure they're night blind (as well as there being no one listening on the radio, which is also a requirement).

Indeed even large cargo vessels are extremely short handed and there is no way all the work can be done if the sea must be scanned at all times. The watch keeper must keep records, examine many instruments including engine parameters, and check on how the cargo is riding. Especially when the vessel is soon to unload, most of the crew will be sleeping so that they can be at maximum alertness at the time of greatest demand.

Stuff goes wrong too. Even if you go to sea with a crew of 4, which allows for a 4 on 8 off schedule for 3 crew, with the skipper in reserve, some crew might get sick, or might be required to do some important job like reef the sails or drain water from the fuel filter, and then it may well be there's no way to maintain the same level of watchful vigilance.

So the question is, what is a reasonable plan, and reasonable action. Solo coastal sailing with planned stopovers is probably reasonable. Solo blue water sailing with sleep at appropriate points for periods appropriate to the risks is also probably reasonable. I personally do checks every 15-20 minutes in deep ocean outside shipping lanes and fishing areas, depending on visibility and weather: my AIS sees 50 miles so that's pretty safe.

[Eight Sails]

Originally Posted by capt jgw

In my reading of the Rules, and I've read them a lot, I've been teaching a USCG Master's Course for about 20 years now, I can't help but get the feeling that they're not so much intended as guidance before the fact as the means of assessing blame after the fact.

This thread is growing by two new pages for every page I can read but I'm afraid I don't see any more insight than that being added. I sure hope no one is posting to while away their time on watch!

Can you be stopped and charged? No doubt you can but it would be (a) not worthwhile and (b) tough to prove unless you were below in your bunk when boarded. The authorities are quite unlikely to stop you just to check if you're napping, as opposed say to drinking or smuggling goods and people.

Racing and cruising singlehanded on Lake Ontario, I've experienced first hand both midnight boarding by US authorities and serious collision with another boat. These are my observations (YMMV) ....

I have been stopped while singlehanding at night off Rochester, by USCB agents investigating a distress flare report. They wanted to know if I'd seen anything. I hadn't. They asked where I'd sailed from and whether I'd landed on the nearest US Island. They guessed from the answer that, the day before, I must have been sailing alone in seas that would have flipped their motorboat. They were duly impressed. They didn't charge me with failing to keep a proper lookout. If another vessel within sight launched a flare, hypothetically, I suppose they could have. They handed back my documents and wished me a good evening. My take-away was that you're OK as long as you're not in trouble or likely to get into it. The authorities are quite rightly more focused on actual distress situations and other matters in their domain.

I have competed in numerous, long-established singlehand races, including 3-4 day Solo Challenge events that circumnavigate Lake Ontario in Canadian and US waters. Scratch lists are submitted in advance to US and Canadian authorities, races are satellite tracked, anyone can follow the boats on Yellow Brick, boats racing singlehanded can be easily identified online in real time, US and Canadian CG vessels cross the path of the fleet from time to time, the course crosses and in places follows shipping lanes, and all is well. Proof of insurance is required and, indeed, the sponsors have included insurance firms.

If a singlehanded boat were involved in a collision, I expect the COLREGS would come into play only if serious injury or loss of life were involved or the collision involved a non-competing vessel. Otherwise, assigning responsibility would fall to the race committee and insurance adjusters would be guided by the results of a protest hearing.

On one overnight race several years ago, I was hit in a port-starboard by a fully crewed, port tack boat, sailing straight out of a bright sunrise at 5:30 am, just as the breeze picked up after a calm night. I'd been up all night tending sails, ghosting along, no naps, dog tired. The other boat had been up all night drinking and only had one crew on deck, the skipper. He hit me on the bow and later claimed to the protest committee he'd hit me on the stern. I believe he saw double and steered in between. I was crouching behind the genoa, trimming it, and when I stood up it was too late. Insurance paid my claim in full and generously; the only question was what finding the protest committee would make. The other boat had a history of similar collisions and as a result was banned from entering any more races on Lake Ontario. While the protest committee found that under the Racing Rules of Sailing and the COLREGS, all boats are equally responsible for avoiding collisions, no penalty was imposed on my boat -- I'd immediately retired as required by the rules, whereas the other boat was disqualified for continuing to race for another 24 hours (!). No civil claim or criminal charge was brought outside the protest hearing.

Net, in my experience, common sense prevails and the authorities, whether CG or CB are focused on the mission, not on petty rules enforcement. Singlehanded events are acknowledged and accepted and national authorities go so far as to cooperate with the organizers (e.g. are notified in advance, so they can monitor the event and allow safe passage to the boats without stopping them to question or board). If there's a collision, a portion of responsibility may land on the singlehander but all the material facts will be considered and the burden of responsibility will in most cases be fairly allocated.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

What an utterly irresponsible attitude, born by people living their lives at the expense of others. It is the OTHER boat and THEIR life that matters.

Ah is so Righteous.!!!

[boatman61]

Gord.. No way would the French accept that EU ruling.. its purely aimed at commercial vessels.
They have to much to lose in Mini Transat and RTW records to name a couple.. all they'd have left is a fading wine and Croisant reputation..

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by captpage

The watch is to protect yourself and laugh at the comedy going around you...so sad!

So, what are you arguing? Yes, it is true that you can find examples in almost any sector of marine activity concerning failure to maintain an adequate watch resulting in collision, damage, and injury. Are you claiming that keeping a responsible watch is unnecessary as no one else does it anyway? Or are you suggesting that you need to be doubly alert because others may not be. If the latter, I may well agree.

[jmorrison146]

Single handing is not illegal. Going to sleep and "not maintaining a proper watch by sight and hearing" is illegal. Long distance single handlers sail at their peril, both physical and legal.

[dcstrng]

It looks like a good portion of this thread may have gone where the original author apparently didn’t want to go – the moral, ethical or good-sense issue. The legal issue seems to hinge fairly strictly (to the extent that admiralty law has such…) on what a proper watch is – not how many are on watch. The apparent situation is that this provision is seldom enforced unless a (civil) tort or (some other) illegality has been committed. Which might be explained as; there is no convenient way to know whether a proper watch is being maintained, until some event gives rise to a situation where there seems to be an absence of it – at that point the burden of proof seems to shift to the tortfeasor who must show that whatever occurred, did so for some reason other than a “proper watch… appropriate in the prevailing circumstances…” In short, it appears that (all other factors of seamanship being equal) in the absence of a tort, the presumption is that a proper watch is being maintained (so USCG doesn’t immediately incarcerate a bunch of single-handers setting off across the wild blue in a race), but in the presence of a tort, the presumption is that a proper watch was not being maintained – whether twenty crew in the pilot house (or on deck) or one, or none…

Don’t hit anything.

[conachair]

Aside from legality - has there ever been an incident with a singlehander with radar and ais alarms fitted and running properly?
There's the well know Jessica wotsername, she messed up there, as did the other boat. A fair few racers in collisions which almost certainly wouldn't have happened if they'd been using technology to watch. Can't think of anything from the rest of fleet though.
Probably why no authorities get too bothered about nitty gritty the legal side, not really a problem for them.

[jmschmidt]

captpage speaks nonsense. I doubt he/she has seen any of the things he/she reports.

[surf_km55]

Originally Posted by yttrill

No it doesn't,....

Wasted lecture.

Your response lends credence to my ethos of avoiding boat people whenever possible.

[Eight Sails]

Originally Posted by conachair

Aside from legality - has there ever been an incident with a singlehander with radar and ais alarms fitted and running properly?

Any incident could make an interesting precedent. To the extent that a non-lawyer can accurately parse Rule 5, though, radar and AIS would seem to be other appropriate means in addition to but not instead of sight and sound. From a strict standpoint, I don't see any way around that, as the rule stands.

Having AIS and radar, with alarms set, can help you reduce your risk of collision but not to zero. I wouldn't expect to escape blame in a collision by having it, not today at least. Not all vessels are required to have it, not all do have it, not all that have it use it properly, it can malfunction, it can serve to encourage human inattention, not all vessels show up or trigger an alarm in less-than-deal conditions, etc.... I'm sure collisions have resulted from all those scenarios.

This is off-topic speculation and seafaring is deeply conservative--so the rules won't change at the speed of technology, if they ever change at all--but one does wonder, as autonomous vehicle technology takes off, how much longer watch-keeping aids employing intelligent technology to greatly outperform human attention will continue to be legally subordinated to human lookout, on vessels properly equipped, when the humans are more likely than the technology to make a mistake. There'd not be much difference between a Tesla warning you to put your hands back on the wheel after 20 seconds and your ship's log sounding an alarm if you nod off for more than 5 minutes....

[JohnHutchins]

Haven't read much beyond the first page of this thread (sorry) but I think the question is malformed in that it presumes one answer. I don't think there can be one.

Let's start with the definitional question. I take "illegal" to mean "that which will subject a person to criminal or civil penalties". This is not the same as a standard that defines negligence or recklessness for the purpose of establishing liability for damage caused. If something is illegal, that is, it's conduct that you can be fined, jailed, or otherwise penalized for even if no one can claim you've damaged them in any way.

If that's what "illegal" means one has to ask the jurisdictional question -- who is it who can impose the penalty and where do they get the authority to do so. There is no body that has general jurisdiction over the high seas. Each country, however, does have jurisdiction over it's territorial waters and over vessels traveling under its flag wherever they may be found.

So before you can determine whether something is i illegal you have to know where the boat is and maybe what flag its travelling under.

In the US, 33 USC 1608 provides civil penalties for violation of the COLREGS. So one night be able to say that in US waters or for US flagged boats, it is illegal for single handed sailors to undertake long passages. BUT in the US all persons (persons, not citizens) have a right to due process that includes adequate notice of what' constitutes criminal conduct. Now the fines imposed through 33 USC 1608 are civil penalties, not criminal ones but that distinction (rightly) does not seem to negate the constitutional right to due process. The requirement that people have adequate notice that conduct is criminal is usually satisfied simply by publication of statue such as 33 USC 1601 - 1608. BUT a criminal law must give adequate notice of the kinds of conduct that is illegal and if a statue is so vague that a reasonable person having read it cannot ascertain that a certain course of conduct is illegal; or if enforcement has fallen into such a state of desuetude that it's generally accepted that the conduct is legal then there is a strong argument to be made that enforcement of the statue violates due process and the conduct is in fact legal.

I think this may well be the case with respect to single handed passage making in the US or on the high seas on US flagged vessels. The answer is likely different in some parts of the world and for some vessels.

[Singularity]

I highly doubt that there are any countries that have a law that states words close to "a person may never stab another person with a knife," while most certainly there are many laws about knives in every country. So does this mean the govt and court is okay with people stabbing people with knives? Is that a very enlightening discussion?

As mentioned in at least #133 and #172 and #177 it has been expressed that it is sort of pointless to debate the subject of legal vs illegal. Just don't hit anything, and expect to be judged by the locals if you do, maybe in a manner different from your couch at home. If this is an issue, stay at home.

How about utilizing hormones and neurons to discuss methods of increasing safety and survival in a reality/world where people are going to single-hand, no matter what?

[JohnHutchins]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I highly doubt that there are any countries that have a law that states words close to "a person may never stab another person with a knife," while most certainly there are many laws about knives in every country. So does this mean the govt and court is okay with people stabbing people with knives? Is that a very enlightening discussion?

As mentioned in at least #133 and #172 and #177 it has been expressed that it is sort of pointless to debate the subject of legal vs illegal. Just don't hit anything, and expect to be judged by the locals if you do, maybe in a manner different from your couch at home. If this is an issue, stay at home.

How about utilizing hormones and neurons to discuss methods of increasing safety and survival in a reality/world where people are going to single-hand, no matter what?

The question is not the specificity with which the law prohibits the conduct, it is the clarity with which the law prohibits the conduct. For example, Alaska Statute 11.41.200 provides:

(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if
(1) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury to another by means of a dangerous instrument;
(2) with intent to cause serious physical injury to another, the person causes serious physical injury to any person;
(3) the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in serious physical injury to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or
(4) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury to another by repeated assaults using a dangerous instrument, even if each assault even if each assault individually does not cause serious physical injury.

So, if you seriously hurt someone with a knife you commit the crime of assault in the first degree even if you do so accidentally so long as you were reckless and not merely negligent and even if you injured the person while you were trying to stab someone else.

If you don't actually cause serious physical injury, see AS 11.41.210-230 (assault in 2nd, 3rd, & 4th degrees).

I'd say that statute, though it doesn't mention knives (referring only to "dangerous instruments") pretty clearly sets out stabbing someone with a knife as the sort of thing that might result in an assault conviction. It is typical of what you'll find in other states and in other countries.

But do the COLREGS define with similar clarity single handed passagemaking on the high seas as something that might result in a fine? Given the longstanding, well known, and *celebrated* practice of single handed voyaging, I'm inclined to say not.

[Eight Sails]

Originally Posted by conachair

Aside from legality - has there ever been an incident with a singlehander with radar and ais alarms fitted and running properly?

On reflection, the simplest, most probable and honest, non-legalistic answer is "almost certainly Yes." No present technology is guaranteed to make either the safety or legal risks of an incident negligible.

Even if no one here knew offhand of a singlehanded incident, there would be more than enough examples of ship's officers and crew losing situational awareness and causing fatal accidents in spite of having the proper technology. With people controlling it, it's risky to trust that today's best yacht technology will ever be "running properly" all the time. It may be more reliable than a human, more of the time, at best.

Long story short .... technology isn't foolproof and the legality of keeping a proper lookout is what it is.