Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I think we all understand what "continuous" means, and it does not and cannot equate to "at all times" at all times, as we have amply demonstrated above.

Sure in some situations it can be interpreted that way, no doubt there are cases where it was, but they are not interchangeable and I'd suggest (yet again, no one has yet disproved) the one phrase was carefully and deliberately chosen as a practical wording, while the other is totally impractical, even idiotic, in many situations.

But we do seem captivated by this 20 minute interval.

When driving a car, I try always to remember the 3 second rule about using my mirror. A police car or speeding driver can quite unexpectedly appear in that mirror and if we pull out to avoid a pothole just as that Kawasaki motorbike moves to overtake, they'll be pissed and we'll be sorry.

So it is with sailing - I need a definite routine of checking 360 degrees as I've been snuck up on before and been shocked at how close before I noticed. In harbour, approaching the fuel dock, around busy traffic, mostly I scan astern about every minute (sometimes less) - seems to avoid too many surprises. I find on ships, the bridge windows face forward (surprise!) with often a chartroom and radio shack along the aft bulkhead. Helmsman may often have zero view astern and the lookout must walk to the bridge wing to view 170-180 degrees. How often does he do this? - depends. Mid-ocean with the radar pinging and 25 kts, probably never. Is he keeping proper lookout or "just getting away with it"? - only a court can decide and we shouldn't try to second-guess the courts, not without some decided cases to chew on, and we have none.

You keep repeating all this, but it doesn't make it so.


You are obfuscating the 360 scan with the constant, continuous, at all times -- no difference at all between these meanings, in this context -- alert visual and aural watchkeeping required by Rule 5.


Rule 5 allows you to blink, and does not require you to swivel your head like a radar scanner. But Rule 5 does require you to have someone on your boat with his head above the deck, looking out, and alert AT ALL TIMES (continuously, constantly, without interruption), and you do not have the right to duck below and certainly not to sleep.


We have hundreds of "decided cases" about this, probably thousands. Most collision cases involve a Rule 5 violation. It is not necessary to have a "decided case" that shooting someone wearing a red shirt is as illegal as shooting someone wearing a blue shirt -- the color of the shirt is immaterial. Likewise it doesn't matter the circumstances under which the sole watchkeeper is sleeping -- the circumstances are immaterial; sleeping instead of looking out is illegal. There is no controversy about this among professionals, lawyers, or judges, and not a single legal commentator who suggests that it could be legal under any circumstances whatseover, to sleep instead of looking out. If you still think this is wrong, let's see a case or even a comment to the contrary. The only place where this could be legal is in the wishful fantasies of single handers.




Note also the intimately connected question of Rule 7, and see the case cited above. Rule 7 is important, because it informs the purpose of Rule 5. Rule 5 doesn't require you to look out just for the sake of looking out -- Rule 5 requires you to look out so that you are at all times evaluating whether a risk of collision exists and so that you can be at all times prepared to take action as required by the Rules. You cannot appraise any situation while you are sleeping, and you cannot take any action while you are sleeping -- your vessel is not even under command.


If you look at Rule 5 in this context, as a whole with Rule 7, then there cannot be any serious doubt that what sleeping single handers are doing is simply rolling the dice. This is in no way similar to or related to keeping any kind of lookout and cannot be distorted to fit into any definition of keeping of lookout -- it's a different approach. The gamble is that they are far enough away from any other vessel that a risk of collision won't arise during what period the sailor is sleeping.



In some sea areas that might be a pretty decent bet. I sailed some 600 miles in the Arctic Ocean this summer and did not see a single other anything, not a ship, not a boat, not a fishing vessel, not a yacht, nothing except whales and icebergs. But course as someone else said -- the sea is empty until it's not -- meaning, it may SEEM empty, but collisions happen even in the middle of the ocean -- do you feel lucky? Do you actually know what the odds are? Statistically speaking, no ships in seven days does not tell you that it is impossible or even extremely unlikely, that you won't see one on the eighth day.


And so there's the second line of defense -- radar guard zone and AIS alarms. Also improves the odds for sure, but as I experienced myself last month, not all vessels broadcast AIS and radar guard zones are not infallible.


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. But don't confuse a "fairly decent gamble", with actual watchkeeping. It is not and cannot be that.

[capt jgw]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

Very well said.

While the COLREGS have some vagueness,what is not in question is that in case of an accident, you clearly violated something.

And that's the way I interpret Rule 5, A "Proper" Lookout means I won't hit anything or get hit. if that fails, than the lookout wasn't "proper".

I can live with that definition. It also appeals to me because it gives us the required end, without specifying the means.

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.

[weavis]

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.

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.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...We have hundreds of "decided cases" about this, probably thousands. Most collision cases involve a Rule 5 violation. It is not necessary to have a "decided case" that shooting someone wearing a red shirt is as illegal as shooting someone wearing a blue shirt -- the color of the shirt is immaterial....

And you keep repeating this, ad nauseam, as if repeating it makes it true.

Carrying a gun is not illegal - shooting someone with a gun usually is.

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.

This is becoming boring.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

And you keep repeating this, ad nauseam, as if repeating it makes it true.

Carrying a gun is not illegal - shooting someone with a gun usually is.

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.

This is becoming boring.

"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.)

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

And you keep repeating this, ad nauseam, as if repeating it makes it true.

Carrying a gun is not illegal - shooting someone with a gun usually is.

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.

This is becoming boring.

Carrying a gun is illegal in certain places. Shooting someone is illegal in most places.

The willingness of authorities to prosecute is not an indication that there is not a law against something be it sleeping while singlehanding or exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Carrying a gun is illegal in certain places. Shooting someone is illegal in most places.

The willingness of authorities to prosecute is not an indication that there is not a law against something be it sleeping while singlehanding or exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph.

Sleeping on watch is illegal in certain places - we read the case of the singlehander asleep crossing a shipping lane, the singlehander motoring in circles about to hit the shore - no question, it's decided, so no point discussing.

We can look up the statute telling us how many micrograms of alcohol we are allowed in our blood while driving, or what speed in mph/kph we can drive at - no question, it's fixed in law, so no point discussing.

Now show me a law that states the number of seconds or minutes a solo watchkeeper can spend updating his chart plot, reading his pilot book, or closing his eyes, where he has ascertained there is no risk of collision. There is no such law.

Why don't CG arrest every singlehander arriving from across the ocean? They can look at my log, see how long I've been at sea, so why not arrest me and tow me in? Why did the Australian authorities (not known for their tolerance) turn the Watson girl loose to have a second go at killing herself? Why - because there is no law preventing it, and no judge has ever hinted at such a law.

Maybe we think there should be such a law, or maybe we think some long-held freedoms are precious and must not be eroded without just cause. That's our choice ["If we give up our freedoms in hope of finding safety then we deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin?] until the courts rule otherwise.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Sleeping on watch is illegal in certain places - we read the case of the singlehander asleep crossing a shipping lane, the singlehander motoring in circles about to hit the shore - no question, it's decided, so no point discussing.

We can look up the statute telling us how many micrograms of alcohol we are allowed in our blood while driving, or what speed in mph/kph we can drive at - no question, it's fixed in law, so no point discussing.

Now show me a law that states the number of seconds or minutes a solo watchkeeper can spend updating his chart plot, reading his pilot book, or closing his eyes, where he has ascertained there is no risk of collision. There is no such law.

Why don't CG arrest every singlehander arriving from across the ocean? They can look at my log, see how long I've been at sea, so why not arrest me and tow me in? Why did the Australian authorities (not known for their tolerance) turn the Watson girl loose to have a second go at killing herself? Why - because there is no law preventing it, and no judge has ever hinted at such a law.

Maybe we think there should be such a law, or maybe we think some long-held freedoms are precious and must not be eroded without just cause. That's our choice ["If we give up our freedoms in hope of finding safety then we deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin?] until the courts rule otherwise.

If the USCG decided to cite you for failing to maintain a watch at all times and used your log as evidence or even your last declared port, a court would uphold the citation.

You are conflating the lack of interest in prosecuting an action with the action being legal.

You are unlikely to be prosecuted for sleeping while singlehanding unless there is a mishap.

Do you doubt that the USCG would cite you for failing to keep an adequate watch if they felt like it?

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Sleeping on watch is illegal in certain places - we read the case of the singlehander asleep crossing a shipping lane, the singlehander motoring in circles about to hit the shore - no question, it's decided, so no point discussing.

Yet you continue to do so. You acknowledge examples of sleeping on watch being found illegal, you offer no examples of sleeping on watch not found to be a violation by any court or enforcement entity, and you carefully ignore the previously posted warning by the 13th CG District that fishermen risk prosecution for sleeping with no lookout.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Adelie

...Do you doubt that the USCG would cite you for failing to keep an adequate watch if they felt like it?

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.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

Yet you continue to do so. You acknowledge examples of sleeping on watch being found illegal, you offer no examples of sleeping on watch not found to be a violation by any court or enforcement entity, and you carefully ignore the previously posted warning by the 13th CG District that fishermen risk prosecution for sleeping with no lookout.

How tiresome to cover the same ground...

1. Sleeping in a shipping lane... let's get real here.
2. No one has ever been prosecuted for just sleeping on a solo voyage, so how can anyone offer an example of such a case? The only cases brought involve collision or risk of collision, which is exactly my point.
3. If salmon fishermen hoist NUC and sleep all night, in areas where other vessels are common, then that's a criminal offence in anyone's book and they deserve to be prosecuted. I've been advocating against that practice; DH advocates for it!

Don't you find it tiresome, covering the same ground repeatedly?

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Don't you find it tiresome, covering the same ground repeatedly?

Actually, I find it tiresome to read the same arguments made over and over with no new information.

(and the CG warning example in the nearshore Northwest US does not refer to hosting an NUC signal, simply to sleeping and not posting a lookout)

[NevisDog]

July this year:

"Kiwi adventurer Scott Donaldson talked of how he had to battle the wild Tasman Sea and overcome a tussle with a "frisky" shark to become the first person to kayak 2200 kilometres from Australia to New Zealand solo.

And the trans-Tasman kayaker has revealed, despite spending 62 days at sea, there was never a point he felt frightened.

His wife Sarah, and eight-year-old son Zac, were among hundreds of people gathered at a New Plymouth beach to welcome him onto dry land on Monday night."

My question - why weren't the authorities there to arrest him? Has NZ gone soft on criminals, terrorists, murderers, and solo adventurers?

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

My question - why weren't the authorities there to arrest him? Has NZ gone soft on criminals, terrorists, murderers, and solo adventurers?

As I recall, it was you who said (about 20 pages back) that we really should not be discussing possible legal issues associated with single handed sailing as it might lead overly cautious administrative areas (here you cited New Zealand) to consider banning the practice. Sounds like you have nothing to worry about.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

As I recall, it was you who said (about 20 pages back) that we really should not be discussing possible legal issues associated with single handed sailing as it might lead overly cautious administrative areas ...

Your recall is incorrect. I'm fully in favour of discussion (provided it remains on topic and doesn't become repetitive); what I actually said, about 20 pages back, was that the false or erroneous interpretations of Rule 5 being promoted here could help tip the balance against solo voyaging.

Come to think of it, maybe that's been the intention.

Darn! let's stop this discussion immediately