Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[officerbill]

Hi all, I've used this forum to gain knowledge for a long tune, but this is my first post. Since 90%of my sailing will be single handed I closely follow threads on that topic. (the emphasis on quotes is mine)

The argument always falls to interpretations of "EVERY vessel shall AT ALL TIMES maintain a proper lookout BY SIGHT AND HEARING as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" with the purists stating that this prohibits any long distance single handed sailing and that resting while single-handed is (at best) illegal if not immoral.

Those who insist that everyone should follow the letter of the law had better be sailing with a minimum of three people and posting a lookout while in port.

The COLREGS state AT ALL TIMES and don't have an exception for being at anchor. How often do you have a dedicated lookout while you're on the hook? Is a lookout left on board when you go into town? If "at all times" isn't meant to be taken literally then your claim that taking a catnap is illegal falls apart.

If you believe making a long distance voyage single handed is against the rules are you doing with a minimum of three?

According to USCG https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...ulesFAQ#0.3_12:
"... in all but the smallest vessels, the lookout is expected to be AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT THE HELMSMAN and is usually located in the forward part of the boat, away from the distractions and noises of the bridge."

According to BoatUS: "If a skipper decides to act as his or her own lookout, there must be an unobstructed view from the steering station, and there should be no conditions that would require a posted lookout, such as restricted visibility or a crowded waterway." Has anyone been on a boat where raised sails haven't obstructed the view?

This means you need someone at the helm, a lookout, and a relief.

Legality, morality, and safety are different things.

Single handed sailing is inherently less safe than being fully manned, few rational people sound argue that it isn't.

Single handed sailing is moral so long as you take reasonable precautions (limit sleep time, use electronics, etc) to minimize risk to others.

Single handed passages MIGHT be illegal if you follow the law as written. However; if you choose to do so, make sure that you are in full compliance first.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by scallowayuk

hi ,a few points, i would sugest the col regs are not laws but in the event of an accident they would help to lay blame . . .

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Being on a collision course with colregs does not render anything ILLEGAL. Colregs are guidance, and maritime chambers are not criminal courts. . . .

Let's be clear that the COLREGS have the force of law, and are laws, with either criminal or administrative sanctions for violation in every country which signed up to the Convention.


In the UK, the violation of COLREGS is treated as a criminal matter in some cases, and can get you up to 2 years in jail. It is a common myth that you cannot be prosecuted for a violation of COLREGS unless there is an accident; it's not the case. Just ask Marc Guillemot, who was fined £13,000 pounds for sailing the wrong way up the Dover Straits TSS -- no accident involved. As were two other sailors in other years, for doing the same thing -- Grant Dalton (£15,000) and Antoine Koch (£17,000).


And what is a "maritime chamber"? Maritime matters have always been tried in courts of law. There used to be special admiralty courts in the UK, but they were abolished some time ago. In the U.S., the federal courts have jurisdiction over maritime matters, including those concerning the COLREGS.


There is a special division of the MCA which deals with prosecuting law violations connected with seafaring, and most of them concern the COLREGS.


Believe you me, they are laws.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

I certainly never disagreed with that. what I disagree with is that "at all times" applies explicitly to "sight and hearing" rather than to "proper lookout by sight and hearing".

What?


How can you maintain a "proper watch by sight and by hearing", without using sight and hearing? Come on.

[Rorzech]

They should allow a "sleeping light" Yes , a light or strobe or laser that you can turn on that is visible for many miles over the horizon. It can be visible on the under side of the clouds like the oscillating spotlights on the old Canadian passenger trains were. You should be able to flip the switch and have a cat nap without any worries when far out in the ocean. Also it should be synced you a universally monitored VHS channel like 16 and when a ship comes within range of your boat while your sleeping they will get a loud ping indicating to them that there is a single hander sleeping out there so we should keep watch for his sleeping light so we won't run into him. When he wakes up. he just shuts off his VHS ping, and his sleep light and continues watch manually. Nobody gets hurt. Naw.... we're not smart enough to invent a system like that . Way too complicated.

[1Sunseeker]

"Is Single-Handing Illegal?" NOT YET.

[FabioC]

I think that, if you apply what the COLREGS say literally, it is very hard to argue against the fact that they make extended single-handing "illegal".

Then, the point becomes that "the point of the COLREGS is not to be anal", and thus they should be applied not "anally" (no pun intended), but with a certain (unquantifiable) latitude of interpretation.

What is unclear to me is why something as critical as the COLREGS would have been written "not to be anal". It would seem logical (and necessary) to expect that those rules would be written as precisely and binding as possible, and as least prone to interpretation as possible.

If the COLREGS are applied with "interpretation" (and they are), chaos and accidents result. So, what is the missing link here?

Are the COLREGS poorly written (then, shouldn't they be updated, since they are so important?) or are the solo-sailors "out-of-law".

The "interpretation" theory of the COLREGS just does not jibe (no pun intended)...

[jmschmidt]

The idea mentioned here several times that if the reg meant exactly what it says the USCG would ban all singlehanded racing and cruising events misses the point.

If the USCG happens upon a vessel in US waters or happens upon a US documented vessel or registered vessel anywhere on the open sea and notices that no one appears to be maintaining a proper watch in accordance with Rule 5 they will investigate. If they determine that, in fact, a proper watch is not being maintained, they can and generally will, board and site the master. They can, and probably will, do the same with respect to a foreign vessels on the open sea by contacting the nation whose flag or other markings that vessel is displaying for permission to board. The USCG rarely, if ever, is declined this authority by foreign nations for obvious reasons.

A little know factoid: The USCG can board any vessel, any time, any where, in US waters and administer a "rules of the test" to the master whether licensed or unlicensed. Better bone up.

[john61ct]

Hasn't this been beaten to death already in the immoral thread?

[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 is the way I teach it: If a collision occurs, one or both vessels had to have committed a violation, and the court will likely decide it was both. If you're involved in a collision, it's pretty much given you'll be cited for something, be it improper lookout, failure to proceed at a safe speed, or failure to give way (whether you were Stand On or Give Way). Being in a collision at all is proof of guilt. The take home is just don't hit anything or let anything hit you. How you manage that is up to you.
I often single hand my boat, but not on trips long enough to make watch keeping an issue.
And another point. It's generally accepted, at least in commercial vessels, that a "lookout" may have no other duties. The Captain, helmsman, navigator, etc CANNOT be lookouts. Kind of eliminates single handing. In reality about the only ones that do that right are war ships, but that has nothing to do with COLREGS.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by FabioC

I think that, if you apply what the COLREGS say literally, it is very hard to argue against the fact that they make extended single-handing "illegal".

Then, the point becomes that "the point of the COLREGS is not to be anal", and thus they should be applied not "anally" (no pun intended), but with a certain (unquantifiable) latitude of interpretation.

What is unclear to me is why something as critical as the COLREGS would have been written "not to be anal". It would seem logical (and necessary) to expect that those rules would be written as precisely and binding as possible, and as least prone to interpretation as possible.

If the COLREGS are applied with "interpretation" (and they are), chaos and accidents result. So, what is the missing link here?

Are the COLREGS poorly written (then, shouldn't they be updated, since they are so important?) or are the solo-sailors "out-of-law".

The "interpretation" theory of the COLREGS just does not jibe (no pun intended)...

This is an excellent question, and not easy to answer.


I would suggest reading Rule 2 carefully, and if you like, this very good commentary to Rule 2:


Rule2.html


You may find the answer you seek.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Hasn't this been beaten to death already in the immoral thread?

Obviously not, if people are still discussing it. If it has become tedious for you, there are plenty of other threads on CF.

[Dockhead]

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 is the way I teach it: If a collision occurs, one or both vessels had to have committed a violation, and the court will likely decide it was both. If you're involved in a collision, it's pretty much given you'll be cited for something, be it improper lookout, failure to proceed at a safe speed, or failure to give way (whether you were Stand On or Give Way). Being in a collision at all is proof of guilt. The take home is just don't hit anything or let anything hit you. How you manage that is up to you. .

You cannot encapsulate all of good seamanship, nor even the ordinary practice of seamen, in 38 rules. Why should we be looking to the Rules to tell us what to do, in all circumstances?



I have come to admire the COLREGS very much, in the course of my study of them. They work rather differently from most legal codes, with a different and more complex relationship to the art and custom of the activity they regulate, than is usual.


The main purpose of the COLREGS is to institute a uniform system of signals, and a uniform system of maneuvering to prevent collisions, assigning roles and specifying actions. These are tremendously useful and effective. Besides that, certain basic principles are made into obligations, creating minimum standards on certain points (like watchkeeping, which we've been discussing). Not exhaustive guidance.



Complying with the Rules by itself is not enough to provide safety -- Rule 2 speaks about it explicitly. Furthermore, Rule 2 obliges you even to violate the other Rules, if it is necessary, under certain circumstances. When did you ever read a law code, which contained an obligation to violate it?



I think the COLREGS do far more than assign blame in case of a collision. Actually if that were the purpose, it could be done in one sentence: "In case of collision, everyone is at fault." And you would get nearly the same result we have now. No, that's not their purpose at all.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well the French version clearly shows that a "proper lookout by sight and hearing is to be maintained at all times" stands as a distinct clause. I'm not sure why you think a "proper lookout by sight and hearing" does not include "sight and hearing" under the condition of being maintained at all times?

If I wish to keep my body alive at all times I have to be taking breaths. If I wish to maintain a proper lookout at all times I have to be using sight and hearing. I can stop breathing and continue to maintain a live body, just as I can stop looking and continue maintaining a proper lookout ... only after a certain time my body will no longer be alive, and my lookout will no longer be proper ... the only difference is that enforcement is a bit more brutal for failure to take proper breaths.



This is all I'm arguing: 1) It is not permissible under the wording of the rule at any time to have a lookout that is improper, and (2) that it is permissible under the wording of the rule to momentarily take your eyes off the horizon ... and if it is permissible, unless the rules specifically forbid an activity during that time, then that activity is irrelevant ... even if that activity is sleep (as long as you wake up in time to do some more looking and listening). The question is how long?



You may certainly argue if you wish that more than a blink is too long under any circumstances. If this rule were pertaining to driving a car on the highway that would be my position too, but it's not, it's about boats (and in my case a very slow boat), so I'm arguing that in open water with no other boats in sight extending the time you take your eyes off the horizon to 5 minutes will still not violate a "proper lookout by sight".



But as long as we both agree that a "proper lookout" does not result in a collision, we shouldn't hit each other and a judge won't have to decide which of us is right.



There will probably never be a definitive ruling. A cat-napping sailor who has no accident will probably never get to court. One who has an accident with a boat that was not beyond his horizon will have already failed to maintain a proper lookout before he even went to sleep, making his nap irrelevant (eg both Watson and Granholm). If he's sleeping for so long that he collides with the kind of boat that could reasonably have been expected to have been lurking over the horizon then his nap was clearly too long. So we need to wait for a case of a single-hander, taking a nap no longer than would be reasonable to avoid the above scenario, but colliding with a boat that came over the horizon so fast that it was unreasonable to suppose it might have been there ... unless this has already happened I won't hold my breath waiting.


You can still be using sight and hearing improperly even when you are awake ... the Jessica Watson report examines the idea of "looking but not seeing" in some detail ... so it is far more important that you are doing it "properly" than doing it "at all times" ... and I feel the wording of the rule correctly reflects this.


I think I've stated my understanding enough times now, so I'll try to bow out of this thread here.

[Classicsailboat]

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but is it as serious as peeing overboard.....

[capt jgw]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You cannot encapsulate all of good seamanship, nor even the ordinary practice of seamen, in 38 rules. Why should we be looking to the Rules to tell us what to do, in all circumstances?



I have come to admire the COLREGS very much, in the course of my study of them. They work rather differently from most legal codes, with a different and more complex relationship to the art and custom of the activity they regulate, than is usual.


The main purpose of the COLREGS is to institute a uniform system of signals, and a uniform system of maneuvering to prevent collisions, assigning roles and specifying actions. These are tremendously useful and effective. Besides that, certain basic principles are made into obligations, creating minimum standards on certain points (like watchkeeping, which we've been discussing). Not exhaustive guidance.



Complying with the Rules by itself is not enough to provide safety -- Rule 2 speaks about it explicitly. Furthermore, Rule 2 obliges you even to violate the other Rules, if it is necessary, under certain circumstances. When did you ever read a law code, which contained an obligation to violate it?



I think the COLREGS do far more than assign blame in case of a collision. Actually if that were the purpose, it could be done in one sentence: "In case of collision, everyone is at fault." And you would get nearly the same result we have now. No, that's not their purpose at all.

My point is it's the collision that makes the lookout improper. If a police officer sees you run a red light in your car, he'll write you a ticket. It's clear cut: light was red, you didn't stop, equals ticket. Whether you hit anything is irrelevant except for adding more charges. COLREGS is different. If you don't hit anything or get hit, nothing can be proved. A violation may have occurred, but they can't prove it, so they don't try, or even have a reason to. It's the collision that makes the lookout, speed, etc illegal. We can use the Rules to learn how to run the boat, but they don't get applied until after the wreck.