# How "afraid" should we be of sailing?



## smackdaddy

In looking through various forums, there always seems to be a tendency toward and/or against "fear mongering". That is, there is the tendency to focus on disastrous stories, then leverage off those for the sake of the safety debate. Great examples of this are COB stories (which I've been really digging into lately). Then, there's the other end where it's about the fact that you can die stepping off the curb in front of a speeding meteor while getting hit by a lightning...so why worry about it?

The bottom line is that one can never "lose" the safety argument. Safety always wins. So I'm definitely not arguing AGAINST safety.

But, the question I have is this: when considering the type of sailing 99% of the people out there do, do the stats support a "fear mongering" approach to safety? Isn't this sport, all in all, really pretty safe in terms of hours put in vs. fatalities (compared to sports like rock climbing, mountain climbing, skiing, etc.)?

_*ADDENDUM: I'M ADDING MY POST FROM PAGE 3 WHICH BREAKS DOWN SOME OF THE USCG REPORT DATA AND THROWS IN SOME IRONY:*

Oh man, I just looked through the numbers in the USCG report provided by k1vsk - and this is going to raise some hackles. First the numbers...then what "seem" to be the take-aways (up for discussion of course):

First, the Executive Summary



• In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents that involved 709 deaths, 3331 injuries and approximately $54 million dollars of damage to property as a result of recreational boating accidents.
• Over two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, ninety (90) percent were not wearing a life jacket.
• Only ten percent of deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received boating safety instruction.
• Seven out of every ten boaters who drowned were using boats less than 21 feet in length.
• Careless/reckless operation, operator inattention, no proper lookout, operator inexperience and passenger/skier behavior rank as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.
• Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 17% of the deaths.
• Eleven children under age thirteen lost their lives while boating in 2008. 63% of the children who died in 2008 died from drowning.
• The most common types of vessels involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (43%), personal watercraft (23%), and cabin motorboats (15%).

Click to expand...

Now for some crunching - which reveals some very interesting stats:




Of the 709 deaths, here are the top 5 vessel types, making up 614 of that total (leaving 95 deaths for other vessel types):
• Open Motorboat
• Personal Watercraft 
• Cabin Motorboat
• Canoe/Kayak
• Rowboat
(note sailboats don't make the cut, but rowboats and canoes do!)

Click to expand...

So if you drill down on that a bit, look at the overall accident numbers for boat types:




Number of vessles in accidents per type:
PWC: 1459
Motorboats (open and cabin): 2399
Aux. Sail: 258 (a bit worse than canoes) + 58 for other sail

Click to expand...

Pretty small number for sailboats - considering how many total are out on the water crusing, racing, etc. Now what about the deaths involved with these accident figures - and the causes?




Deaths by vessel type:
All sail (25 - 50%+ by drowning)

Click to expand...

So out of 709 total deaths, 25 of those happened on sailboats (10% of total sailing accidents involved a fatality). And 40% or so of these deaths were by means other than drowning (the thing we all associate as the most likely threat to our lives) - knocking that number down to 15.

So what are the causes in these deaths?




Primary Contributing Factors of Deaths (in order of impact):
Booze
Hazardous Waters
Passenger/Skier Behavior
Weather
Inexperience/Inattention
Speed

Click to expand...

Now, initially I was going to say that because we can't really get actual "speed" out of our boats, that we were off the hook on that. But, other numbers showed that most fatalities happen at low speed! Interesting.

Now let's look at the bodies of water and conditions that are most likely to lead to these fatalities (this is where it starts getting ironic - and I love irony):




Weather & Water Conditions leading to total boating deaths:
Type of Body of Water: Sheltered waters (653), Ocean/Gulf (40), Great Lakes (15)
Water Conditions: Calm (335), Choppy (155), Rough (77), Very Rough (32)
Wind Conditions: Light (298), Moderate (153), Strong (87), Storm (over 25 mph) (23)

Click to expand...

Oh lordy, lordy...

And what about the type of vessel most likely to kill you?




Vessel Info:
Less than 16' (292), 16' to 26' (281), 26'-40' (59)

Click to expand...

And finally, let's look at the operators in these fatalities:




Operator's Experience (in boat related deaths):
None (7), Under 10h (36), 10h-100h (78), 101h-500h (155), Over 500h (64)

Education of Operator:
Informal (16), State Course (28), US Power Squadroms (4), USCG Aux (6), None (277)

Click to expand...

So, taking these statistics into account, am I correct in surmising that,

[IRONY ALERT] statistically speaking, any sailor's best chance at survival is to get 10 or so hours of some informal training on how to sail, take a 40' vessel into the open ocean in rough to very rough conditions, wear a pfd, don't drink, stay on the boat (regardless of make or year), sail REALLY fast, and, in all probability, you'll be just fine?

It seems the most dangerous sailing out there is sailing a small boat on a sheltered body of water in calm conditions. Could that be right?

Surely that's not it.
[/IRONY ALERT]

I just want to make it known what we lake sailors have now been vindicated. We are truly the gnarliest sailors around. Those chumps that make fun of our "duck ponds" just don't have the numbers to back them up.

Thoughts?_


----------



## tempest

Interesting Question Smack,

Statistically, ...it's a very safe sport/activity

also, sailors are the least likely have a fatal accident.

Small boats power boats, 21 feet or less, alcohol use, no life jackets..and no safety training.....are the at risk groups.

Naturally 90% or more of the deaths are from drowning, and they occur on a clear sunny day.

If one stays sober, wears a life jacket, and sails...chances are you'll live a long .....but boring life.....( just kidding)

Here's the stats, that I use in class.

Deprecated Browser Error


----------



## k1vsk

"In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents that involved 709 deaths,
3331 injuries and approximately $54 million dollars of damage to property as a result
of recreational boating accidents".

Entire text can be found here:

http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/Publications/Boating_Statistics_2008.pdf


----------



## wind_magic

Smack,

My thought on it is that all of the things you mention are dangerous, so there is no good way to argue against the danger. You can get hurt rock climbing, and you can get hurt sailing, even die, it happens. I think it is best to just face that head on and not try to argue against it when people say it is dangerous, fine, it is dangerous, but we keep sailing anyway. 



Lawrence of Arabia said:


> Lawrence: // puts out a match with his fingers //
> 
> Hartley: You'll do that once too often; it's only flesh and blood!
> 
> Lawrence: Michael George Hartley; you're a philosopher.
> 
> Hartley: And you're balmy!
> 
> Potter: // tries to put out a match with his fingers, burning himself //
> 
> Potter: Ow! It damn well hurts!
> 
> Lawrence: Certainly, it hurts!
> 
> Potter: Well, what's the trick then ?
> 
> Lawrence: The trick, William Potter, is not _minding _that it hurts.


----------



## Shortman

A friend of ours just lost the best man from his wedding in an avalanche. My comment (to my wife, not her friend) was it's better than dying in a nursing home.


----------



## ColoGuy

If a person can't handle any danger, they ought to stay in bed.


Not a bad idea some days.


If its fun, it has risk.


----------



## CaptainForce

How afraid should you be of sailing?
Less risky than driving to the mall and slightly more risky than walking around the block. Pretty much the same risk as eating fried snacks while watching TV from your couch.


----------



## JimMcGee

Whatever doesn't kill you makes a good bar story. 

Jim


----------



## night0wl

I can say this, I'm a newer boat owner and I can safely say this. I've rarely been as terrified as I've been trying to navigate my boat down the New River. I know I'm insured and the worst case scenario is I'd sink or damage the boat and swim ashore...but not being in control and having the elements drive your fate is a terrifying feeling.


----------



## PaulinVictoria

Safety is something you should take seriously, but not to the point that it prevents you enjoying your chosen hobby/sport. When I used to rock climb, I had proper training, I paid for quality gear and I made sure I knew how to use it. Never had an accident, never let an accident happen to someone else I was climbing with, but always had great fun. Same goes for sailing. As for fear, well, that's part of the fun isn't it? The first time you dunk a rail, the first time that the collision seems inevitable etc.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

smackdaddy said:


> Isn't this sport, all in all, really pretty safe in terms of hours put in vs. fatalities (compared to sports like rock climbing, mountain climbing, skiing, etc.)?


As in all things in life, equip, expect and plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Relaying the facts of a actual incident isn't fear mongering, constantly telling people they are going to die if they leave port on a friday with banannas on board is


----------



## JimMcGee

*Well now if we're going to get superstitious*

Well now if we're going to get superstitious you _can_ leave port on Friday with a load of bananas as long as you have a topless woman on the bow to calm the waters  

You think those old square riggers had topless figureheads for no reason? 

Jim


----------



## Gary M

For the sailing that most of us do i.e. coastal or lake, I think it is pretty safe. 

Basically if you stay on the boat you are likely to be just fine. I have been sailing actively on Lake Huron since the mid 70s. While it is certainly not the ocean I think my experience is typical. I can think of three fatalities in that time and they all involved someone falling off their boat.

I am starting to take safety harness etc. a lot more seriously, of course I am getting older (maybe already there?) and sail with my adult son and daughter and their numerous friends who I am of course responsible for. 

The hazard that I wonder at the most, but am amazed at how seldom a sailor is seriously hurt, is lightning. I cannot count the times we have been in a race with lightning all around us and no boats got it. It does happen, but a lot less frequently that I would expect. 

Some thing about a 50 foot aluminum pole rising up from a very flat surface ??


----------



## downeast450

Smack,

The Principle Of Natural Selection will out!

Down


----------



## mdbee

*Oh really?*

I don't know how old he was but unless he was over 70 or so, I would like 20 to 40 more years of life. 



Shortman said:


> A friend of ours just lost the best man from his wedding in an avalanche. My comment (to my wife, not her friend) was it's better than dying in a nursing home.


----------



## MtnMike

Depends on who your sailing with!! If you go out with me, be afraid,,be very afraid!! I still need to post my "BFS" story


----------



## puddinlegs

no doubt there's a lot of unanswerable "buts" and "what if's" in sailing and a number of other activities. As a culture, we've become pretty risk averse. The real difference seems to be when one starts sailing/skiing/hockey/cycling/etc... Anecdotally, I'd say the younger you start, the more you're aware of real risks vs. statistical anomalies that are 'threat elevated' into defacto norms by adult learners.


----------



## tempest

Urban legend or fact, I'm not quite sure...

But, it is said that many of the victims of drownings are males found with their flys open.....moral .....don't get drunk and pee over the side....;-)


----------



## tommays

I have found the stupid stuff gets you like slipping at the dock OR falling at the mooring from a big boat wake 

People in general seem to have a LOT of reasons NOT to use PFDs ?

Most of the other stuff like storms you new pretty well in advance that there was something on the way and took the risk 

For example in the last few years of Wed Night racing there was a high instance of thunderstorm activity and we chose to go out BUT you would pretty much NOT sail LI Sound as there is a chance 6 days a week


----------



## Ajax_MD

I had a lengthy reply to this all typed up, but I just deleted it.

Some things are just better left unsaid.


----------



## jimjazzdad

*Sailing and Safety - a Personal Matter*

I have always believed you are personally responsable for your own safety when you leave the dock. Being able to deal with the s**t that happens out there is the challenge, the raison d'etre of sailing. To many of us it is a metaphor for life. If something bad happens, you either deal with it or you lose - sometimes your life! So how safe you are when sailing is a reflection of how well you prepare for life in general. A safe sailor is an immpecable person. I always admired the sentiment of the Eric & Susan Hiscock, the trend-setting cruisers of the previous generation, who didn't believe in carrying a marine VHF on their boats, lest they be tempted to call for outside help in a tight spot, thus inconveniencing or endangering oher mariners. Safety is first and first and foremost it is a personal responsability. Don't leave the dock if you think otherwise...which will make it safer for the rest of us.


----------



## AdamLein

My two cents:

cent #1: yeah it's pretty damn safe. Average conditions are safe and among sailors, average behavior in adverse conditions is usually safe (is usually: stay home).

cent #2: the proportion of our discussions that revolves around safety is significantly larger than the proportion of our sailing time during which are in danger. There's a rubbernecking effect; disasters attract our attention, be it morbid curiosity, a need to show that our knowledge and skill is superior to that of the victim, or a desire to improve our understanding of seamanship by another small delta. One of the goals of a good sailor is good seamanship; how are we going to achieve that if we don't reflect on the dangers at sea?


----------



## bljones

This is one of the unexpected and perhaps unintended consequences of the information age, 3F syndrome- Forums Filled with Fear.
See, content is what feeds the big machine that we are all addicted to, this forum. With no new content, we find something else to read, and the forum dies. Some of us seem to like it here, so we provide content and comment on the content provided by others, and some of us like to pass on our hard earned experience hoping that others can learn from our mistakes. Since everyone has some advice to offer, if not firsthand, then a story they heard on the dock, just like around any campfire, the cautionary tales are the ones that get the most attention and we end up with the growth of fear.
Besides, nobody ever bothers to document when things went RIGHT, because that is how things are supposed to go!
A thread titled "Had a great sail today, nothing broke and nobody got hurt"
would be a yawner.
A thread titled "Engine died, I fixed it, everything is fine." would get five views.
Those threads kill forums. BFS and bonehead threads build content. Near-death and stupidity sells, baby!


----------



## tweitz

I love sailing and most of the time regard it as a very safe activity. BUT... there are certainly situations we get into which involve risk, and sometimes those situations are not easily avoidable. Nothing feels better than having come through those situations intact (more or less) and feeling we have wrestled with the nature and won. 

Contrary to many of my fellow sailors, though, I suspect that much of the statistical data we read understates the risks, not overstates them. The reason is that the amount of time the average person spends on the water is quite small. When we see statistics for commercial transportation, the meaningful stats are given in deaths or injuries per passenger mile. The stats for boating accidents are usually given as just raw numbers. 

On a gorgeous July Sunday in perfect sailing conditions, I can look around the marina or the mooring field and see it filled with boats. Until we know how many hours the average sailor spends on his boats, the raw data tells us little about safety. Even many people who think of themselves as pretty active sailors will add up their hours and find that they are actually under way less than 100 hours per year. And there are a lot less sailors around than one might think. So the overall average presented in the USCG report of approximately 6 deaths per 100,000 vessels of all types tells me little about the safety of sailboats. But I can do some comparison.

Almost all of the Sailnet readers sail boats that qualify as "mechanically propelled." The total of state registered auxiliary sailboats was only about 56,000 in the 16 to 26 foot category and 58,000 over 26 feet. (I know this omits documented vessels, but they are probably lost in the rounding). Thus, a total of a little over 100,000 boats. I suspect many never leave the dock. The total fatalities on boats known to be auxiliary sailboats was shown as 15 in 2008.

So, to my surprise, auxilliary sailboats actually have a higher fatality rate per vessel than the average of all boats, including a lot of people I would have thought to be higher risk -- the fishermen or hunters who regard a boat as transportation, those who know nothing about boats (if they sail they almost have to know something or they can't get under way), those who travel 40 knots in crowded waterways while drinking, etc. Since there are no stats on usage, as opposed to number of boats, I can't get much out of this. What I do get, however, is that the raw numbers are less comforting than I would like.

Will I stop sailing? Not on your life -- or mine I suppose. But I will continue to pay great attention to the safety related threads and try to learn as much as I can from other people's mistakes. After all, I am not only the captain of my fate, I frequently take those I love most aboard.


----------



## imagine2frolic

What scares me more than anything is being tied to the dock. This feeling comes from a sailor who was thrown from his vessel, and yanked back onto it. Scary stuff happens everywhere, and anywhere. Go sailing, and be safe as you can be.......*i2f*


----------



## ColoGuy

CaptainForce said:


> How afraid should you be of sailing?
> Less risky than driving to the mall and slightly more risky than walking around the block. Pretty much the same risk as eating fried snacks while watching TV from your couch.


That _can _be dangerous.


----------



## smackdaddy

MtnMike said:


> Depends on who your sailing with!! If you go out with me, be afraid,,be very afraid!! I still need to post my "BFS" story


Bring it on porkchop!


----------



## sailortjk1

The key for me is "Respect".
Respect the ***** or she will make your life miserable.
The sea at times can be a real *****.


----------



## imagine2frolic

sailortjk1 said:


> The key for me is "Respect".
> Respect the ***** or she will make your life miserable.
> The sea at times can be a real *****.


hahahahahahahhaa:laugher ....so true! .......*i2f*


----------



## bljones

sailortjk1 said:


> Respect the ***** or she will make your life miserable.


That sounds like part of my wedding vows.


----------



## LazylighningII

Here is a saying I had to remember when I was in school maybe the most important one:

The sea is selective slow, at recognition of effort and aptitude, but fast to sink the unfit.


----------



## rikhall

Been around, done a fair amount, hope to do a lot more:


skied and ski patrolled for 20+ years - twisted an ankle once
ice climbed - had a blast - no incidents
rock climbed - same result - loved it
water skied competitively - stiches in my knee once
private pilot's licence - same number of successful landings as take offs
been SCUBA diving since 1960s
played ice hockey 35+ years - broke a finger, stitches twice and had two guys die of heart attacks in my presence
rode motorcycles since 1971 - ooops - lets not go there, OK - broke a bone in my foot once
been boating since the 50s, sailing our own boat for 15 years now - got sea sick a few times, got wet and cold - no other incidents - we do coastal sailing from east coast of Canada through eastern USA

*Dangerous ?* - as well pointed out already, all of those activities are dangerous if done without regard for saftey. But, while playing sports, I always wore the best protective gear I could, I had top of the line ski, climbing, SCUBA, hockey gear etc. We did lots of pre-flight checks, pre-take off checks, pre-landing checks.

We also keep all safety gear in the best possible order, and us, our personal preference - we wear our Mustang inflatables.

No regrets on any of the activities and certainly no regrets regarding sailing - well - maybe I regret not getting as much boat time as we do. Right now there is 104 degrees F difference from where I am sitting at my computer and the outside temperature five feet away outside my window ( -19.1 C outside, +21 C inside). Anyone have a place in Barbados we can borrow for a month?

Rik

ps - I always wore a helmet when playing hockey. When asked by a reporter why he wore a cup while playing hockey, but not a helmet, Gordy Howe is reputed to have said "_I can always pay someone to think for me._"


----------



## slowpoke

*safty*

if i cant drink im not going


----------



## capttb

Afraid ? Of sailing ? Why would you be afraid? I feel safer on the boat.


----------



## sailingdog

Note to self... don't play hockey when rik is around.


----------



## smackdaddy

bljones said:


> BFS and bonehead threads build content. Near-death and stupidity sells, baby!


Wait a second...what the.....

It's great seeing all these various responses. And this is the "+1" post of the day in my opinion...



capttb said:


> Afraid ? Of sailing ? Why would you be afraid? I feel safer on the boat.


+1.


----------



## smackdaddy

rikhall said:


> Been around, done a fair amount, hope to do a lot more:
> 
> 
> skied and ski patrolled for 20+ years - twisted an ankle once
> ice climbed - had a blast - no incidents
> rock climbed - same result - loved it
> water skied competitively - stiches in my knee once
> private pilot's licence - same number of successful landings as take offs
> been SCUBA diving since 1960s
> played ice hockey 35+ years - broke a finger, stitches twice and had two guys die of heart attacks in my presence
> rode motorcycles since 1971 - ooops - lets not go there, OK - broke a bone in my foot once
> been boating since the 50s, sailing our own boat for 15 years now - got sea sick a few times, got wet and cold - no other incidents - we do coastal sailing from east coast of Canada through eastern USA
> 
> *Dangerous ?* - as well pointed out already, all of those activities are dangerous if done without regard for saftey. But, while playing sports, I always wore the best protective gear I could, I had top of the line ski, climbing, SCUBA, hockey gear etc. We did lots of pre-flight checks, pre-take off checks, pre-landing checks.
> 
> We also keep all safety gear in the best possible order, and us, our personal preference - we wear our Mustang inflatables.
> 
> No regrets on any of the activities and certainly no regrets regarding sailing - well - maybe I regret not getting as much boat time as we do. Right now there is 104 degrees F difference from where I am sitting at my computer and the outside temperature five feet away outside my window ( -19.1 C outside, +21 C inside). Anyone have a place in Barbados we can borrow for a month?
> 
> Rik
> 
> ps - I always wore a helmet when playing hockey. When asked by a reporter why he wore a cup while playing hockey, but not a helmet, Gordy Howe is reputed to have said "_I can always pay someone to think for me._"


Nice activities list rik - I wanna hang out with you, dude! Of course, there's no way I'm coming up there to your snowbound hell.


----------



## smackdaddy

tweitz said:


> So, to my surprise, auxilliary sailboats actually have a higher fatality rate per vessel than the average of all boats, including a lot of people I would have thought to be higher risk -- the fishermen or hunters who regard a boat as transportation, those who know nothing about boats (if they sail they almost have to know something or they can't get under way), those who travel 40 knots in crowded waterways while drinking, etc. Since there are no stats on usage, as opposed to number of boats, I can't get much out of this. What I do get, however, is that the raw numbers are less comforting than I would like.


So if I'm understanding these numbers correctly, it means that, in general, sailors are generally more stupid and have far lousier seamanship than drunk stinkpotters?

Holy crap, that's freakin' embarrassing!


----------



## rikhall

smackdaddy said:


> Nice activities list rik - I wanna hang out with you, dude! Of course, there's no way in hell I'm coming up there to your snowbound hell.


Thanks Smack.

I have gotten lots of sympathy, but no invites to share a Swan 52 somewhere realy realy warm!



Rik


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh man, I just looked through the numbers in the USCG report provided by k1vsk - and this is going to raise some hackles. First the numbers...then what "seem" to be the take-aways (up for discussion of course):

First, the Executive Summary


> • In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents that involved 709 deaths, 3331 injuries and approximately $54 million dollars of damage to property as a result of recreational boating accidents.
> • Over two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, ninety (90) percent were not wearing a life jacket.
> • Only ten percent of deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received boating safety instruction.
> • Seven out of every ten boaters who drowned were using boats less than 21 feet in length.
> • Careless/reckless operation, operator inattention, no proper lookout, operator inexperience and passenger/skier behavior rank as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.
> • Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 17% of the deaths.
> • Eleven children under age thirteen lost their lives while boating in 2008. 63% of the children who died in 2008 died from drowning.
> • The most common types of vessels involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (43%), personal watercraft (23%), and cabin motorboats (15%).


Now for some crunching - which reveals some very interesting stats:



> Of the 709 deaths, here are the top 5 vessel types, making up 614 of that total (leaving 95 deaths for other vessel types):
> • Open Motorboat
> • Personal Watercraft
> • Cabin Motorboat
> • Canoe/Kayak
> • Rowboat
> (note sailboats don't make the cut, but rowboats and canoes do!)


So if you drill down on that a bit, look at the overall accident numbers for boat types:



> Number of vessles in accidents per type:
> PWC: 1459
> Motorboats (open and cabin): 2399
> Aux. Sail: 258 (a bit worse than canoes) + 58 for other sail


Pretty small number for sailboats - considering how many total are out on the water crusing, racing, etc. Now what about the deaths involved with these accident figures - and the causes?



> Deaths by vessel type:
> All sail (25 - 50%+ by drowning)


So out of 709 total deaths, 25 of those happened on sailboats (10% of total sailing accidents involved a fatality). And 40% or so of these deaths were by means other than drowning (the thing we all associate as the most likely threat to our lives) - knocking that number down to 15.

So what are the causes in these deaths?



> Primary Contributing Factors of Deaths (in order of impact):
> Booze
> Hazardous Waters
> Passenger/Skier Behavior
> Weather
> Inexperience/Inattention
> Speed


Now, initially I was going to say that because we can't really get actual "speed" out of our boats, that we were off the hook on that. But, other numbers showed that most fatalities happen at low speed! Interesting.

Now let's look at the bodies of water and conditions that are most likely to lead to these fatalities (this is where it starts getting ironic - and I love irony):



> Weather & Water Conditions leading to total boating deaths:
> Type of Body of Water: Sheltered waters (653), Ocean/Gulf (40), Great Lakes (15)
> Water Conditions: Calm (335), Choppy (155), Rough (77), Very Rough (32)
> Wind Conditions: Light (298), Moderate (153), Strong (87), Storm (over 25 mph) (23)


Oh lordy, lordy...

And what about the type of vessel most likely to kill you?



> Vessel Info:
> Less than 16' (292), 16' to 26' (281), 26'-40' (59)


And finally, let's look at the operators in these fatalities:



> Operator's Experience (in boat related deaths):
> None (7), Under 10h (36), 10h-100h (78), 101h-500h (155), Over 500h (64)
> 
> Education of Operator:
> Informal (16), State Course (28), US Power Squadroms (4), USCG Aux (6), None (277)


So, taking these statistics into account, am I correct in surmising that,

[IRONY ALERT] statistically speaking, any sailor's best chance at survival is to get 10 or so hours of some informal training on how to sail, take a 40' vessel into the open ocean in rough to very rough conditions, wear a pfd, don't drink, stay on the boat (regardless of make or year), sail REALLY fast, and, in all probability, you'll be just fine?

It seems the most dangerous sailing out there is sailing a small boat on a sheltered body of water in calm conditions. Could that be right?

Surely that's not it.
[/IRONY ALERT]

I just want to make it known what we lake sailors have now been vindicated. We are truly the gnarliest sailors around. Those chumps that make fun of our "duck ponds" just don't have the numbers to back them up.

Thoughts?


----------



## bljones

Interesting to see the operator experience stats. Sort of illustrates the truth in the old saw about having "just enough knowledge to be dangerous."
I wonder how many of the deaths in the "over 500 hr" were not directly boating related, but were tied to underlying health issues?


----------



## blt2ski

"thoughts"..................

OUCH!..........

Dang it smacky, you done dang made me think!.............OUCH!............

i'll get you for this!

Well, my what I have done is similar to rik, altho maybe not as many hrs etc...........I think snow skiing I have 5 stiches in my head about age 15. Otherwise very few accidents even with students, took 15 yrs before I sent someone down in a toboggan! 

The real issue IMHO, or is that .02 dollars/cents, is unless you talk about the "issues" then figure out the "issues" that make something unsafe, where you will have problems from "other" folks that went through the same issue, you will not know what to do when you come to the same "issue"

SO with that in mind. UNLESS, we that have gone thru a "tornado" on a lake or sound or where ever sailing, and do not explain to some one whom has not, how we got through said tornado sailing, others that will at some point in time that realize that are about to sail through a tornado, will be somewhat prepped on what to do with their boat in the 2-3 min before the tornado comes blowing through!

No different than when I was 15 sailing an 8' pram I had, boat turtled, having been thru a few class's, read some books etc. I managed to survive, only lost a sponge for helping to bail the boat if some water got in. managed to keep my small bucket, both oars, rigging, sail etc. might have lost a little pride..........

In the end, to a degree, unless we talk about our experiences, so others will learn, others seem to "WANT" to learn from our "WTF" experiences to learn what to do when they are in the same experience......

As far as boats go, I do feel some want more boat than they really need sometimes. IE an ocean going skantling something old shoe something or other for coastal cruising. Or even a tank beyond what you need for ocean going. But that is me. 

And yes, ALL folks are required to wear PFD's onboard, safety lines to tie in are available in rougher seas. To a degree, practice what you think will work in heavy winds/seas etc, so you can do it again, write about it in the BFS thread etc etc.

marty


----------



## AdamLein

smackdaddy said:


> statistically speaking


Sorry to burst your bubble with the dart of mathematics, but statistically speaking, those numbers you got aren't very interesting. They give you the probability that factor X holds for you, given that you've been in a boating accident or fatal boating accident. That's not what we want to know: we want to know the probability of being in a boating accident or fatal boating accident, given that factor X holds for us. There is a relationship between these numbers but it requires more information that is not given, at least not in the list you showed and in my experience, almost never.

For example, let S mean "I'm on a sailboat" and A mean "I die in a boating accident." The stats tell us "the probability of being on a sailboat given that you're dying in a boating accident," written Prob(S|A) = 25/709 = 3.5%. But we want to know Prob(A|S), the probability of dying in a boating accident given that you're on a sailboat.

Bayes' theorem states:

Prob(A|S) = Prob(S|A) Prob(A) / Prob(S).

Neither Prob(A) nor Prob(S) is given to us; but if we make the reasonable assumption that Prob(S) is fairly small (most people are unlikely to be on a sailboat), then Prob(A|S) might actually be fairly high. On the other hand, it's hard to make any reasonable assumptions about Prob(A) though a bit of research might help with both of these numbers.

See, it's really easy to measure Prob(S|A) (since almost all fatal boating accidents come to the attention of the Coast Guard), but really hard to measure it the other way (since only very few sailboats come to the attention of the Coast Guard... generally just the ones who've had accidents).

What we need more of is the sort of information that tweitz provided, albeit unscientifically 

p.s. I suspect that while Prob(S) is small, Prob(A) is much much smaller and in the end Prob(A|S) is not super significant.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. I knew I could count on you AL to throw down some Big Freakin' Equations! Here are the ones I used to interpret the data:










The REAL question is this: Does Bayes sail?

PS - Don't make me pull out the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain all the crap that breaks on sailboats.


----------



## bljones

I got my guys working on it.


----------



## smackdaddy

Dude - where's the chick?


----------



## tommays

I am scared to ride Bicycles anymore on Long Island as my stats/luck are apparently pretty BAD having been hit by two cars in 9 months

Most of the guys i use to race with and as i matter of fact i think everybody i know has been knocked down by a car



















NOW climbing ladders is really dangerous 

BUT the king is still the bathtub


----------



## CaptKermie

*Accidents can be prevented.*

Well given all those stats, I did not see anything related to age or gender, but there is plenty of data to form opinions with so I have a few opinions.

It is no wonder most of the accidents happen with power boats 21' or less since that is the largest market share of boat sales. My guess is that the age group of accidents fall in the under 21 years age group too or maybe under 25 years, you know the instant gratification age. Probably males drinking, hot-dogging and showing off, you've all seen them out there creating wakes, speeding around with flagrant disregard for other boaters.

Power boats do not require much in the way of training to operate, you simply push on the throttle and steer. Power boats of that size are generally operated on inland lakes and since one can easily see where they are going there is a mis-perception of safety, - not to mention the perception of invulnerability young people have.

Conversely a sailboat of 26' or more requires much more knowledge and skill to operate and the operator is generally of a more mature age and takes it a bit more seriously. The sailboat of 26' or more may also be equipped for greater cruising range and therefore be used in bigger water. The Great Lakes or PNW of the west coast can be very foreboding and boaters tend to exercise more judgement when embarking out on them. The Georgia Strait, where I sail, can get very snotty at times, enough to deter even the most egotistical young male. The venue combined with the boat type can have a big influence on boating accidents.

A bit of formal training can greatly reduce the amount of boating accidents and reduce the amount of apprehension a boater may have when faced with bigger challenges. Power Squadrons is big on my priorities, add to that some common sense with a fair dose of reading, study and practice and accidents, even the thought of them, should be greatly curtailed.


----------



## smackdaddy

Actually, the highest number of deaths in the open motorboat segment is in the 40-49 age range, followed by 50-59, then 20-29, then others.

For sailboats, it's 60-69 first, followed by 50-59, then 20-29, then others from what I see.

Interesting numbers to say the least. You guys should download that pdf. It's pretty cool...and surprising.


----------



## wind_magic

Some of the stats are a bit misleading because, as another poster said, most people spend very little time on their boats, yet a significant number of injuries occur. It is kind of like that stat that says that 90% of auto accidents happen within 50 miles of home, well, how often do most people travel more than 50 miles from home ? For most people, not that often, certainly not 10% of the time they are driving, so a stat that on the surface would seem to be reassuring is actually a bit alarming.


----------



## Lendow

Great topic, I am planning an off shore cruise in a few years in my cc29 MII . people are very nervous of the the boats ability. I have been beefing it up and sailing in a lot of crazy conditions in Lake Huron. I know this isn't the ocean, however, I still believe it is the sailor's ability and mind set that determine if you will arrive safely or not. I have done stupid things in my life unrelated to sailing (impaired) driving, power boating, that should have killed me. Luck ?? I am very conscious of the dangers but would rather die enjoying my passion than sitting at home worrying about safety. My boat may not be the most seaworthy or comfortable but it will be prepared... reduce risk and go


----------



## sailingdog

That's some pretty advanced math for you SmackDaddy.. Did Smack Jr. have to help you with the two-place numbers.. 


smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I knew I could count on you AL to throw down some Big Freakin' Equations! Here are the ones I used to interpret the data:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The REAL question is this: Does Bayes sail?
> 
> PS - Don't make me pull out the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain all the crap that breaks on sailboats.


----------



## smackdaddy

wind_magic said:


> Some of the stats are a bit misleading because, as another poster said, most people spend very little time on their boats, yet a significant number of injuries occur. It is kind of like that stat that says that 90% of auto accidents happen within 50 miles of home, well, how often do most people travel more than 50 miles from home ? For most people, not that often, certainly not 10% of the time they are driving, so a stat that on the surface would seem to be reassuring is actually a bit alarming.


You and AL are absolutely right on this point. The stats here are not taking into account that "X-factor". But I'm not sure that's the point. Wouldn't you agree that this "X-factor" is NOT considered in virtually every disaster story we discuss to glean info on how to be safer?

In other words, in this data, we're looking at historical trends and events - and drawing some conclusions from those. We're not calculating ultimate probability of them happening - just looking at what DID happen and going from there.

What I do think these statistics show is that in the cases where the fatalities DO occur, there are some trends that are counter to what we typically think and/or argue. And, for me, those stats add some interesting perspective to the discussion.


----------



## smackdaddy

sailingdog said:


> That's some pretty advanced math for you SmackDaddy.. Did Smack Jr. have to help you with the two-place numbers..


No, I had to do it on my own. He was busy working out some particle physics problem on his hacked NintendoDS,


----------



## smackdaddy

AdamLein said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble with the dart of mathematics, but statistically speaking, those numbers you got aren't very interesting. They give you the probability that factor X holds for you, given that you've been in a boating accident or fatal boating accident. That's not what we want to know: we want to know the probability of being in a boating accident or fatal boating accident, given that factor X holds for us. There is a relationship between these numbers but it requires more information that is not given, at least not in the list you showed and in my experience, almost never.


So, AL, I thought some more about what you said here. And if I understand it correctly, my first question (prior to the USCG stats) was actually the problem:



> But, the question I have is this: when considering the type of sailing 99% of the people out there do, do the stats support a "fear mongering" approach to safety? Isn't this sport, all in all, really pretty safe in terms of hours put in vs. fatalities (compared to sports like rock climbing, mountain climbing, skiing, etc.)?


In this question, we need that X factor of how many total sailors and sailing hours are in that 99% to arrive at an actual answer. And that we don't have. The USCG stats just show a picture of what happened in terms of accidents and death - and does not provide a picture of how "safe" sailing actually is (apart from the comparison to other vessels in the accident/death categories).

On the other hand, as I said earlier - the interesting thing to me is that when we typically refer to the "99% of sailing" in our discussions - most of us think that means day/weekend sails, in smaller boats, in somewhat sheltered waters on calm days. And we think of that as being the "safest" form of sailing. But the stats do give another perspective on those assumptions.


----------



## cormeum

smackdaddy said:


> On the other hand, as I said earlier - the interesting thing to me is that when we typically refer to the "99% of sailing" in our discussions - most of us think that means day/weekend sails, in smaller boats, in somewhat sheltered waters on calm days. And we think of that as being the "safest" form of sailing. But the stats do give another perspective on those assumptions.


To get an accurate statistic, you need to scale that data against the percentage of time people are sailing in calm conditions etc.

Probably the real reason that there are few injuries in rough weather on big boats is that the sailors are experienced and for the most part avoid those conditions.

The way I read those stats is NOT that smooth water sailing is more dangerous, but that it is more likely to be populated by incompetents.


----------



## AdamLein

The best way to do it is to not talk about sailing, but rather other activities called lightweathersailing, moderateweathersailing, and heavyweathersailing, or some such things, and just be clear about what those categories mean, and then talk about how dangerous each one is, given a variety of other factors like intoxication, use of PFDs, etc. Then we don't have to worry so much about our stats being sullied by variations in conditions.

I have brought up related proposals in other threads for quantifying the safety of the activity of sailing as a probability of a certain kind of incident in a day of, for example, sailing out of sight of land. You just count up all the days people have spent out of sight of land and count the number of days on which the specified incident occurred, and you have your estimate.

Those proposals seem to always be ignored :_(


----------



## pdqaltair

*An intersting page of accident stats.*

Risk Education Statistics

No commentary from me, just interesting.


----------



## AdamLein

pdqaltair said:


> Risk Education Statistics


Thanks for the link. It's another good example of numbers that aren't super 
meaningful to me. 54 minors died at work? Out of how many? 13000 serious injuries involved broken bones, amputations, and burns... out of how many serious injuries? etc.

Statistics should always be taken with a grain of salt!

edit: on the other hand the tables present the data really well.


----------



## tweitz

I conclude that sailing on a bicycle on Long Island is very risky.


----------



## tempest

While the actual amount of on-water days and hours remains an unknown........We can stipulate that it's a considerable number.

Of all the sailing that takes place...throughout the U.S. in a years time. there were 15 aux sailing related deaths out of 709 total deaths.

You don't need an advanced math degree to know that the worst thing you're likely to experience going sailing...is a bad sunburn.

There are more deaths on clear sunny days, because there are more people on the water..and thus more knuckleheads..in small boats...


----------



## poopdeckpappy

tweitz said:


> I conclude that sailing on a bicycle on Long Island is very risky.


That is why you only sail bicycles on short islands


----------



## JimMcGee

*Engineers and Catalina 27's*

Damn, Adam Lein is throwing down Bayes theorem and Smack is talking entropy. What is it with you Catalina 27 guys?​
Keep it up and I'm gonna whip out a can of chaos theory on you guys
















Seriously, with no context for these numbers the *ONLY* thing you can conclude is that sailing is pretty damn safe. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

Jim McGee


----------



## JimMcGee

*Statistics -- Mark Twain, semi boating related*

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles.

That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year.

Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.

And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

~ Mark Twain _Life on the Mississippi_


----------



## JimMcGee

*Risk*

OK, I have to admit this whole thread kind of *TICKS ME OFF. *

I too have done a lot of risky stuff in my life and the only things that've really dinged me up have been a car accident and a third world bug. I'm not going to stop driving and I still travel.

When people talk about this or that being "risky" my stock response is "whatever doesn't kill you makes a good bar story." (which is true)









That doesn't mean I go out of my way to do stupid stuff. But it does mean I'm not afraid to live life.

The type of sailing most of us do 99.9% of the time is less risky than driving to the marina. %&*&!# stop worrying and go sailing.

*Folks if there's nothing in your sack it's just a purse.*

GRRRRR, 
Jim


----------



## smackdaddy

Nice trifecta JM. Agreed. However, one slight correction:



> There's nothing in your sack if you just stay on the dock your whole life.


----------



## odayrockaway

Safety Equipment = an anchor and vhf unless your trans ocean.


----------



## johnshasteen

Make sure you boat is well cared for and capable of absorbing your screwups, then just go sailing and stop worrying about. 
No guts no BFS!


----------



## nissantwa

*Afraid of Sailing*

It is illogical to try to explain sailing to someone who does not sail. In your enthusiasm you fail to see their lingering fear. The exhilaration, the thrill, the very textures that tug us from our moorings make them shrivel. Sweating with anticipation, we hoist our sails. We are sunburned kites without strings, skimming the thin surface of oceanic deeps. Our white wings gulp mouthfuls of hot Summer air and propel us breathlessly through blue forests of warm waves. We tell of Winter rides when thunder tears our wondrous hull through confused glacial seas, as we drive towards endless horizons. Night sailing is wet black chrome with the reflection of ten thousand stars in a moon lit wake. We manage to live more in a few hours than most people do in a week. As others offer their sweet excuses and sit where we left them, our only amazement is their misunderstanding. They tell us they can't afford to take the risk, while we know we can't afford not to. The quality of the experience escapes them, but to us, it's a soothing ointment: a chance to commune with ourselves. So when you return home with the scent of the tides and memories of all your eyes have seen, someone may ask what you did that day. You can't tell them you scythed a path through mazes and mists as mast and sail conspired to spin the seas in a hushed path beneath you. You simply mumble, "I went sailing."


----------



## smackdaddy

nissantwa said:


> It is illogical to try to explain sailing to someone who does not sail. In your enthusiasm you fail to see their lingering fear. The exhilaration, the thrill, the very textures that tug us from our moorings make them shrivel. Sweating with anticipation, we hoist our sails. We are sunburned kites without strings, skimming the thin surface of oceanic deeps. Our white wings gulp mouthfuls of hot Summer air and propel us breathlessly through blue forests of warm waves. We tell of Winter rides when thunder tears our wondrous hull through confused glacial seas, as we drive towards endless horizons. Night sailing is wet black chrome with the reflection of ten thousand stars in a moon lit wake. We manage to live more in a few hours than most people do in a week. As others offer their sweet excuses and sit where we left them, our only amazement is their misunderstanding. They tell us they can't afford to take the risk, while we know we can't afford not to. The quality of the experience escapes them, but to us, it's a soothing ointment: a chance to commune with ourselves. So when you return home with the scent of the tides and memories of all your eyes have seen, someone may ask what you did that day. You can't tell them you scythed a path through mazes and mists as mast and sail conspired to spin the seas in a hushed path beneath you. You simply mumble, "I went sailing."


Mr. Whitman? Is that you?

Seriously nice prose dude. But can you do it in a haiku?


----------



## davidpm

Of course we do have an objective measure of the risk of sailing. It is called insurance. Of course they are more interested in the life expectancy of the fiberglass than of you but maybe a correlation is possible. How much resin is one life worth. Also boatus has lots of stats on accidents.


----------



## JimMcGee

nissantwa said:


> Sweating with anticipation, we hoist our sails. We are sunburned kites without strings, skimming the thin surface of oceanic deeps. Our white wings gulp mouthfuls of hot Summer air and propel us breathlessly through blue forests of warm waves.


Nissantwa, did you visit the wine thread or the rum thread?


----------



## nissantwa

*afraid of sailing.*



JimMcGee said:


> Nissantwa, did you visit the wine thread or the rum thread?


I was trying for additional 'rep' points. I'm still at zero.


----------



## dylanwinter1

*sailing dangerous - not*

there are loads of people out there with an interest in persuading people that sailing is dangerous and hard

Sailing is safe and easy.

So to all you people trying to persuade people that they need eighteen paper qualifications before stepping into a pram dinghy what I say is

Pah

who needs a day skipper, night skipper, after tea skipper, navigation qualification and even a radio license?

I have been sailing for almost 50 year, never had an accident, seldom bumped other boats - other than when team racing - and have found it all a bit of breeze.

Whenver anyone asks me how to start sailing I tell them to go out and buy a boat small enough to fit on a trolly, choose a low wind day, put on some old trainers and wheel it down the slip and away you go.

The only safety equipment you need is a bouyancy aid. If you get into trouble some-one will come to help you out

But then I am an irresponsible person with no qualifications

Dylan


----------



## Ajax_MD

I'd like to thank Jim McGhee and Dylanwinter1 for at least dragging the pendulum back to the center. Thanks guys!


----------



## bobc99

Speaking of which, I know how to sail in decent weather (I forget if I ever had anything but a minimal class, but have owned and used my Royces Sailing Illustrated since the 70's, anyway), but could use a course on heavy weather and things like how to use a VHF since that's something that's only been on the most recent boat, let alone any of the newer electronic and safety stuff. 

I'm forced retired now, so not to diminish the value of safety, but if I can learn it well for $100 instead of $1000 it would be appreciated any suggestions, because its money that could otherwise go into providing more or better safety equipment on whatever I end up getting. I guess maybe I should be looking for some sort of boating club in the area...

I remember a bad day 30 years ago with my 24 footer on Lake Huron. Very ugly. Made it home ok, but shouldn't have been out there, because I didn't NEED to be out there. Weather was fine at first, but turned real ugly. Didn't have a weather radio and got surprised.

Anyway, Lake Huron is a lot like Lake Michigan where your distances are such that you can't outrun weather problems, so I would like to do better avoiding, and being prepared and able to handle those I can't avoid.


----------



## blackjenner

*Fear*

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

- Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group

I've sailed since I was nine (getting back into it), ridden motorcycles for 35 years, hold a pilot certificate, and participated in numerous activities that are considered dangerous by the masses.

I'm still here and I'm not special.

It all comes down to educating yourself and understanding the risks of the endeavor you choose to pursue. While some can become paralyzed by the statistics of accidents (of which the overwhelming majority are caused by carelessness, incapacity or neglect) and enter into their chosen activity with fear on their mind, there is another alternative.

Going in educated, prepared and dedicated to have fun, fully aware of the risks and the measures you are taking to mitigate them.

Then you can leave fear in it's place, as a warning mechanism and not a hindrance to what you do.


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey black - welcome to SN dude. Nice post.


----------



## blackjenner

bobc99 said:


> I remember a bad day 30 years ago with my 24 footer on Lake Huron. Very ugly. Made it home ok, but shouldn't have been out there, because I didn't NEED to be out there. Weather was fine at first, but turned real ugly. Didn't have a weather radio and got surprised.
> 
> Anyway, Lake Huron is a lot like Lake Michigan where your distances are such that you can't outrun weather problems, so I would like to do better avoiding, and being prepared and able to handle those I can't avoid.


One of the best decisions I learned to make regarding motorcycling, flying or sailing is when *not* to ride, fly or sail.


----------



## tomwatt

Myself not much of a sailor, but have spent a few nights on the mountain, and regardless of the sport, dangers exist.
In most instances, proper training, skillls, equipment and judgement will get you home fine. And in some instances, "less than optimal" conditions occur that negate all your training, skills, equipment and judgement. Sometimes it just happens that weather or circumstances conspire to bite you. For myself, I'm aware of the risks, willing to play it albeit cautiously, and if circumstances arise that I suffer a serious failure, I would only hope that folks would raise a glass in my memory from time to time.


----------



## JimMcGee

blackjenner said:


> One of the best decisions I learned to make regarding motorcycling, flying or sailing is when *not* to ride, fly or sail.


When *not* to do things changes a bit as we get older and hopefully smarter.

Seems as I age my balls-to-brains ratio doesn't get out of whack as often. 

Jim


----------



## CaptKermie

blackjenner said:


> It all comes down to educating yourself and understanding the risks of the endeavor you choose to pursue. While some can become paralyzed by the statistics of accidents (of which the overwhelming majority are caused by carelessness, incapacity or neglect) and enter into their chosen activity with fear on their mind, there is another alternative.
> 
> Going in educated, prepared and dedicated to have fun, fully aware of the risks and the measures you are taking to mitigate them.
> 
> Then you can leave fear in it's place, as a warning mechanism and not a hindrance to what you do.


This reminds me of a time many years ago when I took up white water canoeing. The school had me start with their basic paddling course before they would allow me into the advanced whitewater course. Of course I fiqured I did not need it after the many years of canoeing I had done but I wanted to learn so I jumped their hoops and discovered how little I knew, sure learned a lot. Then after passing I enrolled in the advanced whitewater course and began to learn those skills. 
Well, I never did get over the fear entirely, even during the last week of the course when I was fully capable, fear was always there. We would start out early after breakfast and there I stood gazing at my canoe on the riverside with butterflies swirling around in my stomach while listening to the roar of the river. It took me 10-15 minutes of paddling down that river before I realized I was in control and that as long as I kept my composure I would be OK. I found later in the day when I stopped for lunch that anything longer than a few minutes out of the canoe and the butterflies would return, so I ate lunch in the canoe and only stepped out to empty my bladder.
It didn't seem to matter how much instruction and practice I got, I still had that fear and had to face up to it each and every time. With white water river canoeing you have to have plan A, plan B, plan C and plan D in case something goes awry, because the river never stops flowing while you screw up, it just keeps lashing you, so you better react fast and grab control or suffer the consequences.
Sailing can be similar when inclement weather happens but fortunately you have a bit more time to enact plan A, plan B & plan C. I try not to be out there if I have the forewarning of weather.
I once read somehwere that bravery is being able to keep your cool even though underneath you are frightened out of your mind.


----------



## PBzeer

I'm not sure the question is properly put. There is no real reason to be "afraid of sailing". There is plenty of reason though to be aware, and respectful, of the risks involved in putting one's self in a position to be "afraid".


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey PB! It's good to see you around, dude!

You're right, when I started looking through the USCG stats, and as AL pointed out early on, the original question of "isn't this sport pretty safe?" is very hard to answer.

But, I would argue that the stats do show that many of the "fear-based" debates regarding what constitutes "dangerous" sailing are kind of dubious in light of that data.

It's been a fun debate for sure.


----------



## mintcakekeith

CaptKermie said:


> This reminds me of a time many years ago when I took up white water canoeing. The school had me start with their basic paddling course before they would allow me into the advanced whitewater course. Of course I fiqured I did not need it after the many years of canoeing I had done but I wanted to learn so I jumped their hoops and discovered how little I knew, sure learned a lot. Then after passing I enrolled in the advanced whitewater course and began to learn those skills.
> Well, I never did get over the fear entirely, even during the last week of the course when I was fully capable, fear was always there. We would start out early after breakfast and there I stood gazing at my canoe on the riverside with butterflies swirling around in my stomach while listening to the roar of the river. It took me 10-15 minutes of paddling down that river before I realized I was in control and that as long as I kept my composure I would be OK. I found later in the day when I stopped for lunch that anything longer than a few minutes out of the canoe and the butterflies would return, so I ate lunch in the canoe and only stepped out to empty my bladder.
> It didn't seem to matter how much instruction and practice I got, I still had that fear and had to face up to it each and every time. With white water river canoeing you have to have plan A, plan B, plan C and plan D in case something goes awry, because the river never stops flowing while you screw up, it just keeps lashing you, so you better react fast and grab control or suffer the consequences.
> Sailing can be similar when inclement weather happens but fortunately you have a bit more time to enact plan A, plan B & plan C. I try not to be out there if I have the forewarning of weather.
> I once read somehwere that bravery is being able to keep your cool even though underneath you are frightened out of your mind.


Surely any of the worthwhile things in life, Hard rock / ice climb, offshore passage etc result in butterflies before you start, if not why do it? K.


----------



## daydreamer92

Oddly enough, I never really worry about activities on the water. I am aware of the risks and don't do stupid stuff on the water, but that actual fear of being out there never enters my head. 

I also don't worry about crashing my car, and I drive in all sorts of conditions. Again, I'm aware of what could happen and I don't do things in my car to shorten my chances of arriving where I want to go, but I can't say I'm afraid of driving my car. It's about the same feeling when I'm on a boat.

I *am* afraid of flying, and the sport of skydiving would never ever happen for me. I know skydivers almost never plummet to ground, but that's ALL I think about when I see parachutes. I guess it's the same feeling non boaters have when they say they are afraid of being on the water.

It's odd what makes people fearful of a given activity. Oh, and in somewhat belated answer to the original question:

I don't think one should be *afraid* of sailing at all. I think sailing ought to be treated just like any other sport with inherent risks. But I don't see any reason for it to be feared and nothing in those numbers spooked me.


----------



## oldironnut

More people die in bed than when sailing. Get out of bed and go sailing.


----------



## AdamLein

oldironnut said:


> More people die in bed than when sailing. Get out of bed and go sailing.


How many times do we have to go over this sort of ridiculous claim? More people die in bed than while swimming with crocodiles. Get out of bed and go swimming with crocodiles.


----------



## 2Gringos

Excellent suggestion, as long as you understand what is involved with swimming with crocodiles and plan accordingly. take some croc photos. Have some fun with it.

The operative phrase here is actually 
Get out of bed.

Get off the couch.

Get away from the cubicle.

Get out of the rut.

Get off your ass.

And DO something. If it's crocs you like, go do something with crocs. Worked for Steve Irwin, didn't it.


See the trend?


----------



## bljones

2Gringos said:


> If it's crocs you like, go do something with crocs. Worked for Steve Irwin, didn't it.


But maybe not with rays, er, quite so much.


----------



## AdamLein

2G: I take issues with such claims precisely because they intentionally belittle the real dangers of sailing by implying that sailing is safer than staying in bed.


----------



## bljones

right then.
So, just to recap, swimming with crocodiles in bed whilst aboard a sailboat would be pretty much the epitome of all-time badness, then?


----------



## zeehag

i consider sailing comparable with sports car racing....racers who are afraid end up dead...sailors with fear arent good sailors--respect is not the same as fear---lol---always have respect for the sea and ma nature---if there is fear--conquer it before the passage.....saves lives


----------



## AdamLein

bljones said:


> right then.
> So, just to recap, swimming with crocodiles in bed whilst aboard a sailboat would be pretty much the epitome of all-time badness, then?


I can't imagine anything more foolhardy.


----------



## smackdaddy

For the record I'm in the "get off yer ass" column.

Furthermore I'd love to debate crocodiles and stingrays over beers on a whacky passage with you hags and dudes any day. 

Here's to statistically insignificant danger...that can still conceivably kill you in the end!


----------



## dnf777

adamsaquatics said:


> If a person can't handle any danger, they ought to stay in bed.
> 
> Not a bad idea some days.
> 
> If its fun, it has risk.


I've gotten in the MOST trouble in bed!!


----------



## jwreck

To sum up this thread:

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. 

If you are easily influenced by statistics you will live a stress filled, miserable life.


----------



## bljones

72% of people agree with jwreck.


----------



## Allanbc

bljones said:


> 72% of people agree with jwreck.


I heard it was 3 out of 4 people agree with jwreck.


----------



## AdamLein

jwreck said:


> If you are easily influenced by statistics you will live a stress filled, miserable life.


To be easily influenced by statistics is to be ignorant of statistics.


----------



## oldironnut

Not one to belittle the true dangers of sailing. I have been in danger while sailing so I know a little bit about it. Danger notwithstanding I think sailing (within ones ability) is worth the risk. I was being flippant when I mentioned bed and sailing and certainly did not want to offend anyone. Back to flip, some combinations don't seem like they would work. Aligators in bed or in a sailboat. But if thats what they like, they ought to go for it.


----------



## jwreck

Allanbc said:


> I heard it was 3 out of 4 people agree with jwreck.


And 89.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## DwayneSpeer

*afraid*

So tell me, how afraid are you of tripping and falling while walking down the street? I'll bet not very afraid at all. Why not? It's because you have been doing it from a very young age and when you were learning you fell quite often. So if you are afraid of sailing you should "LEARN HOW". Learn all there is about it and practice it all a lot. Then you can be far less afraid.

OBTW, one of my friends, who is about 40 years old, was walking down the sidewalk last week, tripped on a raised section and fell directly on her forehead. Fortunately no real damage except two very black eyes for several days.


----------



## smackdaddy

DwayneSpeer said:


> OBTW, one of my friends, who is about 40 years old, was walking down the sidewalk last week, tripped on a raised section and fell directly on her forehead. Fortunately no real damage except two very black eyes for several days.


SEE!! I told you sailing was dangerous!!!


----------



## Allanbc

jwreck said:


> And 89.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


I read it on the internet so it must be true!


----------



## NigelB

*Live on the edge*

Saw stats on suicide recently... 10.3% or over 30,000, (in 2001) mostly young white males. Get on a boat, on a gusty day, be aware and minimze the risks, come back wet, and glad that you didn't end up swimming... and although the risks are actually small, be glad that you are alive!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

NigelB said:


> Saw stats on suicide recently... 10.3% or over 30,000, (in 2001) mostly young white males. Get on a boat, on a gusty day, be aware and minimze the risks, come back wet, and glad that you didn't end up swimming... and although the risks are actually small, be glad that you are alive!!!


+10000000 brother!


----------



## LauderBoy

smackdaddy said:


> What I do think these statistics show is that in the cases where the fatalities DO occur, there are some trends that are counter to what we typically think and/or argue.


I don't think you can use those statistics to show that. If 9 out of 10 people die on calm waters, that'd lead you to believe that sailing in calm waters is more dangerous. But if 99 out of 100 people only ever boat in calm waters, then the statistics are showing you that you're much more likely to die when not on calm waters.

I've skydived for 10 years and on one of the most popular messaging sites for the sport there's an incidents forum where people post and talk about accidents that happen. It's the same with our sport's primary magazine, Parachutist. It has an incidents section.

It's VERY useful to read about those incidents and point them out. Most accidents are very predictable in skydiving and there's usually a chain of events leading up to an incident. The key to avoiding becoming a fatality is to break that chain of events and you can only do that if you're able to recognize and avoid them.

To people who've been sailing most of their lives I'd bet when they hear about an incident in sailing there's probably little surprise to them that something bad happened when they hear about the circumstances surrounding the event. Maybe a poor choice in choosing sailing conditions. Maybe a lack of proper ship maintenance. Maybe a lack of emergency preparedness. Maybe a lack of training or experience for the situation the person was in. Most likely multiple items in that list.

Talking about that stuff is very useful and I don't think it's fear mongering.


----------



## RocketScience

How afraid should we be of sailing? I would answer that with another question; How big is your ego?

I'm not saying that you will never ever be afraid when sailing, especially for the newbie, but for the most part, IMO, ego seams to be the drive mechanism for the *stupid* things we do, and this syndrome seams to be most prevalent in the male genome (I'm a male BTW, and speaking from experience  ).

Many will head out regardless of, but not limited to:

- That "engine knock" they heard last time out.
- That "itsy-bitsy" tear in the jib.
- That main traveler that is "a bit loose".
- The weather forecast that will be "Just fine".
- "Nah, we don't need to reef just yet, this is FUN!"
- Etc., etc,. etc.......the list goes on.

Bottom line, leave your ego back on shore and only enter into circumstances that you are experienced and prepared for. If you do this, you will keep your "afraid" meter to a minimum.


----------



## MJBrown

You should be afraid, very afraid.............and stay out of all our favorite anchorages  Actually only one time in my life I thought I was going to die and it was in the dinghy. Seems as though some ahole in a run about power boat thought it would be fun, if at full speed, to came within apx 25 ft of my wife, dog and I while we were trying to cross the Sassafras River in our dinghy. He had tons of room and clear visibility but apparently took exception to us crossing the river in front of him. Mind you he was well down the river when we started. The sneer on his face said it all. Unfortunately I never found his boat. Had a lot of other close calls but never felt that threatened at any other time. Sailing requires constant vigilence and if you do so IMO it's a safe past time.


----------



## johnshasteen

We've sailed/bare-poled Paloma through 36 and 40 hours of two Force 10 storms and never thought about it being that dangerous - just brutally tiring and frustrating, running before the storm and wondering when in the hell it was going to blow itself out. I am more concerned about personal safety driving on HiWay 59 in Houston drivetime traffic.


----------



## smackdaddy

RocketScience said:


> How afraid should we be of sailing? I would answer that with another question; How big is your ego?
> 
> I'm not saying that you will never ever be afraid when sailing, especially for the newbie, but for the most part, IMO, ego seams to be the drive mechanism for the *stupid* things we do, and this syndrome seams to be most prevalent in the male genome (I'm a male BTW, and speaking from experience  ).
> 
> Many will head out regardless of, but not limited to:
> 
> - That "engine knock" they heard last time out.
> - That "itsy-bitsy" tear in the jib.
> - That main traveler that is "a bit loose".
> - The weather forecast that will be "Just fine".
> - "Nah, we don't need to reef just yet, this is FUN!"
> - Etc., etc,. etc.......the list goes on.
> 
> Bottom line, leave your ego back on shore and only enter into circumstances that you are experienced and prepared for. If you do this, you will keep your "afraid" meter to a minimum.


I get what you're saying to a point. But I don't necessarily think it's just ego. I think a lot of other things go into these considerations you mention above....laziness, cheapness, hurriedness, etc. And who isn't guilty of these at various points?

It's really more about risk assessment. For example, will you accept that engine knock if it's just a day sail across the channel as opposed to a week down the coast? Probably. Is that ego or just rolling the dice for various reasons?

It's always a calculation isn't it? But all in all, with typical sailing, you've got to put in a little effort to get yourself killed.


----------



## Boasun

All of those numbers on death & distruction are fine, but do not show the whole picture. What we don't have in those statistics are the numbers of those who sailed or boated safely when those incidences happened.
So are the death & distruction .001% or .01% or .1% or 1% or 10% of those who went without any problems on the days of those incidences? Answering this question will put the fear factor in a more prospective light.
So how many were sailing safely when those idiots jammed themselves up royally?


----------



## RocketScience

smackdaddy said:


> ...For example, will you accept that engine knock if it's just a day sail across the channel as opposed to a week down the coast? Probably...


I would accept the engine knock in both of your scenarios, but only because I have *forced* myself to become fairly proficient at sailing in and out of a mooring, specifically a slip. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most people, and if you lack this skill and the iron beast dies, then yes, IMO, you should be afraid. Afraid of not only damaging your boat when you attempt to moor, but possibly others, let alone the chance of bodily injury. But hey, I guess that's why there's tow insurance. 



> _...Is that ego or just rolling the dice for various reasons?..._


Aside from some type of an emergency, isn't it primarily ego that drives a person to roll the dice in the first place?


----------



## smackdaddy

RocketScience said:


> Aside from some type of an emergency, isn't it primarily ego that drives a person to roll the dice in the first place?


Maybe. But you could also look at it another way...you know, the guy who's worked for months to ensure that absolutely nothing on your list can possibly go wrong - then feels perfectly confident nothing will as he sails out of the harbor.

That's ego.


----------



## Flybyknight

Yes, I'm afraid; but of only (1) thing: The Unexpected, and that covers a lot of territory.

Dick


----------



## RocketScience

smackdaddy said:


> Maybe. But you could also look at it another way...you know, the guy who's worked for months to ensure that absolutely nothing on your list can possibly go wrong - then feels perfectly confident nothing will as he sails out of the harbor.
> 
> That's ego.


I would agree. But I don't think anybody ever leaves the harbor feeling perfectly confident that nothing will ever go wrong, hell, we're boat owners for crying out loud . Where the fear comes from is being put in a situation for which you are unprepared/inexperienced for, and the person that put you there, is usually you.

Look, $hits always gonna happen, and I'm not even including the "unexpected", but being 75% prepared for 90% of the things that can go wrong, allows me only 10% of the things I need to be afraid of.


----------



## smackdaddy

+1 Rocket.

For me, the interesting aspect of these statistics is this:

Newbs are typically told that the safest way to learn to sail (aside from lessons) is to go out in protected waters on a mellow day and practice.

Statistically speaking, that's freakin' CRAZY! THAT'S WHERE EVERYONE IS DYING!!!

But seriously, wear a pfd, stay on the boat....and go sailing. You'll probably survive.


----------



## cormeum

smackdaddy said:


> For me, the interesting aspect of these statistics is this:
> 
> Newbs are typically told that the safest way to learn to sail (aside from lessons) is to go out in protected waters on a mellow day and practice.
> 
> Statistically speaking, that's freakin' CRAZY! THAT'S WHERE EVERYONE IS DYING!!!


Remember:

There's lies, damn lies, and STATISTICS. :laugher


----------



## RonRelyea

*statistics*



cormeum said:


> Remember:
> 
> There's lies, damn lies, and STATISTICS. :laugher


and as Mark Twain said: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."


----------



## LarryandSusanMacDonald

*Don't Panic*

Excellent thread! It's not often I read a long thread like this from start to finish - but it's probably because it's too cold here to do anything else and besides it's interesting.

One thing I did not see mentioned: *Panic.* Many sailors can be frightened of a situation which seems overwhelming. But fear can be overcome. It's usually when a frightening situation occurs and the sailors - most likely the Captain - on the boat do not have the education and / or the experience to cope with it that panic steps in and takes over. When panic occurs, wrong decisions are made - or none at all, and the situation quickly deteriorates. This is often when injuries or deaths occur.

The more training and experience a boater has, the less likely he is going to panic. This is why I have always been an advocate of boater education - through whatever capable source is available: USCG Aux.; US Power Squadron; experienced and capable friends. This all helps.

And second - taking baby steps first. Challenge yourself - but a little at a time - until you are comfortable with that challenge. And then up the ante some. Buying your first boat and heading out on the ocean is nothing short of foolhardy. But people do it. Some survive, foolish but lucky. The rest receive their Darwin Award.

So emblazon a big sign somewhere on your boat - in large comfortable letters:

*Don't Panic!*​


----------



## sailingdog

I'd point out that one of the best things to do when something goes wrong is to take a moment to think about what to do... rather than reacting in a blind panic. Doing so often makes your response far more effective and can make the difference between failing or succeeding.


----------



## cormeum

One thing I always remind my kids:

Panic Kills.


----------



## CapnBilll

There are a lot of things that can go wrong while sailing, but they don't always kill you. hand caught in winch, anchor chain, line/gear breaking, coolent hose, etc... We live with many of those risks in everyday life everytime we start a power tool, open a door, use a screwdriver/knife. We get used to the risk because we encounter them everyday. Just operating a car, how many had had a hand slammed in a car door as a kid. Or slipped on an icy street. I wouldn't say sailing is more or less risky, only that the risks are different. To the beginner or landlubber the risks are frightening because they are new.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm going to go out on a limb here. Sailing is pretty damn safe. I mean c'mon! GOLFING is "dangerous" if you do it in a thunderstorm, or tornado, or hurricane, or Florida pond!!! Same goes for checkers and sailing!

Look, learn as much as you can. Watch the weather. Don't be stupid. Wear a pfd. Stay safe. Have fun. You'll be fine.

Just go sailing for crying out loud. Even newbs can do it!


----------



## AdamLein

Smack I think you'll find your limb is getting kind of crowded.


----------



## blackjenner

I don't think we should be afraid of sailing, just like we shouldn't be afraid of motorcycling, rock climbing, or a host of other pursuits that can kill us.

It all comes down to risk management and taking steps to reduce that risk so we can survive the activity and continue to enjoy it. 

Recognize a risk, mitigate it, and move on.

"There are too many people who confuse living with breathing in and out." -- Dave Svboda


----------



## Cal28

This whole thread is why I keep coming back to Sailnet ...

I'm 63 ... much of my 'youth' engaged in adrenalin type activities ... mostly revolving around sportscars motorcycles and cessnas ... with little physical harm (17 stitches under my eye from college hockey and one medevac)

I married late in life (40) ... and while raising my daughter (mostly on my own for the last 10 years) ... slowed down (although I did have a slight fling with skydiving around 50) ... noticed even my driving habits became 'defensive' (not a bad thing at all ...) as my reflexes are not what they used to be ...

about 2 years ago ... decided it was now or never if I was ever going to satisfy my desire to learn to learn to sail ...

took the plunge and bought an old Cal 28 flushdeck (in retrospect probably not the best decision for learning to sail ... but has served me well ... spending alot of time on her) ... and acquired a Ranger 23 (much better suited for my experience level) ...

I've found my 'fear of heights' which has been a constant in my life ... extends to heavy heeling (might have been exasperated when I flipped a laser holding too long onto a sheet when tacking in a learn to sail class) ... although the more time I sail ... the more confident I feel (last Wednesday night beer can race ... we were heeling 22 degrees on a long beam reach ... and the feeling was one of near nirvana ...)

I've also found that 'fear' of being overwhelmed ... in a new environment on the water ... not sure of exactly what to do ... (although in reality never in a situation where there was real reason ... always with someone very experienced ... and never in any real danger ... just pushing the envelope abit more than I was ready for at the time)



LarryandSusanMacDonald said:


> Excellent thread! It's not often I read a long thread like this from start to finish - but it's probably because it's too cold here to do anything else and besides it's interesting.
> 
> One thing I did not see mentioned: *Panic.* Many sailors can be frightened of a situation which seems overwhelming. But fear can be overcome. It's usually when a frightening situation occurs and the sailors - most likely the Captain - on the boat do not have the education and / or the experience to cope with it that panic steps in and takes over. When panic occurs, wrong decisions are made - or none at all, and the situation quickly deteriorates. This is often when injuries or deaths occur.
> 
> The more training and experience a boater has, the less likely he is going to panic. This is why I have always been an advocate of boater education - through whatever capable source is available: USCG Aux.; US Power Squadron; experienced and capable friends. This all helps.
> 
> And second - taking baby steps first. Challenge yourself - but a little at a time - until you are comfortable with that challenge. And then up the ante some. Buying your first boat and heading out on the ocean is nothing short of foolhardy. But people do it. Some survive, foolish but lucky. The rest receive their Darwin Award.
> 
> So emblazon a big sign somewhere on your boat - in large comfortable letters:
> 
> *Don't Panic!*​


great commentary ... and one I take to heart ...

I sometimes wish that I had started this adventure 50 years ago ... but then ... I wouldn't have it all now here to enjoy as I do

perhaps I still have the time ... to challenge myself and learn sufficiently ... in order to cruise ... perhaps not ... but I do know that this is something that will keep me young ... and alive in so many ways ... for years to come


----------



## Cal28

rikhall said:


> ps - I always wore a helmet when playing hockey. When asked by a reporter why he wore a cup while playing hockey, but not a helmet, Gordy Howe is reputed to have said "_I can always pay someone to think for me._"


I know this is 'off topic' ... but








--asked if he ever broke his nose during a hockey game --

"No, but eleven other guys did."


----------



## bandaidmd

Smackdaddy, 

"Over two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, ninety (90) percent were not wearing a life jacket."

so i read this as 10% drowned while wearing a pfd? I wish they would elaborate on that stat.


----------



## puddinlegs

bandaidmd said:


> Smackdaddy,
> 
> "Over two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, ninety (90) percent were not wearing a life jacket."
> 
> so i read this as 10% drowned while wearing a pfd? I wish they would elaborate on that stat.


One case I know of was a Ranger 23 in SF Bay that broached. One crew (wearing a life jacket) went overboard, was caught and tangled in the mainsheet, dragged backwards through the water, and drowned. Stuff like that, though still very unlikely to happen. We keep a large knife attached to either the backstay or boom vang for deck emergencies involving lines and bodies/body parts.


----------



## Cal28

puddinlegs said:


> One case I know of was a Ranger 23 in SF Bay that broached. One crew (wearing a life jacket) went overboard, was caught and tangled in the mainsheet, dragged backwards through the water, and drowned. Stuff like that, though still very unlikely to happen. We keep a large knife attached to either the backstay or boom vang for deck emergencies involving lines and bodies/body parts.


puddinlegs

thanks ... (I sail my Ranger 23 on San Francisco Bay)

one of the things I have learned here ... have two knives attached to the boat ... and carry one as well ... and keep it very sharp ... something I never would have thought about ...


----------



## billyruffn

*Be afraid....*

Smack,

‪Be afraid, be very afraid‬‏ - YouTube


----------



## smackdaddy

billyruffn said:


> Smack,
> 
> ‪Be afraid, be very afraid‬‏ - YouTube


I couldn't tell if that was a cartoon - or just a bad flashback from my college days.


----------



## Sublime

I think a little bit of fear is healthy with this sport. It keeps you respectful.

I see a lot of people are talking about only going out in what you're experienced with. But how do you gain experience without pushing yourself?

_"Experience is what you get by not having it when you need it."_

There's some common sense in it. You don't go your first day sailing in 50 knts of wind. 
However, you're going to have to go a little out of your comfort zone in order to grow.

I'm afraid of fearless newbies. They are the most dangerous IMO and I have one as a crew member. He gets impatient with me and doesn't really understand why I double check things or pause to run through my memorized check list. So far, all his outings have gone well and without much of a hitch. He hasn't seen what happens when you don't double check equipment or have a checklist before departing which is why he's impatient. He hasn't seen anything go wrong (so far *knocks on wood*).
He's fearless but also panicky at the same time. He likes to stand up at the wrong time in the wrong part of the boat, doesn't pay attention to where the wind is coming from, wants to be the expert and gets wild eyes over a tack.

I'm waiting for him to fall off the boat. I just hope the boom isn't what knocks some sense into him. Maybe I need to keep something by the helm I can throw at him so simulate the boom coming across should he not sit his ass down. Or, take him out one day and just scare the **** out of him.


----------



## smackdaddy

It's great to see an article that makes so much sense:

Sailing's Seriously Simple Stupid

Go the Bumfuzzle!


----------



## JimMcGee

smackdaddy said:


> It's great to see an article that makes so much sense:
> 
> Sailing's Seriously Simple Stupid
> 
> Go the Bumfuzzle!


Smack, what a great article! and it pretty much echoes what you see from people like the Copelands.

This should be the start of a new thread.


----------



## johnnyquest37

Most people die in bed. Another justification for getting out on the water, where it is safe!


----------



## davidpm

Sublime said:


> I'm waiting for him to fall off the boat. I just hope the boom isn't what knocks some sense into him. Maybe I need to keep something by the helm I can throw at him so simulate the boom coming across should he not sit his ass down. Or, take him out one day and just scare the **** out of him.


That's actually an interesting puzzle. How to you safely put someone in a position where they can feel the burden of command if it is clear you are always in charge. 
It might just be a role thing. He figures its your job to be safe and his to push the envelope.

Maybe, just brain storming here, you find some excuse to be incapacitated (Like Captain Ron) put him in charge just after you secretly disconnected some minor piece of rigging.

I had a new boat owner I was teaching how to sail. A certified genius, astrophysicist I believe. More than a little arrogant.

He had a lot of sail out the wind piped up so the sails were thrashing around. Rather than taking over like I had been doing I just let it be and asked him what he wanted to do as "he was the expert". He panicked and was screaming. What do I do, What do I do. With a long southern drawl I said something like. Weelll there are two ways to handle this situation. The official sailors way will take a while or the chicken-**** way which will be a little faster. How do you want to proceed? He screamed, Chicken-****, Chicken-****. Then I walked him through the process.
He was a little more humble for a few weeks after that.


----------



## aeventyr60

JimMcGee said:


> Smack, what a great article! and it pretty much echoes what you see from people like the Copelands.
> 
> This should be the start of a new thread.


The scariest thing for me would be to go back and live on land.


----------



## sneuman

Lots of confounding variables in those stats:

-numbers-wise I believe there are considerably fewer sailboats per capita, especially when you consider the tens of thousands of inland lakes and rivers in the country.
-smaller boats are used much more often than the big ones
-few boats, sail or otherwise, ever go offshore, therefore it's not surprising that there are so few offshore casualties
-of those that do go offshore, I would guess that the vast majority do so purposefully and therefore with a modicum of preparation. Near shore sailors are much more likely to take off on the "fly" and with less preparation.
-most sailors pick their weather carefully and tend to go out only in ideal conditions. whereas many small powerboaters are fisherman who tend to pick good fishing weather, not necessarily good boating weather.
-there's fewer things to hit offshore
-PWCs are inherently more dangerous and tend to attract people with little or now boating skills or knowledge, so their outsized representation in the stats skews everything else.
-lastly, sailing presents more barriers to entry, so a more conscientious lot is attracted to it.


----------



## gus_452000

hmmmm well try to be safe, live life to the full, know your limits and every once in a while push them a tiny touch or grow old in a retirment home, die of something you were going to get anyway whilst thinking of everything you could have done if you had the b*lls to do it when you had the chance.
If when I am very old and had a bad accident on my yacht that kills me, fair enough, I have made my choice, far better than growing old in Sunny Oaks or whatever its called


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> It's great to see an article that makes so much sense:
> 
> Sailing's Seriously Simple Stupid
> 
> Go the Bumfuzzle!


I don't disagree with anything Pat says there, although I do think he overlooks one element that contributed to making their circumnavigation a success...

Namely, LUCK...

The safe or unevenful completion of every voyage I've ever made, no matter of what duration, has likely been blessed by some unknown quantity of luck, the fortunate non-occurrence of the infinite variety of things that could have made it all go south very quickly... In the Bums' case, for instance, I would suggest that anyone who sails around the world without ever having had a single paper chart aboard, was to a certain degree "lucky" that they never suffered the effects of a lightning strike, for example... Not an unheard-of occurrence on a voyaging sailboat, but one that could easily have changed things for them, bigtime...

Anyway, it's good to see that Pat is finally suggesting that people "check the weather", he used to claim they never paid any more attention to forecasting than 5 minutes per week, max... And, anyone who made it from Florida to the Azores on a Milk Run passage thru the tropics without ever having encountered more than a couple of squalls, well - they definitely had more than just a touch of luck on their side...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I don't disagree with anything Pat says there, although I do think he overlooks one element that contributed to making their circumnavigation a success...
> 
> Namely, LUCK...
> 
> The safe or unevenful completion of every voyage I've ever made, no matter of what duration, has likely been blessed by some unknown quantity of luck, the fortunate non-occurrence of the infinite variety of things that could have made it all go south very quickly... In the Bums' case, for instance, I would suggest that anyone who sails around the world without ever having had a single paper chart aboard, was to a certain degree "lucky" that they never suffered the effects of a lightning strike, for example... Not an unheard-of occurrence on a voyaging sailboat, but one that could easily have changed things for them, bigtime...


I agree that there's always luck involved. But I think the main thrust is that, generally speaking, sailing's just not as dangerous as many make it out to be.

Remember, this dude has roughly 40 THOUSAND MILES under his keels. That's impressive no matter how you slice it.

And the luck thing cuts both ways. For example, if you are sailing around the world and happen to get struck by lightning in the middle of an area for which you have no paper charts...you just got very unlucky. Nothing more than that.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And the luck thing cuts both ways. For example, if you are sailing around the world and happen to get struck by lightning in the middle of an area for which you have no paper charts...you just got very unlucky. Nothing more than that.


Well, aside from the fact that one might have made the CHOICE to sail without paper charts, of course...

Their decision to sail through a region like the Tuamotus, for example, without even a general paper chart of the area is an unacceptably foolish risk, in my opinion... However slim the odds might have been that the electrons might have stopped flowing aboard BUMFUZZLE during their passage, the consequences of such a thing happening would have been grave, and they were at least somewhat fortunate they were never faced with the prospect of navigating "The Dangerous Archipelago" without the basic means to do so...

but again, these days, perhaps that's just me, and a relative handful of other dinosaurs... (grin)


----------



## Jetexas

Disclaimer, I didn't read the entire thread, so my apologies if these two points have already been covered.

Statistically less accidents are going to happen in rough weather because less people are out in rough weather.

Sailboats on sheltered bodies of water are more likely to get hit by ski boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> ...but again, these days, perhaps that's just me, and a relative handful of other dinosaurs... (grin)


No, at the end of the day you're right. But I also think the days of paper charts are nearing their end due to the technology. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I think it's true.

From what I've seen sailing with and talking to various people is that the effort is put into redundancy in the electronics, rather than loading up with paper for every area you'll sail through on an ATW milk run.

I've always wondered: do the Volvo racers have paper charts for their entire route aboard? The sure seem to use the electronics far more than anything else.


----------



## peterchech

It seems it's the stupid sh#t that kills most people, not storms and such. ie falling off the boat.

By hearing all this "sailing is dangerous" talk, over the last couple years I have become a much safer sailor. I never even _thought_ about how an MOB could easily mean death until the naysayers pointed it out online many times. Same goes for redundancy regarding lee shores and such (don't rely entirely on your engine to get you off a lee shore because murphy's a bit*h), you would just never think of these things if others had not literally experienced them at some point.

Although this forum is full of the "sailing is dangerous" types, I have met few sailors in person who treat the sport this way. It seems the most experienced sailors are the ones who never wear PFD's or clip in, even when single handing.

That said, I really don't think sailing is dangerous at all if the most basic precautions are followed, it is probably extending your life by getting your heartrate up and your ass out of the couch.


----------



## JonEisberg

peterchech said:


> Although this forum is full of the "sailing is dangerous" types, I have met few sailors in person who treat the sport this way. It seems the most experienced sailors are the ones who never wear PFD's or clip in, even when single handing.


I must be missing something, but I just don't see this, or any other forum I visit, as being "full of 'sailing is dangerous' types"... Could you point to a particular discussion where that might be evident?

Personally, the only threads I can recall where the great "dangers" of sailing are touted as glaringly apparent or underestimated, are those that are related to piracy, or carrying weapons aboard, or maybe the extreme danger posed by floating containers at sea... (grin)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I must be missing something, but I just don't see this, or any other forum I visit, as being "full of 'sailing is dangerous' types"... Could you point to a particular discussion where that might be evident?
> 
> Personally, the only threads I can recall where the great "dangers" of sailing are touted as glaringly apparent or underestimated, are those that are related to piracy, or carrying weapons aboard, or maybe the extreme danger posed by floating containers at sea... (grin)


Let's see...

FightClub for Sailors
Big Freakin' Sails
BFS Proponent Rescued at Sea
Ronnie Simpson Giving It Another Go
Heavy Weather Sailing

...etc.

It's actually not nearly as bad as it used to be. But there _plenty_ of examples.

Trust me on this one. I know. That's why I started this thread.


----------



## Ajax_MD

I agree. The tone of this forum has always been more conservative and risk averse than some other sailing forums. I also agree that it's not as bad as it used to be.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Let's see...
> 
> FightClub for Sailors
> Big Freakin' Sails
> BFS Proponent Rescued at Sea
> Ronnie Simpson Giving It Another Go
> Heavy Weather Sailing
> 
> ...etc.
> 
> It's actually not nearly as bad as it used to be. But there _plenty_ of examples.
> 
> Trust me on this one. I know. That's why I started this thread.


Well, you certainly know this place far better than I do, so I'll take your word for it...

However, I'm primarily seeing generally well-intentioned "caution" on the part of some posters, likely stressing an inherent or perceived risk to a particular endeavour, perhaps... But, I'm just not seeing any widespread perception that sailing is particularly dangerous, is all..

But again, except when the talk turns to sailing without guns, or in pirate-infested regions... (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I've always wondered: do the Volvo racers have paper charts for their entire route aboard? The sure seem to use the electronics far more than anything else.


Well, paper charts are pretty heavy, of course...

Just a hunch, but I'd say most probably carry just a couple for each leg, featuring the relevant harbor approaches, etc... Even with all the computers and tablets aboard each boat, I find it hard to imagine that they'd be sailing the Southern Ocean leg around Cape Horn without the appropriate paper for Tierra del Fuego, or the Beagle Channel...

But, I could be wrong - those guys aren't exactly risk-averse, after all... (grin)


----------



## rgscpat

Statistics don't kill people.
Politicians and other criminals.... 

Looking at various accident statistics, it seems that staying on or attached the boat is one of the best ways to increase survival probabilities, especially where cold or rough water might be involved.


----------



## captain jack

hi folks. i'm going to add my buck fifty to the conversation. I have been on the water all of my life. as a kid, I grew up on the rivers in Maryland. my grandfather built flat bottom, carvel planked boats. by the time I was 6, I was good at poling a boat in shallow water or deep water, with or against the current. my grandfather never knew how to swim. I never learned either.

my parents tried getting me in swimming classes but I had this thing about water getting in my eyes, and no one thought to give me a pair of goggles, so I never learned.

we had floating seat cushions but we never had life jackets. you are reading this so I obviously didn't drown.

my dad rode motorcycles, which I always loved as much as being on the water. as I entered my teens, I left the river behind. I drag raced my 78 firebird and rode motorcycles. no, I never wore a helmet. I only do, now, because they made it a law, here, but I break that law every chance I get. I know the risks but I believe that when it's your time, it's your time and nothing will change that. you just can't live forever. to quote the Havamal:

the unwise man thinks that always he will live
if from fighting he flees
but the aches and ails of old age
plague him where the spear has spared him

now, i'm not saying you can't be really dumb and die prematurely. but, what I am saying is that you can't let the fear of death, which is a certainty, keep you from truly living.

when I was in my mid twenties, I got a job doing lawn care. I was like a lawn doctor. I grew it and fixed it when it had issues. I also had to do sales to expand my area. one day, while on a sales estimate, I found an old 8' wooden pram at a house, next to the one I was estimating. I bought that pram for $50. it seems love of the water had never left my soul. 

it's funny, now that I think of it, that I had, at one time, thought I had left that behind. the salt air, cries of the gulls, and the slap of halyards down in Annapolis always gave me a longing I could never explain and, as a little kid, when gulls first started coming to the local Mc Donalds ( we were an hour from the bay and two hours from the ocean ), my parents were shocked and worried about the state of the environment that would lead gulls so far from their territory to eat fast food...but I was enthralled by them. their cries were like music to me. so, I guess the path my life took, after that fateful day, when I first saw that pram, isn't really all that surprising.

my first thought was to pole that boat on the river. but it wasn't really the best boat for that and, although I tried it, the river was still too high, from the spring thaws, to be poling a boat on it. I had a few hairy moments trying to fight that current. I ended up tossing my girlfriend my bow line and having her tie me to a stump so I could pull myself back to land. I knew better. you never put a boat on the river that time of year but I was so damn eager. it could have been really bad. I had no life jacket and that pram wasn't anywhere as stable or stoutly built as my grandfather's carvel boats.

so, I started rowing the boat on a lake in Montgomery county, called Lake Seneca. I rowed all summer. I carried a life jacket but never wore it. i'd always loved the looks of sailboats and found they drew me like magnets. I began thinking I wanted to sail, like my ancestors had. I began talking to a lady sailor, on the lake. she had taken a course to learn but, listening to her stories, she was a really bad sailor and had all kinds on incidents, on the water, that she managed to survive. some of them i'd have been too embarrassed to relate, had they happened to me.

she said she always knew when it was me, rowing on the lake, no matter how far away I was because I rowed so hard that the little boat sort of leapt with each stroke. Kind of makes me think of Thor's fishing trip. I once pulled a sleek 18' bass boat, with a huge outboard on it, back to the dock. their batteries, on their trolling motors, had died and they had no gas for the outboard because gas powered motors were not allowed. they swore I couldn't row them back in, with my little boat. I did. in thanks for the rescue, they put my boat in the back of my truck, for me, the next few times I saw them on the water.

anyhow, I decided I wanted to sail. the lady had told me all the tricky areas on the lake, and there were a good many, and I read everything I could on sailing and sailboat design; not just modern stuff but old sailing stuff, too. 

I ended up finding a 9' sailing dinghy in Northern Virginia for $75. it was pretty old ( 1974 ) and was well used. it had a boomed lateen, which I am positive was not it's original rig, that was well worn and needing repair. the dagger board had been replaced by some past owner. the new one wasn't shaped to fit the trunk so it wiggled a lot. the rudder blade had been replaced, I think by the same owner that did the dagger board, and it was a bit thin and shallow. it also leaked. every few hours of sailing, you had to go to the shore and drain the water out of it...and it would be quite a bit.

the night I bought it, I went straight to the lake and sailed it. I read everything I could and I have always been good at learning from books. I sailed just fine. it was after dark and the park was really closed. I never should have been on the water. I had no lights but I knew that lake like the back of my hand. there were trees, from before they made the lake, that were just level with the surface. the tops had been cut even with the water and the left-behind trunks were a hazard but I knew the location of every one. I had, after all, spent every available moment rowing around that lake.

after sailing a few yards, I realized my boat was sinking...slowly, but still sinking. I was used to wooden boats and hadn't even though about a drain plug! well, I turned her about and sailed back to the ramp. after draining the water, I founds an old wine cork in my truck, plugged the hole, and went back out. I wore my life jacket for the first time, that night. I knew boats but sailing was something new and I still didn't swim.

in time, I did repairs to the hull to stop the leaks. I also designed and made a sprit sail for the boat, to replace the worn out lateen. Thomas Jones Firth's book, Low Resistance Boats, had inspired me and I have always been glad of it. sprit sails are awesome.

I began sailing at a large lake in Pennsylvania; Lake Marburg. it was a much better place to sail. looking back, now, with that lateen and my tender dinghy on a lake as tricky as Seneca, it's amazing I didn't die that first year.

that first year I had some crazy times. I have a real tendency to sail when a sane man would stay on shore. I have been told, by sailors in bigger boats as well as friends, that I am crazy. but, that first year, I survived storms and outrageously gusty winds. once, I almost capsized. it would have been the death of me, even with the life jacket, because Seneca had been frozen over for weeks. only the size of Marburg kept it liquid.

it was a stupid incident. I went all the way there ( an hour away ) only to find the wind blowing at 17 kts and gusting above 20. there was a larger boat, maybe 20ft, sailing without the jib and a reef in, heeled over hard. he was the only other boat on the water. I never should have taken that little dinghy out there; but I did. I was doing fine. reaching back and forth; tacking around and never jibing. the hull was planing and I was really rocking along...and then it happened. a crazy gust, from a different direction, ripped over the hill, back on shore, and stopped me dead in the water. I was in irons when the next gust hit. I remember it so clearly. 

it was in slow motion, like such times often seem to be, and the boat just turned over on her side. somehow, I remembered to pull the sheet in and that long boom didn't hit the water. that dinghy is much like a moth. it doesn't have very tall sides and it's not a board boat. you sit in it and not on it. it could easily fill with water and sink. here I was, the mast hanging out, over the water, me standing on the starboard side and the boat poised, impossibly, on only 8" of fiberglass. I remember thoughts skittering over the outside of my consciousness, like leaves scraping against a window. they were," well, this is it. i'm going to die of hyperthermia, today." but, those words weren't a part of me. they were like thoughts from outside. I raised my body from the port rail and then slammed it back against the rail, again, with all my weight behind it. 

as the boat slammed back down on the water, I let slip the sheet. level again, the boat took off like it had a rocket tied to it. the wind was coming directly from my port side, my sail was all the way out like I was running, and that crazy wind just launched me back towards the shore. 

once I got to shore, I contemplated going back out again. it took me 30 minutes of watching that other boat, twice the size of mine, sailing jib-less with a reefed main and his lee rail in the water before I finally, reluctantly, decided it wouldn't be too smart to go back out.

besides the hairy moments, that first year, there were so many glorious moments. you haven't lived till you have sailed past ice flows on a totally silent lake ( no constant noise and stink from the power boats because it was too bitter cold for them ), with only the ducks, huddled together on the ice, as company.

it's been 17 years, now. I converted that boat to a full keel boat. removing the trunk ( allowing my butt to go where the trunk was ) and adding a shallow, long keel like on the old Grand Banks schooners. it sails better, now; tracks better, heels less, still points like a champ. it's also more seaworthy. the transom was always perilously low. only 2 to 3 inches of it above the water. the trunk kept me from sitting at the point of greatest buoyancy. the new design evened the waterline out and brought the transom up. I don't have to worry as much about being swamped by tall wakes or high following seas. I am a big full keel fan, now.

I still sail that boat. the bigger guys, on the lake, have a good respect for me as a sailor. I sail in wind you don't see such small boats in. and I sail far, more like a cruiser, unlike most of the other small dinghies. you'll see me out there from sun up to sun down, when I have the chance. if you watch me sail, you'll see i'm a really good sailor and I know my boat and how to handle her. I also have a nice Holiday 20 but I spend most of my time on my 9' dinghy, although I love them both. I refuse to use a motor, on the Holiday. I sail to and from the dock. I'm a sailor and it's amazing how many other 'sailors' I see who don't know how to leave from, or return to, a dock.

I never have learned to swim. I always wear my life jacket. but, I have never been in the water...not yet, anyway. I have never stopped learning. not only do I read and watch anything that might teach me more sailing skills but I also keep my eyes open. I have learned to read the wind and the water and, while I am on the water, I am always watchful

I got caught out in a bad squall, that lasted for 30 minutes, earlier this year. 30 kt winds and 2foot waves. 2foot may not sound like much, but on a lake, like Marburg, 2 foot waves, caused by sudden wind, are pretty big. I made it back to the dock because I am always watchful and I know what to do in an emergency. I wasn't in my 20' sloop. i was in that 9' dinghy.

since then, I have started sailing in the Chesapeake bay, down around Back River. it's a whole new ballgame for that 9' dinghy.

anyhow, what is the purpose of this book? i'd say, if anything is to be taken from this narrative, it's that you shouldn't DEPEND on safety gear ( like life jackets )to save you; something my dad taught me about motorcycles. Know your boat. Know yourself. Know all you can about the waters on which you sail. Know everything you can about sailing and never stop learning. Then, be prepared for disaster every moment. don't be fearful but be watchful and prepared. 

the first line of defense is to see danger before it's upon you so you have time to prepare for it. the second is to know what to do once it has arrived. and, perhaps the most important part, NEVER PANIC. always remain calm and focused. do what needs doing and don't worry about the outcome. you will live or you will die but worrying about it, dwelling on it, will just keep you from doing what you need to do to keep her upright and sailing.

I think that's the most important part of surviving. yes. wear your life jacket, in case all else fails. but don't depend on it. depend on your knowledge and your actions. it's better if those things save your bacon and you don't need to rely on your PFD. 

of course, I always carry a coin, in case I do drown, so I can pay my way out of Ran's kingdom, where drowned sailors go, and go to be with my ancestors. better safe than sorry.


----------



## Brent Swain

Sail Magazine, a while back, published the statistics for loss of life among pleaure boaters . Sailboats were a tiny percentage of the total, the rest being power boats. Compared to urban living, among huge hunks of metal ( vehicles) constanly hurtling past us from all directions , barely missing us; statistically, being on a well built sailboat in mid ocean is probably one of the safest places on the planet to be.


----------



## PaulinVictoria

Been here since page one of this thread. I'm still alive. Win.


----------



## Group9

I don't think sailing is dangerous.

But, looking back on my career choices, I'm probably not the best person to give a reasonable answer to that. 

I took a personality test as part of my job, once, and rated the maximum points in self-confidence. I asked what that meant and the tester said, "Basically, you are overconfident to the point of stupidity."


----------



## mananamon

I've been a sailor for over 30 years, mostly in boats less than 30' and mostly solo and I would not do it if I were afraid. I am however cautious and wear my PFD. When I was 16 my father taught me to fly and he always instilled that "the sky, like the sea, is terribly unforgiving of errors and overconfidence" and that lession has pretty much ruled my approach to the hobby. Have confidence in your abilities and your vessel and prepare as best you can, from there do the best you can. Things will work out as they do.


----------



## smurphny

It's not sailing anyone should be afraid of, it's the ocean. I admit freely that I am afraid of the ocean. Any sailor who says he/she is not afraid of the ocean is a likely candidate to become a statistic.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> 
> But, I could be wrong - those guys aren't exactly risk-averse, after all... (grin)


My experience as a racer (motorsports) says that there are few more concerned about risks than the ones that make dangerous sports, specially at a top level. They are always trying to minimize them while doing what they love: fast racing.

Volvo racers are not be different in what regards that but I know better the story of the Vendee Globe where the risk is even bigger. Those sailors in conjunction with designers have always worked hard to minimize risks and to make safer boats and equipment and the developments in what regards safety, on the last 20 years had been huge.

There is not a race that has been as important for the development of safer boats and safer equipment. Maybe because it is a solo race and those teachings are more applicable to cruising boats (that are also short crewed and like the solo boats should be easy to sail) than the ones that come from full crewed boats, where the boats can be faster but don't need to be as easy or forgiven to sail.

Yes the ones that whant to stretch the boundaries have to take risks but always controlled risks always trying to improve safety margins. Out boats are safer due to what designers have learned with them.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## thetkhine

what about the pirate ? If we sail to a round the world?


----------



## Don L

I would bet that most of us aren't afraid enough during "normal" sailing I know that I'm not.

It is easy to be afraid when things are bad. The only real way to prevent it for most of us is to just go ahead and die.


----------



## JonEisberg

smurphny said:


> It's not sailing anyone should be afraid of, it's the ocean. I admit freely that I am afraid of the ocean. Any sailor who says he/she is not afraid of the ocean is a likely candidate to become a statistic.


I'm gonna guess that being "afraid" of the ocean is not really what you meant... I'm perplexed why anyone who is actually _afraid_ of the sea, would chose to venture out upon it on a small boat, for pleasure 

Perhaps you'd agree that "respect" might be a better term? That's how I'd characterize my feeling, and certainly to the point of "awe" on many occasions... The ocean put my house underwater a year ago, after all - but I wouldn't live where I do, or do what I do with boats, if I really feared the ocean...

On the other hand, if we're talking about the creatures that inhabit the ocean that might eat or kill me, that's a whole different ballgame...


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> I'm gonna guess that being "afraid" of the ocean is not really what you meant... I'm perplexed why anyone who is actually _afraid_ of the sea, would chose to venture out upon it on a small boat, for pleasure
> 
> Perhaps you'd agree that "respect" might be a better term? That's how I'd characterize my feeling, and certainly to the point of "awe" on many occasions... The ocean put my house underwater a year ago, after all - but I wouldn't live where I do, or do what I do with boats, if I really feared the ocean...
> 
> On the other hand, if we're talking about the creatures that inhabit the ocean that might eat or kill me, that's a whole different ballgame...


I guess what I was getting at is that fear is what inspires the respect. Without the knowledge that the sea can and will kill you quick and having that fear is what guides decision making. I think we all fear a rogue wave, a quickly developing depression coming out of the blue that we can't avoid, a semi submerged container in the middle of the night. It's also what we thrive on

I've been working on a house on the Jersey shore that was nearly washed away. The destruction was indeed awesome. Spent a lot of time in the beginning removing splintered pieces of boardwalk girders and planking from the yard. The waterline was 3' up the walls and all the stuff in the garage looked like it had been inside a huge washing machine. We had a neighbor's car from across the street in the backyard. When I was through there this spring on the boat, I was floored by the devastation at Atlantic Highlands.


----------



## Markwesti

The stats. don't say anything about the coasties or cops running boats over and killing people .


----------



## smurphny

Here's a scary weather system. Hope no one is sailing across the N. Atlantic right now. Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Powerful St. Jude's Day Storm Pounding France and the UK | Weather Underground


----------



## Ajax_MD

Brent Swain said:


> Sail Magazine, a while back, published the statistics for loss of life among pleaure boaters . *Sailboats were a tiny percentage of the total, the rest being power boats.* Compared to urban living, among huge hunks of metal ( vehicles) constanly hurtling past us from all directions , barely missing us; statistically, being on a well built sailboat in mid ocean is probably one of the safest places on the planet to be.


Yes, but is that because sailboats are tough, because sailboat skippers are smart, or because sailboats only represent a tiny fraction of recreational boaters?

I'm betting it's the last one.


----------



## mattt

BubbleheadMd said:


> Yes, but is that because sailboats are tough, because sailboat skippers are smart, or because sailboats only represent a tiny fraction of recreational boaters?
> 
> I'm betting it's the last one.


There's also the fact that any knucklehead can figure out how to get a motorboat going, but you actually have to learn a few things to operate a sailboat. The fact that a sailor has gone through the trouble of learning how to operate her vessel probably means she also learned a bit about safety along the way.


----------



## captain jack

smurphny said:


> It's not sailing anyone should be afraid of, it's the ocean. I admit freely that I am afraid of the ocean. Any sailor who says he/she is not afraid of the ocean is a likely candidate to become a statistic.


very true! my father always said a similar thing about motorcycles: if you are really afraid of them, you shouldn't ride. if you aren't afraid of them at all, you need to stop riding, because that will get you killed. you need to have enough fear to respect the dangers.


----------



## captain jack

mattt said:


> There's also the fact that any knucklehead can figure out how to get a motorboat going, but you actually have to learn a few things to operate a sailboat. The fact that a sailor has gone through the trouble of learning how to operate her vessel probably means she also learned a bit about safety along the way.


you can say that again about knuckleheads and powerboats. there seemed to be a bumper crop, this year. I definitely think you nailed it on the head. knowledge and skill go a long way towards avoiding disaster. that's what natural selection is all about!

oh. that's really terrible of me. lol


----------



## manatee

captain jack said:


> you can say that again about knuckleheads and powerboats. there seemed to be a bumper crop, this year. I definitely think you nailed it on the head. knowledge and skill go a long way towards avoiding disaster. that's what natural selection is all about!
> 
> oh. that's really terrible of me. lol


Where would the Darwin Awards be without natural selection?


----------



## Perrinscat

Looking for info and statistics on sailing incidents involving robbery and high-jacking, shady government officials molesting your boat or other people in general causing damage to cruisers. Weather and drowning is part of the game and risk, like rock climbing, but people don't shoot you too often when rock climbing. I want to show stats to friends and family that worry about us sailing with children in foreign waters. You got any info on that?


----------



## rgscpat

Which foreign waters? Some destinations are safer than home, some aren't. 
And so much depends on the preparation, attitudes, risk management, training, and behavior of the sailor. 
Go to a dodgy neighborhood late at night on some Caribbean islands, get drunk, try to score illegal drugs, act arrogant, talk trash, insult the locals, flash a lot of cash... something bad just might happen. Read up about your destinations, make friends with locals, be sensible, keep a low profile, act sensibly, and the odds get much better. 
As for shady officials, being informed and respectful of local customs goes a long ways. Values and customs differ throughout the world... which would be a wonderful thing for children to learn. 
Now pick a place you might like to visit and read up on it in places like Noonsite.


----------



## aeventyr60

We've been unmolested for the past 16 years In Mexico, South Pacific, NZ, OZ, going Westward thorough Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines...Much safer here then anywhere your living.


----------



## SV Verite

I would like to just quickly point out an error in your summation of the facts. True there were far fewer fatalities in specific scenarios (i.e. rough weather). What isnt taken into consideration here is the number of vessels under sail at the time of the statistic. Lets say that there are a whopping 300 fatalities on a nice sunny day and only 30 in the middle of a hurricane. one could gather that it would be safer to sail into a hurricane unless they were to find out that there were 2,000,000 boats on the water on the sunny day and 30 in the hurricane. At the end of the day, Ive found its best to know your limits, your crews limits and of course your vessels limits...and then not push them. 

Capt ~E


----------



## Cute_Litte_Sicangco

wind_magic said:


> Smack,
> 
> My thought on it is that all of the things you mention are dangerous, so there is no good way to argue against the danger. You can get hurt rock climbing, and you can get hurt sailing, even die, it happens. I think it is best to just face that head on and not try to argue against it when people say it is dangerous, fine, it is dangerous, but we keep sailing anyway.


Courage, yes. :cut_out_animated_em


----------



## Cute_Litte_Sicangco

And yes, there are a lot of dangers in sailing. But if your passion has overtaken you, I guess there is no way to stop you.


----------



## SHNOOL

Old thread dredge alert... 
Also the OP has been booted.


----------



## Don L

SHNOOL said:


> Old thread dredge alert...
> Also the OP has been booted.


So????

BTW - Golf is more dangerous than sailing.


----------



## MikeOReilly

By almost any rational measure, sailing and cruising is an exceeding safe activity. Driving, walking down a city street, eating many foods found in many grocery stores, and apparently golf, are more risky. 

This is why I'm always amused over the fear and angst produced over discussions around boat insurance. 


Why go fast, when you can go slow


----------



## SHNOOL

freak driving to the boat is more dangerous than either.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Dancing is very dangerous! I tripped over onto a small blonde the other night. 


:wink


----------



## Donna_F

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Dancing is very dangerous! I tripped over onto a small blonde the other night.
> 
> :wink


Another blond. I see a trend.


----------



## Donna_F

SHNOOL said:


> Old thread dredge alert...
> Also the OP has been booted.


Could be trying to increase her post count.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> ....This is why I'm always amused over the fear and angst produced over discussions around boat insurance......


Except ones personal safety and the potential to suffer a financial loss are grossly different. You could damage someone else's property or the environment, or someone could damage yours that was not responsible enough to have insurance, nor has the resources to remedy their actions.

I've been hit by another boat, while I was tied to a mooring, which cost them $7k to repair just mine, I don't know what theirs cost. No one was remotely hurt.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> Except ones personal safety and the potential to suffer a financial loss are grossly different. You could damage someone else's property or the environment, or someone could damage yours that was not responsible enough to have insurance, nor has the resources to remedy their actions.
> 
> I've been hit by another boat, while I was tied to a mooring, which cost them $7k to repair just mine, I don't know what theirs cost. No one was remotely hurt.


True, since risk is proportional to likelihood of an event, and the impact of said event, the impact can be different for different people. Insurance is just one way to mitigate risk, so we all need to make our own decisions around how much, and what to carry.

But be wary of the "could" perspective though. Lots of things "could" happen. It's the likelihood of them actually happening that matters in the risk calculation. Which gets back to the question posed in this thread: how afraid should we be of sailing. The answer: not very.


----------



## aeventyr60

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Dancing is very dangerous! I tripped over onto a small blonde the other night.
> 
> :wink


Hitchhiking to the other side of the island was very dangerous this morning too.. a lovely young malay gal gave me ride...


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> ?... risk is proportional to likelihood of an event, .......


Not just the likelihood of an event, but risk is also proportional to ones ability and willingness to make good, if they lose the bet. The sailors odds are pretty good, but the house does win too. If one is willing and able to pay up in all those events, great.

However, I hear too often about folks that had to pay for damage caused by others, when the offending party didn't have insurance.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> Not just the likelihood of an event, but risk is also proportional to ones ability and willingness to make good, if they lose the bet. The sailors odds are pretty good, but the house does win too. If one is willing and able to pay up in all those events, great.
> 
> However, I hear too often about folks that had to pay for damage caused by others, when the offending party didn't have insurance.


Yes, that may be part of _your_ risk (the risk of someone not paying for the damages caused). You can also purchase insurance against that kind of potential event. If it is, as you seem to suggest, a serious concern, then you probably should have this additional insurance.


----------



## Don L

I'm out of house and start heading south in a couple of days. So yes ............................... You should be very afraid to be out sailing


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, that may be part of _your_ risk (the risk of someone not paying for the damages caused). You can also purchase insurance against that kind of potential event. If it is, as you seem to suggest, a serious concern, then you probably should have this additional insurance.


Not entirely my risk. While my coverage would repair the damage caused by the uninsured, the insurance company would sue the offending party for the cost.

Therefore, everyone needs to assess whether they are able and willing to pay the bills for the liability they cause. Also, whether they can write off their own boat, if they damage or lose it. If you are willing and able, great. The only scenario I object to, is the boater who can't pay for the damage they create and isn't worried about the law suit, as they have no assets. That's the boater than should be required to have insurance (if not everyone), or stay 100 miles offfshore. 

You know what I would fully support. A bonding process. You pay an extraordinarily low premium, just for an insurance company to bond you. They review your financial statements and determine you can make good on the amount of the bond. If you cause a loss, there is no insurance, but you are drafted to pay up. All good.

Still, the point is that the low risk toward personal safety in sailing, which I agree with, is not the same as taking financial risk without insurance. I'm pretty sure the marine insurance industry pays out the sum of the premiums they collect, in claims. They make their money by holding the policy holders money over time, until those claims are made. But think about it. Virtually all the dollars, from all the premiums, from everyone you know that pays for insurance are being spent on losses. There has to be quite a few. I've had two in my lifetime, neither my fault. My insurance had to pay one, the other guy's paid the other.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

Ian Anderson ( the founder and chief song writer of the band Jethro Tull) once wrote a song called "Beastie" with the line " There are some afraid of dying, and some of living too" which encompasses my view of life. If you avoid everything that involves some element of risk or, now of social ostracism, you will have a very dull and boring existence. But then, there are many who crave such nowadays. To each his own. If you wish to live in constant fear, please refer to the list of substances known to cause cancer by the State of California.....


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> Not entirely my risk. While my coverage would repair the damage caused by the uninsured, the insurance company would sue the offending party for the cost.


Your risk remains the same. So does the other fellow ... if they've done the assessment rationally.



Minnewaska said:


> Therefore, everyone needs to assess whether they are able and willing to pay the bills for the liability they cause. Also, whether they can write off their own boat, if they damage or lose it. If you are willing and able, great.


Seems to me you keep confusing "will happen" with "might happen". Risk assessment involves probability X impact. As the probability approaches zero the risk approaches zero. Therefore, each of us needs to assess the RISK of our actions. Part of that is assessing the impact side of the equation, but not _only_ the impact side, which is what people who pedal insurance only focus on.



Minnewaska said:


> The only scenario I object to, is the boater who can't pay for the damage they create and isn't worried about the law suit, as they have no assets. That's the boater than should be required to have insurance (if not everyone), or stay 100 miles offfshore.


Yes, I'd object to that as well, although I'm not so authoritarian as to force everyone to buy something that, in most cases, is useless.



Minnewaska said:


> You know what I would fully support. A bonding process. You pay an extraordinarily low premium, just for an insurance company to bond you. They review your financial statements and determine you can make good on the amount of the bond. If you cause a loss, there is no insurance, but you are drafted to pay up. All good.


Sounds interesting. I don't really understand how this would work though. Sounds like insurance to me. You mean an insurance company would assess whether someone had the resources to self-insurance? Sounds problematic... Perhaps a disinterested third-party.



Minnewaska said:


> Still, the point is that the low risk toward personal safety in sailing, which I agree with, is not the same as taking financial risk without insurance.


Risk is risk. There isn't a different calculation for financial vs all other risk. What you seem to be asking for is that everyone else take steps to lower your risk. I think that's a different matter, and one which requires strong government action to enact laws and force actions. Given the exceedingly low risk involved in boating (and yes, that includes financial risk), this seems rather draconian to me.



Minnewaska said:


> I'm pretty sure the marine insurance industry pays out the sum of the premiums they collect, in claims.


Hmmm, you are aware we are dealing with financial institutions here? I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. No for-profit financial company I know of would operate like this. If insurance were a cooperative (as it started out as), then sure.

We've danced this dance before Minnewaska. I'm not saying don't get insurance. By all means, get some, get lots if that's what your risk assessment tells you to do. Liability-only can (I'm told) be had for small boat bucks. Probably worth it, especially if you're in busy areas. But insurance costs are not zero-sum. This cost, like all others, must be looked at through cost-benefit.


----------



## jwing

MikeOReilly said:


> Seems to me you keep confusing "will happen" with "might happen". Risk assessment involves probability X impact. As the probability approaches zero the risk approaches zero. Therefore, each of us needs to assess the RISK of our actions. Part of that is assessing the impact side of the equation, but not _only_ the impact side, which is what people who pedal insurance only focus on.


Mike, while I agree with the essence of your post, I'll offer a niggle for the sake of conversation:

Very few people are competent at assessing risk. Even if we eliminated our inherent irrationality, there are very few of us that can anticipate all the ways that things can go wrong.

Presumably, people in the insurance industry have worked for generations at acquiring this knowledge and understanding both sides of your risk assessment equation. They then translate that to financial basis.

So we pay the insurance companies for their expertise in risk assessment and to assume the risk, plus profit and overhead. An added benefit of insurance is that the risk is distributed, so we should be money ahead by buying insurance rather than individually saving enough money to adequately cover our risks.

It would work better if the insurance industry could get rid of all the shysters who seek high, short-term profit instead of long-term good for the industry and its customers.


----------



## outbound

Will be non PC for a moment. First insurance companies make a huge amount of money off of their investments. The longer they can hold off on paying out a claim the better their bottom line.
Once you leave your country of origin particularly if you are insured by a company not based and incorporated in your country of origin it may takes years for a claim to be dispersed. You may have no standing or need to hire lawyers of the country of origin of the insurance company and possibly additional lawyers of the country of occurance. 
YOLO so as this goes on unless you have very deep pockets your cruising plans are ruined. It may be so prolonged the claim maybe dispersed to your estate. Your dream of selling the boat to buy a dirt home in your senescence is gone.
Hence, if you cruise depending on your plans you are limited to your domestic market. Given how few vendors there are there is little competition resulting in high fees. Often with requirements to return to your country of origin annually. Looking at world cruising is more problematic as there are even fewer underwriters with high fees buand the possibility of difficulty in timely collection.
You need to mitigate your risk but also always keep YOLO in mind.

Some limit their cruising to domestic regional cruising in response. They can deal with the physical reality of risk involved in cruising but not these artificial risks created by man. But for some the novelty of new countries and never seeing snow compels them to keep moving.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> ....Seems to me you keep confusing "will happen" with "might happen". Risk assessment involves probability X impact. As the probability approaches zero the risk approaches zero....


That's an academic way to look at it, but if you come up craps on that bet, you get to bear the full financial loss. Your math goes from near zero academically to full loss practically. One must also assess their ability to lose. If one is able to take that risk, I say good for them, insurance is not necessary.



> Yes, I'd object to that as well, although I'm not so authoritarian as to force everyone to buy something that, in most cases, is useless.


It's certainly not useless, if the liable party does not have assets to pay for the loss they caused. Perhaps you think the victim should pay for the losses caused by another? Is that what you are referring to as "my risk" in your view? The victim is at risk? I say that's a risk that should be zero.



> You mean an insurance company would assess whether someone had the resources to self-insurance?


That's what bonding is. They determine that the "insured party" has the resources to pay their own losses and the insurance company can, in some cases, draft those resources to make good on claims. Only if the offending party turns out not to have those resource when the time comes, does the insurance company pay up. IOW, you must pay your losses first and the insurance company stands in second place. Makes the cost extremely low, because it's pretty unlikely the insurance company will have to pay.



> Risk is risk. There isn't a different calculation for financial vs all other risk.


I didn't say there was a different calculation, you did. I said the risk of suffering a financial loss, while sailing, is generally much higher than the risk of personal safety. I'm certain that is correct. We all know many people that have had liability or self inflicted damage (ie financial loss), not many that have been hurt.



> What you seem to be asking for is that everyone else take steps to lower your risk.


I still don't get your point. Are you saying it's my risk that someone else damages my boat and won't pay to fix it? That's not what the law says.



> Hmmm, you are aware we are dealing with financial institutions here? I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. No for-profit financial company I know of would operate like this. If insurance were a cooperative (as it started out as), then sure.


Then you have a fundamental (and seemingly biased) misunderstanding of how insurance companies make money. In fact, there are some products where they pay out more than they take in from premiums, but it takes so long to need to pay the claim, they make their income by investing the funds, until they are paid out.

Here's a simple way to look at it. You start an insurance company and get 5 people to pay $10 to insure their boat. You take the $50 in premium and invest them for one year. You make 10% on those investments equaling $5. In year two, one of the five covered people submits a claim for $50. You pay it out, but still made $5. Certainly more to it and the math is never that tidy, but that's the concept I'm describing, notwithstanding your skepticism of financial institutions.



> We've danced this dance before Minnewaska.


That's right, but you brought it up again and I quote........ "This is why I'm always amused over the fear and angst produced over discussions around boat insurance......"

So I'm amusing you.


----------



## colemj

outbound said:


> Will be non PC for a moment. First insurance companies make a huge amount of money off of their investments. The longer they can hold off on paying out a claim the better their bottom line.
> Once you leave your country of origin particularly if you are insured by a company not based and incorporated in your country of origin it may takes years for a claim to be dispersed. You may have no standing or need to hire lawyers of the country of origin of the insurance company and possibly additional lawyers of the country of occurance.
> YOLO so as this goes on unless you have very deep pockets your cruising plans are ruined. It may be so prolonged the claim maybe dispersed to your estate. Your dream of selling the boat to buy a dirt home in your senescence is gone.
> Hence, if you cruise depending on your plans you are limited to your domestic market. Given how few vendors there are there is little competition resulting in high fees. Often with requirements to return to your country of origin annually. Looking at world cruising is more problematic as there are even fewer underwriters with high fees buand the possibility of difficulty in timely collection.
> You need to mitigate your risk but also always keep YOLO in mind.
> 
> Some limit their cruising to domestic regional cruising in response. They can deal with the physical reality of risk involved in cruising but not these artificial risks created by man. But for some the novelty of new countries and never seeing snow compels them to keep moving.


I doubt you will find actual data to back up any of those claims. I doubt you will even find much anecdotal evidence to support those claims.

Using ourselves as an example, we are US citizens with a Dutch insurance company that got struck by lightning in Panama. The insurance company paid quickly and in full.

That one claim paid for 10yrs of insurance payments. To lose money on insurance in the case of a total loss, we would need to make another 75yrs of payments.

Moving on to others that we personally know who have made insurance claims, all were paid in full in a timely manner. These represented US and European citizens, US and European insurance companies, and none of the claims were made in home countries.

Specifically, Pantaenius US, Pantaenius UK, London Marine, ACE, BoatUS, Seaworthy, Markel, and RSA are companies I know to pay their claims and do so in a timely manner. I'm sure there are many others. These are hardly a "few" vendors (note these are underwriters, not brokers - there are hundreds of brokers).

There have been a very few companies in the past that have been bad apples, and there may currently be a very few still operating, but you would need to completely ignore the vast majority of good companies to make the statements above.

The bit about needing to stay domestic to stay insured is so wrong that it leads me to believe you don't have any experience or knowledge in this area. I don't know of any company requiring annual returns to native country, and there are many insurance companies out there competing for business (I listed 8 that I know pay claims quickly).

The fees are based on actuarial risk and market assessment - whether they are "high" is in the eye of the beholder. We find insurance to be competitively priced for us and our needs.

Mark


----------



## outbound

As always bow to your anecdotes and experience.
From my broker US has insurance commission. You have any complaint independent of tort they will facilitate resolution. Company's license to do business is at risk. Due to this claims settled in timely manner. Such apparatus is not present in some other countries 
Now to anecdotal information.
From two different brokers in the firm I deal with and friend who is a broker I know who crews. Much of the money insurance companies generates is from investments. They are incentivized to delay. 
Stories I've heard from pro captains and friends. Fire near boat captains boat. Wait for resolution but due to typhoon season owner decides to effect repairs out of pocket. Two years until funds released.
Lightning strike initial payment timely. Subsequent damage discovered. Still in litigation now nearing a year.
Return to boat. Find scratches along port side. Some through gelcoat going length of boat. Owner paid and still waiting for recovery.
Be the first to admit bad news travels fast and these are hearsay. Further admit Devils in the details which I don't know. Still, think it wise to keep a reasonable amount of liquidity in your portfolio to accommodate such an event. For present I choose a US company and spend >1/2 year out of US waters on a rider. Yes, they require I return to US waters at least once a year. They are considerably less expensive than quotes I got from the international vendors. 
For me insurance has no impact on cruising plans and I think it should not for others. We will just change plans as need arises. I did not wish to impugne the ethics of the entire industry but rather have people look at more than the premium cost when making this decision.


----------



## colemj

outbound said:


> For present I choose a US company and spend >1/2 year out of US waters on a rider. Yes, they require I return to US waters at least once a year. They are considerably less expensive than quotes I got from the international vendors.


You are talking about completely different policies types here, not the difference between national/international underwriters. For example, you need a rider just to leave the US coast, while ours covers us anywhere between 52N to 7N and as far East as 50W. We could have the same insurance company for those policies - they are just different policies for different coverage.

BTW, we find that international companies are way less expensive than US ones for equal policies. Many of them will not even insure US boats anymore because of the litigation and other expenses associated with the US. Your quote experiences reflect different types of policies, as stated above.

I can't imagine why a company would require annual returns to home country for a normal policy that a cruising boat would get. I would think doing so would entail higher risk to the company.

As for your examples, it is easy to understand that a fire, or assigning later damage to a past claim, or paying for damages that are no longer obvious would require investigation before payment.

Yes, insurance companies make money by investing premiums. So do banks, stock brokerages, health companies, and many other types of businesses. It is wrong to make the connection between a basic business strategy and a blanket delayed-payment strategy.

When one buys insurance, part of the owner responsibility is to know and understand the policy and how to use it (this goes for everything on one's boat). Never accept final payment agreement without either knowing all damage is fixed or putting in a clause to keep certain future damage active on the claim. This is especially important for a lightning strike. Always get a surveyor or adjuster from the insurance company to assess the damage and write a report before making repairs. If at all possible, never make repairs before payment or agreement with the company. If you need to for safety or similar reasons, document it very well.

The examples you list all made the above mistakes. Put yourself in the insurance company shoes - would you pay without further investigation someone who claims their boat was damaged but they fixed it and you can't see it anymore? Someone who assigns damage to a claim you thought you payed out fully several years earlier? Someone whose boat caught fire in what may be a criminal act, and in which another company might be responsible for damages?

Insurance is neither good nor evil. It is not just for "frightened" people, nor is it coddling. Most people use it as a hedge, like is done in Forex, commodities contracts or stock options - it defines the downside and puts risk in controllable brackets. I don't see its relationship to this topic, as it has nothing to do with fear.

Mark


----------



## zeehag

how afraid should you be of sailing??
about as afraid as you are when crossing a busy street. 
as afraid as you are in a very close electrical storm.
as afraid as you are of running a red light in your compact lil piece of tin, err plastic...
as afraid as riding a bicycle on a road.
as afraid as you are in sleep
as afraid as walking across a busy street in ghettoville.
as afraid as you should be to enter my boat without my presence on board--cat will shred you very nicely

if you have zero fear, you will find cat ass trophy
if you have too much fear, you wont go anywhere
when i was 7 i started sailing with an uncle who was a true sailing guru. first time out i bashed my head righteous. boom. yup 
another time i stepped on a rusty nail in the anteek boatyard that must have had horses in use in early days of its existence. ok i didnt die.
i have been almost killeded by a flying sheet block with attached lines..oops that was close-- grabbed it and affixed it temporarily so we didnt die.
was shipwrecked in a nice mellow extreme front with high winds and huge 4.5 ft chop in st josephs bay. (bubba was most unhappy) oops...lived thru it
yes there is stuff that happens. not always are we ready for the crap as it hits fan. we are out here doing stuff others donot wish to do yet dream about doing. ha ha ha ha ha 
once you know how to sail, it is easier. lots easier. provided you learn to repair as you learn to sail. both plus weather are the part you need most to cruise a sailboat. go figger. 
when i was learning, i was told the most important thing to save your life at sea is knowledge of weather. 
ok so i went out and learned to read weather maps--aged 7.5 years. reading newspapers to get the weather. ok. i wanted to sail. 
fear keeps us alive. fear makes us motivate. fear is a kind of base for our survival. 
so. just how much fear of sailing do you have??
if you love sailing and yet fear the heeling of the boat, get used toit. sail more.
if you fear water--get over it. yes water is huge. big g deal. if it wasnt huge, this would not be the challenge most of us seek.
sailing in itself is not scary. it is fun. 
it is the ancillary bs that is pushed into the faces of those too nervous to try it. 
fear of change?? 
fear of adventure?
\fear of leaving your family behind? 
fear of unknown?? if you wish to cruise--get over it. other wise, buy your boat and proudly show it off in slip for cocktails .. but even then there are fears--sinking, damages, many things to be afraid of.
agorophobic?? stay home and get a shrink.
i always get butterflies in tummy before a passage of any length. many do. they dissipate before out of port. no sweat.
there are many levels of fear. that is what shrinks are for. handling unhandlable fears. 
but... we are on this planet only a short while. choose your pleasure and love it and enjoy it.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> That's an academic way to look at it, but if you come up craps on that bet, you get to bear the full financial loss. Your math goes from near zero academically to full loss practically. One must also assess their ability to lose. If one is able to take that risk, I say good for them, insurance is not necessary.


It's not academic, it's logic. It's rational. It's reality. Once again, you keep focusing on only one part of the assessment measure; the impact. Yes, if you roll snake-eyes (is that the right term? I don't make silly casino bets) you lose, and you get to bear the full financial cost. That's what it means to live with risk. The assessment one needs to make is, how much risk are you willing to live with.

Nothing is certain. Nothing is 100%. Even buying insurance doesn't reduce your risk to zero. Most policies cover up to $2M liability these days. If your boat catches fire and burns the marina down, or you loose control and go smashing through someone's multi-million dollar yacht, how far is that $2M going to take you? Not far, and then you're on the hook for the rest. So we all take financial risks. It's just a question of where your personal comfort level is.



Minnewaska said:


> It's certainly not useless, if the liable party does not have assets to pay for the loss they caused.


Yes ... IF. If they cause an incident that they can't pay for, then insurance would be very useful. And IF I had wings I could fly. Once again you focus on only one side of the assessment. IF covers a lot of territory. The fact is, the likelihood of an event happening is exceedingly low. Therefore the risk is LOW. Not zero. Low.

Understanding this allows one to make a rational cost-benefit decision about insurance, or indeed spending your money on other mitigating tools (like better ground tackle, training, better maintenance, etc.)



Minnewaska said:


> Perhaps you think the victim should pay for the losses caused by another? Is that what you are referring to as "my risk" in your view? The victim is at risk? I say that's a risk that should be zero.


And I say I should be taller, with more hair. Wishing something were so doesn't make it so. That risk SHOULD be zero, but the real world doesn't work that way.

So no ... of course I don't think victims _should_ have to pay for losses causes by others. Nor do I think people _should_ be robbed or assaulted. In the real world these things happen. It's why you don't walk down certain roads at night -- risk assessment. If you get robbed, is it right you should bear the cost? -- No. But life isn't fair. We can't control everything, or everyone. All we can do is take actions for ourselves, which is why I say if YOU assess there is a significant risk FOR YOU of taking damage from a boater who will not make things right (via insurance, or personal means), then YOU should purchase the additional insurance. Or simply not go to the place that scares you ... much like not walking down the dark alley at night.



Minnewaska said:


> I didn't say there was a different calculation, you did. I said the risk of suffering a financial loss, while sailing, is generally much higher than the risk of personal safety. I'm certain that is correct. We all know many people that have had liability or self inflicted damage (ie financial loss), not many that have been hurt.


I miss interpreted your statement then. You said: _"Still, the point is that the low risk toward personal safety in sailing, which I agree with, *is not the same as taking financial risk without insurance.*"_

I said it is risk, just like any other. I _did not_ say there was a different calculation here -- just the opposite in fact. But be that as it may ... yes, the likelihood of an incident occurring that causes only property damage is higher. Yes. I've never suggested otherwise. And not really sure what your point is. It's part of the risk assessment.



Minnewaska said:


> I still don't get your point. Are you saying it's my risk that someone else damages my boat and won't pay to fix it? That's not what the law says.


No, that's what reality says.



Minnewaska said:


> Then you have a fundamental (and seemingly biased) misunderstanding of how insurance companies make money. In fact, there are some products where they pay out more than they take in from premiums, but it takes so long to need to pay the claim, they make their income by investing the funds, until they are paid out.


I bow to your superior knowledge of the benevolent, generous and kind insurance industry then. It's so wonderful to hear that they are only interested in my well being, and care naught for their bottom line. Heck, I bet it cuts the companies to the quick that they even have to charge for this wonderful service they perform. 



Minnewaska said:


> That's right, but you brought it up again and I quote........ "This is why I'm always amused over the fear and angst produced over discussions around boat insurance......"
> 
> So I'm amusing you.


Yes, it's always fun Minnewaska.

To put some sort of summary to all these ramblings. I'm NOT saying people shouldn't have insurance. People should buy it (or as much of it) as they think they need.

I AM saying insurance costs, like all others, need to be looked at from a cost-benefit point of view (unless resources are infinite, then it doesn't matter).

I AM saying everyone should look at things rationally (or as rationally as we can ... good point jwing), and not be scared into focusing only on one side (the impact side) of the risk assessment equation.

I AM saying, that despite all the doom and gloom often reported here in the virtual sailing world, the real world is actually quite safe most of the time, in most places. Those _whatchamacallit_, oh yeah, those FACTS bear this out.


----------



## zeehag

if your fear is loss--donot buy a boat. period. 
also donot buy house in cali, louisiana or any other state in which disastrous occurrances happen. or gulf states or eastern seaboard... you might find a hurricane or a tropical storm or a n earthquake or a ....
damn stay home and save your money for your ids to spend ungratefully.
oh yeah and donot invest in anything, as the market will collapse as soon as you so do.
hah ah aha
aint no sechuva thang as a sure thing.


----------



## colemj

Insurance isn't about fear of loss. It is about acceptance of that possibility and hedging the risk. It is a personal financial decision. We don't embark with any more fear, nor bravery, than those without insurance. We just spent our money on a different piece of boating gear is all. 

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly

colemj said:


> Insurance isn't about fear of loss. It is about acceptance of that possibility and hedging the risk. It is a personal financial decision. We don't embark with any more fear, nor bravery, than those without insurance. We just spent our money on a different piece of boating gear is all.


I agree Mark. Insurance shouldn't be about fear. It is a reasonable and viable way of mitigating risk. It's not the only way, nor even the best way in many circumstances, but it is certainly a reasonable tool to employ. In most cases and for most people the money would be better spent on things that definitely improve one's risk profile, like better anchoring system, more training, better boat maintenance, improved communications tools... but insurance certainly has its place.

All too often, however, people seem to take the fear-based perspective (only focusing on the impact of the loss, for example). The insurance industry certainly does this with their advertising, and all too often we read it here with the _"What IF!!_" messages.

I do think we live in an increasingly risk-adverse society. Just look at the way we rear kids today, or the latest crap about emotional triggers and how university kids insist on being coddled. Increasingly, people seem to expect the world to conform to their own personal demands. And given our society's general wealth and capabilities, often this does actually happen. This makes stuff like insurance (buying out our risk) very attractive.


----------



## ajoliver

And I would add that a significant percentage of sailboat fatalities, 
(316 for the year cited), 
are the result of being run down by power boats.


----------



## colemj

Maybe risk is the wrong word to use. For us, insurance is like hedging an investment so that the downside is controlled and known, while also limiting the upside somewhat. In other words, everything we own is with us on the boat (basically the boat and its gear), and all of this represents a considerable "investment" of our resources. So for a relatively small amount of money, we hedge that investment against loss. Like most hedges, you don't "lose" until very far down the road - in our case ~70yrs of payments will make it so that our hedge was a bad bet and we come out of it with no money left in our "investment".

Risk has little to do with it for us, and fear isn't even in the same universe.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> ......I bow to your superior knowledge of the benevolent, generous and kind insurance industry then. It's so wonderful to hear that they are only interested in my well being, and care naught for their bottom line. Heck, I bet it cuts the companies to the quick that they even have to charge for this wonderful service they perform.


I see by this tone that you aren't terribly rational about is discussion. None of your counter can be tied to my point you are responding to. You're just being inflammatory. If you carry a chip of some sort, it's not likely you'll assess the merits of insurance well. But that's entirely your right and I'm good with it. As long as you make good, if you damage someone else's boat.

Fundamentally, I think you finally agreed. One is more likely to suffer a financial loss than become injured (i.e., safety) aboard a sailboat. Therefore, your original premise that this thread (safety) being akin to prior discussions on insurance, which amused you, is non-sequitur.

The fact that sailing is very safe does not mean you are highly unlikely to suffer a financial loss.

You can self insure a lightening strike, weather impact, someone ramming your boat, hitting someone with your own boat during high winds, a leak while you're away, theft, fire, whatever, if you like. I'm saying these things commonly happen to boaters and your risk is not low. Even by your formulaic definition.

Whether you decide you need insurance for them should be a matter of your personal resources and willingness to take the hit. If you can write the check, then by all means don't insure.


----------



## gonecrusin

Last weekend we were pressing, close reaching, to get up to the channel before we ran out of water. Scared? No. Concerned? Yes. With short period 6~8 footers and winds in the mid 30's. We really needed to shorten down some but running off to shorten down would have required a tack back out and more storms were expected. 45 knots would have been no fun close reaching, the concerned needle would have swung to the scared range.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> I see by this tone that you aren't terribly rational about is discussion. None of your counter can be tied to my point you are responding to. You're just being inflammatory. If you carry a chip of some sort, it's not likely you'll assess the merits of insurance well. But that's entirely your right and I'm good with it. As long as you make good, if you damage someone else's boat.
> 
> Fundamentally, I think you finally agreed. One is more likely to suffer a financial loss than become injured (i.e., safety) aboard a sailboat. Therefore, your original premise that this thread (safety) being akin to prior discussions on insurance, which amused you, is non-sequitur.
> 
> The fact that sailing is very safe does not mean you are highly unlikely to suffer a financial loss.
> 
> You can self insure a lightening strike, weather impact, someone ramming your boat, hitting someone with your own boat during high winds, a leak while you're away, theft, fire, whatever, if you like. I'm saying these things commonly happen to boaters and your risk is not low. Even by your formulaic definition.
> 
> Whether you decide you need insurance for them should be a matter of your personal resources and willingness to take the hit. If you can write the check, then by all means don't insure.


Minn, I don't know whether to laugh at you, or simply ignore you. You avoid all the substantive comments (I assume b/c you have nothing useful to add) and you take faux offence to the inconsequential comment about insurance companies. It was sarcasm and humour. If you have such a huge chip on your back that you can't tell when someone is having a laugh, well, you're certainly off my X-mas card list (and that too, was a joke ... in case you miss it).

So yes, you are more likely to incur financial loss than injury or death. I've never suggested otherwise. The financial loss is still small in comparison to any rational perspective (boat ownership value, hours of use, number of boats ... pick your comparator). So yes, according to actual publicly available data, most boaters ARE highly unlikely to suffer financial loss due to accidents.

Perhaps in your area it is different. Local differences do occur, so maybe you boat in an area ripe with collisions, accidents and bad behaviour. If that is the case, then you are an outlier.

When you say "these things commonly happen to boaters and your risk is not low"; please define "common" and "low". If you mean anything resembling rational, reasonable understandings of "common" and "low" then you are wrong. Statistically, logically, wrong. But if you mean "common" and "low" as in not zero, then you are correct. The risk is not zero.


----------



## MikeOReilly

colemj said:


> Maybe risk is the wrong word to use. For us, insurance is like hedging an investment so that the downside is controlled and known, while also limiting the upside somewhat. In other words, everything we own is with us on the boat (basically the boat and its gear), and all of this represents a considerable "investment" of our resources. So for a relatively small amount of money, we hedge that investment against loss. Like most hedges, you don't "lose" until very far down the road - in our case ~70yrs of payments will make it so that our hedge was a bad bet and we come out of it with no money left in our "investment".
> 
> Risk has little to do with it for us, and fear isn't even in the same universe.


I use risk in the technical sense, but perhaps it's not the best word for general discussion. What you describe is a risk assessment, and your use of insurance is a method of mitigating, or hedging, this risk. I think we're saying the same thing.

Fear is used by those who want to sell more insurance (or more "security" in general). But I in no way mean to suggest this is what drives everyone. Quite the contrary. As I keep saying, I think insurance is fine tool when used rationally. I personally think liability coverage is an excellent cost-benefit. In my case, full hull replacement is not, even though it is my only home. But we all need to make those decisions with eyes wide open.


----------



## outbound

View insurance much like Mark. Another avenue to improve my odds I can keep sailing where I want for as long as I want. Spent today being instructed on voyaging. Maintenance, sails, steering, rigs, communications etc. Did this for the same reason. Maybe I'll not chafe a sheet/sail or have a lightning strike, or another storm etc. but education and training mitigate my risk and keep me sailing. Some I knew some tips were new and very helpful. It's all good.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> Minn, I don't know whether to laugh at you, or simply ignore you.


Perhaps this comment is another shot at humor, but I'm sure most read it as simply rude. We have a difference of opinion, I'm not laughing at or ignoring you.



> You avoid all the substantive comments (I assume b/c you have nothing useful to add)


Again, Mike, that's pretty rude, not humorous. And I don't know which substantive comments you are suggesting I've avoided. But let's cut to the chase on your following point.......



> So yes, *according to actual publicly available data*, most boaters ARE highly unlikely to suffer financial loss due to accidents.


Emphasis added. Please refer us to this data that you used to draw your conclusion. Otherwise, it's you that is avoiding the substantive points by just stating your belief. To be clear, you are welcome to believe whatever you like. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But I am making what I believe to be the right perspective for others to consider.

In my experience, most boaters I know, who spend any significant amount of time on the water, suffer a financial loss of some kind eventually. Therefore, I say the risk is not low. Lightening strikes, hit in the marina, etc. As I've said, I've personally had one weather event that caused a $15k claim and a second when another boat broke free of her mooring and the current pushed her into us and caused $7k in damage to us alone. Neither are all that regionally specific.

Let's see if you have data that proves my experience to be unique, as you claim exists. I would be happy to reconsider.


----------



## arknoah

night0wl said:


> I can say this, I'm a newer boat owner and I can safely say this. I've rarely been as terrified as I've been trying to navigate my boat down the New River. I know I'm insured and the worst case scenario is I'd sink or damage the boat and swim ashore...but not being in control and having the elements drive your fate is a terrifying feeling.


Aww, hell. The fact that sailing is a relatively safe activity has nothing to do with the fact that it can sometimes scare the _*bejeezus *_out of you....:wink


----------



## Minnewaska

I was intrigued by what data is out there that shows the probability of a financial loss. The best I could find, so far, is the likelihood that one's boat will be hit by lightening. I found the following study, which shows that sailboats are the most vulnerable, as expected. Oddly mulithulls are more vulnerable than monohulls, although, logically longer boats more likely than shorter, ie taller masts.

Striking Lightning Facts - Seaworthy Magazine - BoatUS

Let's take the overall rough average of 5 in 1000 sailboats boats will be hit by lightening per year. My college stats is pretty rusty, so I looked up the formula for how to calculate the odds of an event over multiple attempts, when the original variable is added back and available again. IOW, you have a 5/1000 chance per year, so what are the odds over two years, three years, etc, when the original 5 boats that were hit could be hit again. I believe the probability is 1-(995/1000)^n, where n is the number of years, or the inverse of the likelihood that you would never be hit.

Over 10 years, you have a 4.9% chance of being hit by lightening. Over 20 years (half my time on the water so far) you have a 9.5% chance. Nearly 1 in 10.

You can improve this specific probability by having a smaller boat, a mono over a multi, or sailing somewhere less likely to have lightening, which could all be risk mitigation. I'm only refuting the premise that because sailing is safe (ie personal injury safe), your risk of financial loss is broadly low.

I acknowledge the overall odds are in your favor that you will not be hit by lightening, but I don't consider the risk to be low that you might be hit over time and incur a huge bill for electronics. If you do, that's fine. Further, these are the odds of loss from one single loss variable and the cost of remediating lightening damage is typically very high too. While I haven't found other loss data yet, in my experience, folks are much more likely to suffer a loss from weather, theft, fire, collision, grounding, etc, so I expect the overall odds of a financial loss get much worse from here.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Minnewaska said:


> I'm pretty sure the marine insurance industry pays out the sum of the premiums they collect, in claims. They make their money by holding the policy holders money over time, until those claims are made. But think about it. Virtually all the dollars, from all the premiums, from everyone you know that pays for insurance are being spent on losses.


No way.

You have anything to back up this whale of a tale?


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> No way.
> 
> You have anything to back up this whale of a tale?


Despite the irony that you a aren't providing any thing to refute it, I will offer two quick google hits.

The Michagan Institute of Insurance broadly claims that overall payout of property/casualty premiums collected is 97%, which mirrors my point. The blog below, which is admittedly not authoritative, indicats different premium payouts for different products, as I said was the case. I may look harder, but I certainly didn't find anything that refuted the point. Can you?

How Insurance Works

insurance: What percentage of insurance premiums are ever paid out by insurance companies to their customers?


----------



## outbound

Given insurance companies are highly profitable this would suggest their income is mainly generated from investments. I own stock in several and that's my impression from their mailings as well. Payout is just a percentage of total money held so a large amount of money remains invested. In short if they take in X per year in premiums and they have Y in total assets they will gain the income generated by Y plus the 3% not spent on payouts. Let's say Y is invested conservatively generating 4% so they gain ~5% even allowing for fixed overhead. Hence it seems quite possible they can remain profitable while paying out 97% of premiums as long as Y is a big number. Again it seems not illogical they are incentivized to delay payouts. Any money generated during the delay by investment of that payout is "free money". The amount per claim may be chump change but but over thousands of claims becomes real money. 
So the prudent sailor can be well served by having a pit fund to cover repairs until a claim is settled. Also to investigate the track record of days to payout of any vendor before signing the contract if that information is available.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Hi Minnewaska

Thanks for providing a link. Unfortunately, its a terribly slanted, anonymous piece of industry propaganda. For example when they say health insurance paid out .99 out of every $1.00 does that .99 include admin costs?? Because my medical insurance company , which by the way gives its CEO $14.6 million per year - reports that they only pay out around 75% for state premiums.... although I have done some searching and there is this rule of 20% that they are apparently allowed but again - try and find it. Not sailing related, but directly related to rebutting your link, which is either off by a factor of 10, or 25 after massive profits and bonuses taken out.

https://broker.uhc.com/assets/CT Letter.pdf

*although they are required to report this - try and find yours. Its one of the most obscured and hidden statistics on the internet.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal. I'm still interested in this overall financial risk analysis. I'm am going to try to find more data on that and hope Mike posts what he referenced. 

As far as premium to loss payouts are concerned, I would not be surprised that the health care system works differently. But what you called a whale tale was not referencing health care. The CEOs salary his especially irrelevant to the point. I'm sure there is more data that you wouldn't find slanted that supports what you called a whale tale.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Mine, my comments are written in the same tone as you deliver. If you find them rude, then perhaps you should look in the mirror. But lets put this behind us (if we can).

Stats (as I've posted many times before and were found again in a general search using the terms "boating statistics"):

Statistics
Links to a searchable database. Go nuts...

https://www.statista.com/topics/1138/recreational-boating/

Indicates total financial losses due to accidents was $42M in 2015.
Retail market value of sailboat sales in the U.S. (2015): $256m

Striking Lightning Facts - Seaworthy Magazine - BoatUS
(the one you found)

And this little table from a law firm focusing on accident law suits (as a fun comparison):

*Probability of Dying in Various Accidents:
*

Firearms discharge: 1 in 6,609
Lightning: 1 in 134,906
Bitten by a Dog: 1 in 144,899
Fireworks discharge: 1 in 652,046
Asteroid impact*: 1 in 700,000 (these odds are based on allowing the number of asteroids that can hit Earth as well as how much damage they can do, depending on size).
Shark attack: 1 in 3,748,067
Dying on a scheduled plane flight: 1 in 14,000,000

As to your analysis, I defer to a stats expert, but your odds of getting hit each year is 5:1000 or 1:200. Much like flipping a coin, your odds are the same each event (flip or year), regardless of whether your boat was hit or not in the prior year. If your analysis was correct, there would be millions of boats that have been hit with lightning over the last 20 years. I think we'd all be running in fear (and rightly so) if this were the case.

1:200 is not insignificant, but nor is it high. I think most people would assess this risk as low. Flip it around; if you were told your odds of winning a bet were 200 to 1, you'd gladly take that bet.

Interestingly, the data presented on lightning strikes (which I presume is from BoatUS insurance data, so good source) shows a dramatic difference in strikes vs boat size:



> Type of Boat	Chances per 1,000
> 0-15 Feet	0
> 16-25 Feet	0.2
> 26-39 Feet	2.1
> 40-64 Feet	6


One conclusion I take from this data is, instead of spending more money on lighting insurance, you're much better off sticking with a boat under 40 feet. Cheaper and safer all around.


----------



## outbound

Until you get in a storm Mike. Most would take the increased liveability, safety at sea, and speed over any issue of lightning. Just avoid purple Q tip land. It's not much of a hardship 😊


----------



## outbound

PS I try to anchor near big cats. CF ones are my favorite. Especially gunboats. Curve seems parabolic. Too few points to tell. Knee of curve seems to be in 40-64. Finer graduations might be informative.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> Mine, my comments are written in the same tone as you deliver.


If that is true, then I'm sorry I came across that way. It certainly wasn't intended. I did confront your position, with a different point of view, which I understand you might find frustrating, but I don't recall saying things like you have nothing useful to add. As you did. If you show me where I did, I will edit it. I don't think the simple fact that I noted your tone is the same.



> Stats (as I've posted many times before and were found again in a general search using the terms "boating statistics"):
> 
> Statistics
> Links to a searchable database. Go nuts...


I might take some time to look through these. However, if you've actually found one that you used to form your position, it sure would be helpful to see it.



> https://www.statista.com/topics/1138/recreational-boating/
> 
> Indicates total financial losses due to accidents was $42M in 2015.
> Retail market value of sailboat sales in the U.S. (2015): $256m


How do you figure the value of losses per year is related to the volume of sales per year??



> And this little table from a law firm focusing on accident law suits (as a fun comparison):
> 
> *Probability of Dying in Various Accidents:*


*

It was interesting, but we're not talking about being injured, let alone dying. We're talking about risk of financial loss over time. We're also not comparing it to other activities. We're discussing whether the risk of suffering a financial loss, while sailing, is low.




As to your analysis, I defer to a stats expert, but your odds of getting hit each year is 5:1000 or 1:200. Much like flipping a coin, your odds are the same each event (flip or year), regardless of whether your boat was hit or not in the prior year.

Click to expand...

Yes, your odds at each individual flip are the same, however, your cummulative odds, as the number of flips increases, goes up. I think that's intuitive, regardless of one's conclusion over high/low odds.

The odds that you flip heads on the first flip (think year) are 50%. The odds that you flip heads on the second flip are 50%. The odds that you will flips heads in one of two flips (ie two years) is 75%. They go up.

I hope this point makes sense, because, it may truly be why we are so disconnected.




If your analysis was correct, there would be millions of boats that have been hit with lightning over the last 20 years. I think we'd all be running in fear (and rightly so) if this were the case.

Click to expand...

How do you take my calc and get to millions? 5 out of every 1000 will get hit, per year. That is mathematically different than your odds of being one of them, as time passes. I know you don't seem to trust my math, so please confirm it.




1:200 is not insignificant, but nor is it high. I think most people would assess this risk as low.

Click to expand...

First, your odds go up at the period increases, as stated. Second, this is only one loss stat that was used as an example. I bet its even among the best odds, therefore, the remainder will add up quickly. One's odds of suffering any loss are going to be the cumulative odds of all possibilities. It's just math.




Flip it around; if you were told your odds of winning a bet were 200 to 1, you'd gladly take that bet.

Click to expand...

Maybe, it would depend on what I had to lose. Nevertheless, your point would be for only one roll, for only one loss factor.




Interestingly, the data presented on lightning strikes (which I presume is from BoatUS insurance data, so good source) shows a dramatic difference in strikes vs boat size:

One conclusion I take from this data is, instead of spending more money on lighting insurance, you're much better off sticking with a boat under 40 feet. Cheaper and safer all around

Click to expand...

Sure, I said the same. A smaller mast is less likely to be hit by lightening (unless on a multi-hull). But, it's still just one loss factor. I highly doubt the rest are all correlated to LOA.*


----------



## colemj

Lightning statistics are useless unless finely defined. While there may be a low overall probability of being struck, there can be high probability places. For example, in certain areas of Panama and other Central/South America locals, the probability of a strike approaches 50%, while in San Diego it probably approaches 0%. Keeping a 40' boat in Panama while thinking your chances of being struck are 6/1000 is wishful thinking.

Mark


----------



## Arcb

I find boating just to be one big continuos financial loss. $5000/year just to dock/store it. A total loss due to lightning strike and subsequent fire would probably save me money over the long run.


----------



## jwing

Following on my previous comment about not knowing how to asses risk: A friend wrecked his car by crashing into a guardrail. He had liability coverage but not coverage for his own losses. The car was a total loss, he has to buy another car out of his savings (or go in debt). The surprise is that the state billed him $10K for the guardrail. That is something that he, nor I, would have considered in the risk assessment. The liability insurance did pay for the guardrail.


----------



## Sal Paradise

There are no guard rails in the ocean.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

jwing: That is the purpose of liability insurance, to pay for the guard rail, the boat, or the other car you are at fault for hitting. I think that was one of the original points in Minnewaska's original argument. Now if he could just learn the proper spelling of lightning.....

Statistics are practically worthless for determining probability if they are not defined. As colemj pointed out, location is crucial as to the chances of something happening. The chances of a hurricane or even a tornado hitting my house is for all practical purposes, nil, but move 20 miles to the east and the chances of a tornado increase hugely. Frankly I have no concern whether Mike or Minnewaska has insurance as long as they do not cause me or my property harm, but they had better have a good lawyer or good insurance if they cause me loss through their own negligence. If Mike wants to help contain his annual expenses by not buying insurance for his boat then he is of no harm to Minnewaska as long as they are not travelling the same locale and Minnewaska is not going to be harmed by Mike just because he doesn't carry insurance. Petty arguments can be a great insight to the true picture of a person's character. I always try to remember that I cannot control anyone but myself.......


----------



## jwing

Rocky: I disagree with your premise, in a way. Mike should not have to carry insurance for Minnewaska's boat or body.

Part of living is the risk of somebody accidentally causing harm to me and/or my property. If I pay an insurance company to assume that risk, then they should pay to make me right. That's the premise of no-fault insurance, I think. Likewise, if storm knocks my boat into yours, the damage to your boat should be your liability, not mine. The damage to my boat should be my liability. That's my perspective of how it _should_ be, and it would be a lot easier if it were that way.

However, since I have no actual knowledge of how the liability laws are set up, I am willing to pay insurance companies to assume the risk of my liability in regard to damages inflicted on somebody else. For now, I am willing to carry the risk of damage to my own property.


----------



## caberg

jwing said:


> Part of living is the risk of somebody accidentally causing harm to me and/or my property.


When harm or damage is caused to person or property, it's almost always due to someone's negligence. There are no accidents. Because if we all follow the rules we are supposed to follow--i.e., act reasonably under the circumstances--nothing gets damaged and no one gets hurt. There are a few exceptions such as "acts of god" or "sudden emergencies" that cannot be anticipated nor avoided.



jwing said:


> if storm knocks my boat into yours, the damage to your boat should be your liability, not mine.


What if you anchored with a 5 pound danforth in a circumstance where proper ground tackle would have kept you secure? Not your fault?



jwing said:


> However, since I have no actual knowledge of how the liability laws are set up, I am willing to pay insurance companies to assume the risk of my liability in regard to damages inflicted on somebody else. For now, I am willing to carry the risk of damage to my own property.


That's good to hear!


----------



## jwing

caberg, my point is that it shouldn't matter whose fault it is. If I pay a company to assume the risk of damages to me, that company should pay me regardless if the damage was caused by accident (yes, there are accidents), by negligence, or purposely (exception: I purposely caused damage to my own property). So, it should be none of your business whether or not I carry insurance. Insure yourself (or not) and don't worry about my financial status.


----------



## caberg

jwing said:


> caberg, my point is that it shouldn't matter whose fault it is. If I pay a company to assume the risk of damages to me, that company should pay me regardless if the damage was caused by accident (yes, there are accidents), by negligence, or purposely (exception: I purposely caused damage to my own property). So, it should be none of your business whether or not I carry insurance. Insure yourself (or not) and don't worry about my financial status.


I'm not interested in a real philosophical discussion on this, but it really does _matter whose fault it is_.

Think about motor vehicle collisions -- similar to boat collisions but motor vehicle collisions happen with much more frequency. (Note, I do not say "accident" -- when two vehicles collide, it is not by accident.)

If there is no financial penalty for driving your vehicle into someone else, there is no incentive for anyone to drive carefully.

Most of us do carry liability insurance on our vehicles (as required by law), but we also know that a collision of any sort, even the smallest fender bender, will drive up our premiums. So we take care to follow the rules of the road, look before backing up, checking our mirrors, and doing what a safe and prudent person would do in order to avoid colliding with another vehicle.

In a world where _it doesn't matter whose fault it is_, grocery store parking lots would become a game of bumper cars because, hey, that ding in your bumper _isn't my fault_.


----------



## jwing

caberg said:


> I'm not interested in a real philosophical discussion on this, but it really does _matter whose fault it is_.


I'm not interested in trading anecdotes, but read what happened to me:



caberg said:


> Think about motor vehicle collisions -- similar to boat collisions but motor vehicle collisions happen with much more frequency. (Note, I do not say "accident" -- when two vehicles collide, it is not by accident.)


Another driver and I were involved in a collision that was unintended, unplanned, and caused the total destruction of both cars. The definition of 'accident' is "a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury." Therefore, by definition, we were in an accident and the collision was caused accidentally.

There was no assessment of fault by police nor insurance companies.



caberg said:


> If there is no financial penalty for driving your vehicle into someone else, there is no incentive for anyone to drive carefully.


No citations were issued to me or to the other driver.



caberg said:


> Most of us do carry liability insurance on our vehicles (as required by law), but we also know that a collision of any sort, even the smallest fender bender, will drive up our premiums. So we take care to follow the rules of the road, look before backing up, checking our mirrors, and doing what a safe and prudent person would do in order to avoid colliding with another vehicle.


My premiums did not go up. My insurance company reimbursed me as per our contract. Whatever happened to the other driver is none of my business.



caberg said:


> In a world where _it doesn't matter whose fault it is_, grocery store parking lots would become a game of bumper cars because, hey, that ding in your bumper _isn't my fault_.


I'm grateful that my opinion of people is not as low as yours.

Plus, again, you missed the point. It's not a matter of assigning blame; it's a matter of assessing my risk and taking whatever steps needed to make me comfortable. I would take no comfort in knowing that somebody is in jail because he cannot afford to pay the bills that I have incurred due to his negligence (as determined in a long, painful court case). That is why I insure myself and not worry about anybody else.


----------



## Minnewaska

Just a quick retread of the path in which we got to insurance. To be clear, this isn't about Mike, nor me, nor whether we might ever cause each other damage. I'm sure neither of us ever intend harm toward the other.

This thread is about how safe sailing is. It was then suggested that because it is so safe, which is true, that one's decision to insure their boat should consider how safe it is. 

I've claimed and most have agreed, that one's risk of suffering a financial loss is higher than the risk toward your safety aboard a sailboat. I've also claimed that while the risk of toward your personal safety is low, that your risk of a financial loss is not low.

Whether you incur a financial loss is a matter of whether you damage your own property or the tort law, if damage someone elses or the environment. Further, you must consider your odds of incurring the loss. I've tried to show how those will cumulatively increase over the years, which is consistent with my observation of people's experience. Including my own.

The philosophical argument of who should be liable is fine, but the only point to be rationally considered is whether you are or not. It seems some are arguing a different construct of liability, for which they are welcome to try to have the laws changed. In one's risk assessment, you have to deal with reality. You break it, you fix it. If you are saying you don't like it that way, you're entitled to that opinion. But it is that way.

While I see pros and cons to mandatory insurance, I'm not insisting upon it. You get to make that call for yourself. I've only been trying to frame out the way I see the actual risk that you will become liable or lose some or all of the value of your assets.


----------



## outbound

Ok try to get a slip in the absence of insurance. Believe in some areas liability insurance or posted bond is required. Know when boat was taken out of the water this past year proof of insurance was necessary. Asked about it. Yard said their concern was if I caused damage while working on my boat they wanted someone to go after. Their concern was themselves and boats near me. 
Sometimes the invisible hand of the market works it's magic.


----------



## outbound

Wife reads sailing disaster porn. Delights in it and uses it to tell me how screwed up my thinking is. Her thing is the 200m helicopter range for the CG. Wonder if anyone can up with some statistics about passage safety. Talking about drunk/drugged kids in a skiff isn't going to help.


----------



## Minnewaska

The concept of auto "no fault" insurance was raised, but I think that's misunderstood. First, I believe it only applies to medical expenses and lost wages. Second, even though your insurance company is required to pay you for damages, I believe they can still subrogate damages against the actual liable party. In other words, if you broke it, you're still going to have to pay to fix it, even if the other boat owner's insurance company covers them for it. The insurance company is going to sue you instead.

Finally, what if you cause environmental damage (fuel spill, sinking, drag across a reef, etc)? Pretty sure the government is not going to take the no-fault position that they have to fix the damage you caused.


----------



## SVAuspicious

outbound said:


> Wonder if anyone can up with some statistics about passage safety.


No statistics in hand, but "when in doubt, go out." (me)


----------



## Minnewaska

outbound said:


> .....Wonder if anyone can up with some statistics about passage safety.....


I wonder if AMVER has anything. I've never seen this data broadly.

I use the safety of the major ocean races, such as Newport-Bermuda as my argument. That is, assuming you follow similar safety protocol. There have been some exception, over the years, but we've all learned from them. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there has been one death in the Newport-Bermuda, or maybe it's one lost vessel, in the history of the race. I think it was an old wooden boat in the early days that caught fire.

Having pretty experienced crews might increase the safety record of these races, but they are also more likely to be pushing themselves pretty hard. Not sure if they cancel each other out.

I do think the attention to vessel equipment and inspections, along with mandated safety courses, is likely a big contributor to the race safety record.


----------



## outbound

I captained my boat in that race. If I recall guy was a doc. Message went out Doctor/captain was decapitated by boom during a gybe. Wife got only that info. Due to no outside help radio restriction I had no idea anything happened until I woke after sleeping most of the day once in Hamilton. She was first worried then pissed I didn't call her but went straight to sleep first. 
Still that's a bit over six hundred miles and is done Father's Day week end. Would think fall across to eastern Caribbean or England to Croatia or the ARC across the pond or going around the world is more of a sticky wicket in progressive order. Then there's those high latitude sailors yet another step up the ladder.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Been off actually doing boating things. Much to catch up on. I'll give it a try.

Minnewaska, I guess we don't agree on how to apply odds and probabilities. If you go out tomorrow your odds of getting hit by lightning is (to use the default number, which as has been discussed, is not really an accurate portrayal anyway) is 5:1000, or 1:200. If you go out tomorrow your odds are, 1:200. If you go out a year from now your odds haven't changed. No different than flipping a coin or rolling a die. Your odds of flipping a Head vs a Tail is 1:1 with each flip. Doesn't matter how many flips you make.

There are nearly 12,000,000 registered boats in the US, so only considering register boats (there are many only State licensed), if 1 in every 200 boats are actually hit each year, that would mean there are nearly 60,000 boats struck each year. This doesn't ring anywhere near true to me. If there were 60,000 boats being hit each year, well, I think there'd be a lot more written about it. We both struggled to find that one reference.

We agree, your risk of incurring financial damage is higher than physical. I don't agree that this risk is high. I suspect it is not much greater than the financial risk of owning anything of this scale: a boat, an RV, a house. There are financial risk; IOW, stuff breaks, accidents happen. Doesn't make it a large risk.

caber, your view of humanity is a dismal one indeed. People do not behave well only when there is financial penalty involved. This is the old ****-economicus model of humans that has led us to such social policy ruin. People behave well due to a whole range of social dynamics and strictures. Financial incentives/disincentives are in the mix, but are actually quite low on the scale.

And of course there are such a thing as "accidents." Not everything in life is controllable or even predictable. If it were, what a boring life it would be.

No-fault insurance is defined by the great Wiki gods as: 


> No-fault systems generally exempt individuals from the usual liability for causing body injury if they do so in a car collision; when individuals purchase "liability" insurance under those regimes, the insurance covers bodily injury of the insured and the insured's passengers caused by a car collision, regardless of which party would be liable under ordinary common law tort rules. No-fault insurance has the goal of lowering premium costs by avoiding expensive litigation over the causes of the collision, while providing quick payments for injuries or loss of property. Further, no-fault systems often grant "set" or "fixed" compensation for certain injuries regardless of the unique aspects of the injury or the individual injured. Workers compensation funds typically are run as "no fault" systems with usually a fixed schedule for compensation for various injuries.


Here's one scenario I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on: You're anchored in a good location, along with another boat. This other boat is using the right anchor, the right rode, and has anchored well, using all the right techniques and precautions. Overnight the boat drags into yours, doing damage. Is it the other person's fault? And if so, do you expect them to pay for the damage?

OK, what if instead of a boat hitting yours and causing damage, it is a tree? Is it the tree's fault?

What is the difference between these two?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

My take: You are parked in a parking lot, another person parks his car in front of you but leaves his vehicle in neutral and doesn't set the parking brake. A violent windstorm comes up and blows his car into yours. In my opinion he is at fault, but existing Colorado law says that on private property it is up to the parties involved to assign fault. Good luck with that. 

You are parked in a parking lot and the wind blows a tree onto your car, or it hails and beats your car to a pulp. Unless you have comprehensive coverage it sucks to be you. The "Act of God" clause creates a lot of flexibility for all involved.

Insurance is a generic term, your coverage determines if you are covered for your own loss, another's loss, theft, damage due to nature, fire, lightning, hail, wind, or whatever. The cost of your policy is determined by the value of what you want covered and the underwriter's calculation of probability of an occurrence. Insurance by itself is not a conspiracy against you, although the industry seems to attract a lot of bottom feeders.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> ....Here's one scenario I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on: You're anchored in a good location, along with another boat. This other boat is using the right anchor, the right rode, and has anchored well, using all the right techniques and precautions. Overnight the boat drags into yours, doing damage. Is it the other person's fault? And if so, do you expect them to pay for the damage?


First, I will answer as if there are no laws. If they both know your scenario to be fully accurate, then I expect they will share this cost. Financial loss to each, which ironically increases the odds of incurring one, if their is never just one liable party. They key, however, is whether they can both somehow know the dragging boat was so perfectly set. They can't, not even the dragging boat owner.

On the second hand, this is where law becomes form over function. If one boat has pictures of damage to their bow and the other to their stern, it will be clear who dragged into whom. Further, there is no way to prove and no way for a court to determine that the dragging boat was so perfectly set.

The distribution of fault may be specific to a given jurisdiction's tort laws, but the dragging boat is going to pay.

While I think you disagree, I believe it should be this way. Without this assignment of liability, no one would have any incentive to avoid damaging others property. Before anyone goes off the deep end on human nature, I will quickly add that I think most people would still go out of their way to avoid it. Nevertheless, I can literally point to the boats/operators that would ping pong off every boat in our marina, if they had no liability for "accidentally" doing so. The point is, no one can know what is an accident and what is lack of diligence. Much clearer to determine who damaged whom.

A question back to you. The occasion I mentioned above, where I received $7k in damage, was at 4am in a mooring field. I was asleep. The current in this mooring field gets up to 4 knots. An upstream boat broke free of their mooring, drifted downstream and collided with us. The marina's insurance policy covered the full repair of both boats, as the marina was liable for the failure. There was nothing obviously wrong with the gear and it was properly set, just like your anchor scenario. Do you think I should have had to pay my own repairs?



> OK, what if instead of a boat hitting yours and causing damage, it is a tree? Is it the tree's fault?


The law makes this a bit more complicated. If the owner of that tree does not exercise some defined degree of diligence, they will be liable for it. The sticky part is proving they didn't. It will be substantially easier to say you didn't properly set your anchor, then it would be that you didn't prevent a tree from falling.

Flip the scenario around. A fuel or oil line leaks into your bilge and you accidentally pump it overboard and pollute the environment. Should that not be your liability?

Keep in mind, my assertion that financial risk is higher than you think, is not based on what we think should be the liability, but what actually is the liability under the practical application of law.

------------

On a side note, because I'm aboard on my iPad and quoting threads is a PITA, I just want to add one point to your disagreement on how probabilities work. Here's what I'm getting at. Even the 1:200 probability is based upon a period of time. It's the cumulative odds that you may be hit over the course of the year. Your odds of being hit on any given day are less likely. Anytime minute, even less. How about any given second? If you take every time based probability and break it down to a small enough number of occurances (micro seconds) it would indeed approach zero, but overall we know that 1 in 200 boats are actually hit over the course of the year (yes, more in some places, less in others). The odds become more likely with time/occurance. They will grow as the years pass.

As I said above, the odds that you never see a tails (let's say that is the financial loss occurance) at each coin flip are 50%. But what are the odds that you never see tails at all, if you flip the coin 10 times? It's 50% at each occurance, but not over all ten.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Thanks Minnewaska, I appreciate your thoughtful responses here. I think these scenarios illustrate the challenge of living in a community of others. 

In my anchor scenario, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in real life, one can perform all the proper due diligence, can achieve the legal requirement of doing what a reasonable person aught to do, yet still have a poor outcome. This is commonly called an accident. It's no one's fault, but one boat certainly does move and the other does not. The law is a blunt instrument to mediate human interactions. I prefer your first option, but recognize its limitations.

And even though you ask not to go off the deep end of human nature when it comes to the lack of financial incentives, the fact is (from actual research into human nature ) most people would continue to behave well. Financial incentives, or the assignment of liability, is not major factors in the motivation of most people. 

In your moor drag event, I assume when you say the boat broke free of the mooring, you mean the mooring chain snapped. This suggests inadequate maintenance of the chain or mooring connection. It's hard not to see how the marina was not at fault, which is clearly what they thought as well.

The tree example gets into the "act of god" stuff, which is basically a way of saying we can't blame anyone. (It's no one's tree ... wilderness) I was thinking about this as a parallel to my anchor scenario. When someone has undertaken all reasonable steps to ensure their vessel's safety, yet something still happens, shouldn't that be considered equivalent to a no-fault situation? 

But all this is very academic (to use your term). To get back to the topic at hand, I guess it comes down to one's need for security and certainty. If one needs a high level of certainty, then the real world can appear a scary place. Lots of things can happen out there, and much of it is out of our control. If one is comfortable living with uncertainty, then the world doesn't seem that bad.


----------



## caberg

MikeOReilly said:


> OK, what if instead of a boat hitting yours and causing damage, it is a tree? Is it the tree's fault?


Of course it's not the tree's fault. That's just silly. It's the fault of the property owner who failed to properly maintain his trees. Normal, healthy trees do not just fall over.* Tree damage liability claims are made all the time.

* The above-mentioned "act of god" being a narrow exception in hurricanes, tornadoes, and such.


----------



## MikeOReilly

caberg said:


> Of course it's not the tree's fault. That's just silly. It's the fault of the property owner who failed to properly maintain his trees. Normal, healthy trees do not just fall over.* Tree damage liability claims are made all the time.
> 
> * The above-mentioned "act of god" being a narrow exception in hurricanes, tornadoes, and such.


It's funny how similar we are on this forum, yet how different. When I think of a tree that might land on my boat, I assume the tree (and I) am in the wilderness somewhere. No one "owns" the tree. My default is not private ownership.


----------



## Waterrat

Mike 

I believe your perspective is more a product of your environment. If I recall accurately you lived in Thunder Bay Ontario surrounded by lots of the Queens Land. You also enjoyed wilderness tripping by canoe. 

I have also spend a lot of time in canoe and kayak. One scenario all back county folks should consider are any trees, rocks or floods going to affect my canoe, tent or camp. Hence why your tree is on public land. Much of the US and most of Europe are quite far from extensive public lands. Most people spend very little time in the wild public places in the Americas. In fact the true "wilds" can be rather hard to find.


----------



## caberg

MikeOReilly said:


> It's funny how similar we are on this forum, yet how different. When I think of a tree that might land on my boat, I assume the tree (and I) am in the wilderness somewhere. No one "owns" the tree. My default is not private ownership.


Oh ya, that one's one you. Shouldn't have anchored under that tree that was about to fall. (By the way, how often do you anchor in the wilderness?)


----------



## MikeOReilly

Waterrat said:


> Mike
> 
> I believe your perspective is more a product of your environment. If I recall accurately you lived in Thunder Bay Ontario surrounded by lots of the Queens Land. You also enjoyed wilderness tripping by canoe.
> 
> I have also spend a lot of time in canoe and kayak. One scenario all back county folks should consider are any trees, rocks or floods going to affect my canoe, tent or camp. Hence why your tree is on public land. Much of the US and most of Europe are quite far from extensive public lands. Most people spend very little time in the wild public places in the Americas. In fact the true "wilds" can be rather hard to find.


I used to live up north, in Thunder Bay. Left there a year ago. Now live on the boat, or other rootless places during the cold months. Have been in Lake Ontario this past season, mostly exploring the Thousand Islands. Even here there is plenty of semi-remote anchoring to be had ... you just have to (dare to) step off the beaten path.



caberg said:


> Oh ya, that one's one you. Shouldn't have anchored under that tree that was about to fall. (By the way, how often do you anchor in the wilderness?)


Yes, it's on me. But why? B/c there's no one to sue or hold liable? The tree displayed as much negligence as my hypothetical dragging anchored boat. It was an accident.

I almost always anchor in wild or semi-wild areas. Even here on heavily populated Lake Ontario it's possible to get into the wilds.


----------



## Waterrat

I guess our definition of the wilds vary. Hard to go too far from a road, or plane. Everywhere is trodden with people. Sure i can go places with out people but I am not sure I have ever been somewhere I can not see a sign of people and their drastic influence on the environment. Trash on the ground, lumbered trees, car noise, boat noise, plane noise, invasive plants, and destroyed ecosystems. There are very few wilds in this world. Some think central park in New York is Wilds. Some think Northern Baffin Island is the wilds. It is all relative. Camping on Islands in the North Channel of Huron and circumnavigating in nothing but sandals seems wild but it is far from pristine or wild in my book.


----------



## Waterrat

Back to the topic I hate insurance and it often seems like a racquet. I do generally agree with Minn legally and intellectually but I prefer Mikes sediments and vision of how it should be and generally is. Some aspect of having insurance is about risk tolerance and some is about assets at risk. If I owned a 50K sailboat I would be much less likely to pay for full insurance then If I owned a million dollar sailboat. If my net worth is say 100K vs 10 million I am less likely to insure. Many lawyers want the big pay out and my 100K assets would be hard to get especially if I took due diligence and was not negligent. Risk yes but less of a risk. 

Mike I recall you worried about possible medical issue while traveling through good old USA. I pointed out travel insurance. Did you get some? There are times where the potential for risk is worth the insurance and others where it is not. Most importantly we must be aware of what we are risking and willing to accept the consequence to our actions. From what I have read Mike and Minn probably have that part taken care of.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Waterrat said:


> I guess our definition of the wilds vary. Hard to go too far from a road, or plane. Everywhere is trodden with people. Sure i can go places with out people but I am not sure I have ever been somewhere I can not see a sign of people and their drastic influence on the environment. Trash on the ground, lumbered trees, car noise, boat noise, plane noise, invasive plants, and destroyed ecosystems. There are very few wilds in this world. Some think central park in New York is Wilds. Some think Northern Baffin Island is the wilds. It is all relative. Camping on Islands in the North Channel of Huron and circumnavigating in nothing but sandals seems wild but it is far from pristine or wild in my book.


So true WR. It's why I use the term "semi-wild". True wilderness as you describe is becoming more rare. But it's still out there. Point your bow north to Lake Superior. Much of the Canadian shores are still wild. Put 20 miles out of the few urban areas and it is not uncommon to travel for weeks without seeing another person. I miss it dearly.

Of course, even here humanity's fingerprints can be seen. There truly is no place on this planet that is untouched by our species. Still, it's pretty close to the real thing. Go north!

BTW, this is why we're planning to head for Newfoundland next season (meant to get there this season, but diesel problems kept us in Lake Ontario), instead of taking the normal route down through the Erie Canal and then the ICW. I really have little interest visiting urban black.



Waterrat said:


> Mike I recall you worried about possible medical issue while traveling through good old USA. I pointed out travel insurance. Did you get some? There are times where the potential for risk is worth the insurance and others where it is not. Most importantly we must be aware of what we are risking and willing to accept the consequence to our actions. From what I have read Mike and Minn probably have that part taken care of.


My spouse and I travelled via small motorcycle through your wonderful country last winter. We were in the US for ~5 months, and did purchase _patch-them-up-and-ship-them-home_ medical travel insurance. I assess the risk here to be significant enough to need insurance. In most other countries we will pay as we go, but the US's medical costs are way too high.


----------



## robert sailor

MikeOReilly said:


> So true WR. It's why I use the term "semi-wild". True wilderness as you describe is becoming more rare. But it's still out there. Point your bow north to Lake Superior. Much of the Canadian shores are still wild. Put 20 miles out of the few urban areas and it is not uncommon to travel for weeks without seeing another person. I miss it dearly.
> 
> Of course, even here humanity's fingerprints can be seen. There truly is no place on this planet that is untouched by our species. Still, it's pretty close to the real thing. Go north!
> 
> BTW, this is why we're planning to head for Newfoundland next season (meant to get there this season, but diesel problems kept us in Lake Ontario), instead of taking the normal route down through the Erie Canal and then the ICW. I really have little interest visiting urban black.
> 
> My spouse and I travelled via small motorcycle through your wonderful country last winter. We were in the US for ~5 months, and did purchase _patch-them-up-and-ship-them-home_ medical travel insurance. I assess the risk here to be significant enough to need insurance. In most other countries we will pay as we go, but the US's medical costs are way too high.


Common Mike, good old USA isn't that expensive for medical. I had a motorcycle accident in the USA around 6 years ago. I was in the hospital for 20 hours. My wife flew down immediately and got me on the plane back to Canada. I was hurt, broken leg, broken back and lots of other stuff but other than a temp cast and MR I s all the surgery was done in Canada. My bill for 20 hours was $47,000 dollars. You are smart to have insured yourself, that place is nuts on medical costs.


----------



## Waterrat

robert sailor said:


> Common Mike, good old USA isn't that expensive for medical. I had a motorcycle accident in the USA around 6 years ago. I was in the hospital for 20 hours. My wife flew down immediately and got me on the plane back to Canada. I was hurt, broken leg, broken back and lots of other stuff but other than a temp cast and MR I s all the surgery was done in Canada. My bill for 20 hours was $47,000 dollars. You are smart to have insured yourself, that place is nuts on medical costs.


I would guess that the 47K you spent 6 years ago has doubled. Insurance companies, hospitals and drug companies run the show. You all have it wrong up there. Your health care system is about making people healthy. In the USA the goal of our health care system is to make money. We have also done a good job making a money on prisons and taking away money from schools. The true capitalists have been struggling with the K-12 system but have done very well with the for profit universities. Someday you Canadians will understand that our system is the best in the world. Don't you see how those high cost health insurance makes us have more freedom.

I have spent quite a bit of time exploring the norther and southern shores of Lake Superior. It is pretty close to wild lands as can be found in these times. No doubt a special place. Far from pristine but still spectacular. Newfoundland will be a special place to explore.

When ever someone mentions Newfoundland I remember a trip to Ontario where some friends and I headed to the local general store for supplies on a cold rainy day. There was a one stop gas station, restaurant, grocery store, bait shop next to the beer/ liquor store. The only place for many kilometers. While having lunch the waitress made some remark about Newfies. We being from Michigan had no knowledge of Newfie. She explain that some Canadians think Newfies short for Newfoundlander's are a sort of joke for dumb folks. She told us a joke that closely resembled the classic nazie propaganda from WWII spread through Hollywood about the Polish. Me being partially of Polish decent and practicing many culture traditions was quite aware of the various polish jokes abound. We switched out the Polish for Newfie and had a bunch of locals on the floor in tears from our old to us Polish jokes. I don't think I have ever been funnier to a group of folks in my life. Good times. For all the Newfies out there I mean no disrespect and would love to visit you all someday. In fact I might be moving to Canada after November 8th depending on how things work out down here.


----------



## Arcb

There are definitely some pretty remote places on Eastern Lake Superior. 

About 5 years ago I was tasked with taking a 60' fishing trawler up to Thunder Bay. During my voyage planning I discovered I couldn't take the Eastern shoreline because I lacked the fuel range and my fuel range was significant. I ended up taking the Marquette/Keewana/Isle Royale route because of the fuel stop in Houghton/Hancock.

I think that Eastern shore of Superior qualifies as Wilderness by most definitions. I agree wilderness can be pretty hard to find on Lake Ontario, frustratingly so. The best wilderness is actually out in the middle of the lake itself, even there you have to be careful not to get run down by a freighter. 

Depending on Mike's route to Newfoundland, he might see some very deep wilderness. There is not much along the North Shore of the Gulf of St Lawrence, not much at all. Anticosti Island and the sorounding wilderness is a cold, lonely, remote place IMO. It should be a very interesting trip if he goes that way, I would love to do that route in a sailboat.

Up there, insurance coverage would be the least of my worries if something went wrong. Getting myself back to civilization alive would be my only concern if I lost a boat in that area.


----------



## Waterrat

Ones definition of wilderness varies. How long is a line? What is the best sailboat? etc. I must admit knowing my natural history makes the degradation of our so called wild lands seem glaringly obvious. It erodes my enjoyment of relatively spectacular and special places. I should add the natural history knowledge adds enjoyment as well. 

Mike I will say the Urban wasteland can be fascinating from a sociological, architectural, engineering and cultural perspective. Careful about saying "Urban Black" it could be perceived as racist here in the USA. The US segregated most cities so when one says urban black it may have other connotations.


----------



## Don L

I insure things to protect myself, not you people.

The cost of insuring my boat is about the same as insuring my car (was) but my car was worth less than 1/10 of my boat. Which does that indicates is safer, boating or driving?

Yet everyone talks about how dangerous sailing is and no one really thinks twice about getting in their car.


----------



## colemj

Don0190 said:


> Yet everyone talks about how dangerous sailing is and no one really thinks twice about getting in their car.


That's because you never warned us when you were starting out on a drive&#8230;

Mark


----------



## Don L

colemj said:


> That's because you never warned us when you were starting out on a drive&#8230;
> 
> Mark


Sorry! I such have know from rules discussions how sailors can not follow rules and known from that they needed extra warnings. irateraft:


----------



## MikeOReilly

Waterrat said:


> Ones definition of wilderness varies. How long is a line? What is the best sailboat? etc. I must admit knowing my natural history makes the degradation of our so called wild lands seem glaringly obvious. It erodes my enjoyment of relatively spectacular and special places. I should add the natural history knowledge adds enjoyment as well.


Yes, our world has changed a lot under the unrelenting expansion of our species. Just wondering through the few remaining spots of old growth forest makes you realize how much we've lost. But there are still places that can make the heart beat faster. North and eastern Superior is one of those places.



Waterrat said:


> Mike I will say the Urban wasteland can be fascinating from a sociological, architectural, engineering and cultural perspective. Careful about saying "Urban Black" it could be perceived as racist here in the USA. The US segregated most cities so when one says urban black it may have other connotations.


Noted. Although it was a stupid auto-correct which I missed. I meant to say "urban bleck", but my auto keeps switching it.



Don0190 said:


> I insure things to protect myself, not you people.
> 
> The cost of insuring my boat is about the same as insuring my car (was) but my car was worth less than 1/10 of my boat. Which does that indicates is safer, boating or driving?
> 
> Yet everyone talks about how dangerous sailing is and no one really thinks twice about getting in their car.


Kinda what I've been saying. Thanks Don, and enjoy the new found freedom out there.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> ......In your moor drag event, I assume when you say the boat broke free of the mooring, you mean the mooring chain snapped. This suggests inadequate maintenance of the chain or mooring connection. It's hard not to see how the marina was not at fault, which is clearly what they thought as well.......


I'm glad you agree with the concept of fault, when it comes to the marina anyway. Let's say the boat in your scenario had an anchor failure of some kind? Swivel broke, road breaks, etc. Are they now to pay, like the marina for their broken equipment? The Captain is indeed responsible for their vessel's condition.

BTW, in my case, the pennant broke, the chain didn't break. Doubt it's possible to say whether it was marina maintenance or just dumb luck. That's my point. If one's boat caused the damage, there is going to be no way to determine whether it was bad luck or fault, therefore, they will suffer a financial loss and have to pay up.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> I'm glad you agree with the concept of fault, when it comes to the marina anyway. Let's say the boat in your scenario had an anchor failure of some kind? Swivel broke, road breaks, etc. Are they now to pay, like the marina for their broken equipment? The Captain is indeed responsible for their vessel's condition.
> 
> BTW, in my case, the pennant broke, the chain didn't break. Doubt it's possible to say whether it was marina maintenance or just dumb luck. That's my point. If one's boat caused the damage, there is going to be no way to determine whether it was bad luck or fault, therefore, they will suffer a financial loss and have to pay up.


Minn, I never said there was no such thing as fault or blame. I did/do say it's not always somebody else's fault, but clearly there are cases when it is. If my anchor dragged due to improper setting, or the rode or anchor snapped, then it would be on me. Inadequate maintenance is inexcusable.

But that's part of my point. You talk about financial incentives being of significant importance when it comes to motivating good behaviour. So. who would you rather be anchored down wind of: Someone with lots of insurance, hence little financial incentive to do what's right. Or, would you rather be anchored downwind of someone like me who faces the full financial implications of my choices.


----------



## Minnewaska

MikeOReilly said:


> Minn, I never said there was no such thing as fault or blame. I did/do say it's not always somebody else's fault, but clearly there are cases when it is. If my anchor dragged due to improper setting, or the rode or anchor snapped, then it would be on me. Inadequate maintenance is inexcusable.


Very well then. I'm saying that the occasions, such as whether you were properly set, will be difficult or impossible to prove. In fact, you couldn't actually know you were properly set. Therefore, in real life, you'll incur financial loss, if you drag. This entire line of discussion was only a distraction from the point that you'll have to pay and how likely that is. Don't I recall that you were suggesting accidents happen and the offending party shouldn't have to pay, but alas they do.



> But that's part of my point. You talk about financial incentives being of significant importance when it comes to motivating good behaviour. So. who would you rather be anchored down wind of: Someone with lots of insurance, hence little financial incentive to do what's right. Or, would you rather be anchored downwind of someone like me who faces the full financial implications of my choices.


No, I said the opposite. I specifically said that most are not motivated by financial incentive. However, I also noted there are enough that would take no care, should there be no consequence. Indeed, an insurance claim has financial consequence via increased premiums, or potentially becoming uninsurable, not to mention the deductible. Again, it's of no concern whether one has insurance at all. The point is that one will likely incur financial loss with more than a low risk, whether or not insured. Insurance is just a tool to limit the loss.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> Very well then. I'm saying that the occasions, such as whether you were properly set, will be difficult or impossible to prove. In fact, you couldn't actually know you were properly set. Therefore, in real life, you'll incur financial loss, if you drag. This entire line of discussion was only a distraction from the point that you'll have to pay and how likely that is. Don't I recall that you were suggesting accidents happen and the offending party shouldn't have to pay, but alas they do.


In law, is there not a concept of what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. If someone has taken all reasonable steps to, in this case, anchor properly, why do you then think there should be blame accessed? Use of proper anchor system is easy. If there were witnesses to how the anchor was set properly, and if you want, add some underwater photos of the anchor set properly. In these circumstances would you then allow that if a person drags it is one of these mythical "acts of god"? This is not such a far fetched scenario.



Minnewaska said:


> No, I said the opposite. I specifically said that most are not motivated by financial incentive. However, I also noted there are enough that would take no care, should there be no consequence. Indeed, an insurance claim has financial consequence via increased premiums, or potentially becoming uninsurable, not to mention the deductible. Again, it's of no concern whether one has insurance at all. The point is that one will likely incur financial loss with more than a low risk, whether or not insured. Insurance is just a tool to limit the loss.


Well, what you said was:

_



Without this assignment of liability, *no one* would have any incentive to avoid damaging others property. Before anyone goes off the deep end on human nature, I will quickly add that I think most people would still go out of their way to avoid it.

Click to expand...

_It's a somewhat contradictory statement, so I guess you're leaning more to the second part than the first (which I bolded). Regardless, I agree with both your statements about the risk of incurring _some_ financial loss, and that insurance is simple one tool to mitigate this risk. Almost everything we do carries a risk of some financial risk. I simply disagree (based on the data I can find) that the risk is as large as you seem to think it is. But like I said, there are definitely local variances. Perhaps you live in a particularly risky area. If so, insurance is probably a good idea.


----------



## MikeOReilly

This was posted by Capta in another thread, but since we're taking risk, I though it was particularly apt here. I hope he/she doesn't mind me linking it here:


----------



## Minnewaska

Mike, it seems you and I are simply repeating our positions in different ways and getting no where with each other. Let's leave it that you and I will agree to disagree.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Minnewaska said:


> Mike, it seems you and I are simply repeating our positions in different ways and getting no where with each other. Let's leave it that you and I will agree to disagree.


Agreed. But I thought we were moving on to the real difference here, which is one of perception. You perceive a greater risk than I to this whole boating thing. We both claim this perception is based in reality, but we both know how biased these claims can be. So it comes down to perception, (which is every bit as real BTW).

Perhaps the answer to the risk question parallels the "how much does it cost" question. If you are one who perceives life as generally being pretty safe, then you will carry this perception to sea with you. Much like (most) people won't change their spending habits just b/c they move onto a boat, so the cost of cruising is going to be similar to the cost of your land life.

Comes down to who we are, and how we've already lived our lives.


----------



## Minnewaska

Goodness sakes, Mike. You can't just let it go? I don't perceive financial risk, I've observed it and it's measurable over time. Perception of risk has no impact on outcome. It's not a lifestyle issue. Let's drop it.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Right. Got it. No need to say any more... Not referring to Minnewaska, or asking his/her input or comment, but I still would be interested in how other people view these questions of risk.

So much of the off-topic sailing/cruising discussion seems to me to orbit around issues of security. We get into heated discussions about anchors, guns, hatch locks, technology, money, insurance, investments, old age, retirement, keel design, old vs new, etc, etc, etc... It seems to me what we're really often talking about is levels of security.

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the subject. This is really what the original question of this thread is after: How "afraid" should we be of sailing?


----------



## outbound

M&M just wondering if you have any concern about judgement proof individuals. Someone who has little or no resources to make good on a claim.
In the specific example offered I would wish to be downwind ( current) of an insured, high end boat. They would both be incentivized to not damage their substantial investment or deal with the hassle of repairs or claims and have deep pockets ( the insurance company as well as their own) to make me whole if they damage my boat.
No Mike think you're a sweetie but can see even with good seamanship you damaging another boat where the expense of repair or replacement far exceeds your net worth.
Was anchored in anagada when a big rusty steel schooner anchored up wind. The ultimate dream occurred. A shapely young lady took off her clothes and dived off the very high poop deck. Climbed out and did it again and again. In spite of the scenery given the near derelict look of the vessel we moved. It was clear if that huge steel vessel dragged she would make mincemeat of us. I sincerely doubt they had money for insurance. Didn't even have money for a swimsuit &#55357;&#56836;

Mike been on the other side of this as well. Anchored to the left of the breakwater at Sag Harbor. If we dragged through that field easily could do damage that would put me back to work in the absence of insurance.


----------



## Waterrat

Minnewaska said:


> Goodness sakes, Mike. You can't just let it go? I don't perceive financial risk, I've observed it and it's measurable over time. Perception of risk has no impact on outcome. It's not a lifestyle issue. Let's drop it.


I agree.

I do agree there are things you can do to reduce your odds of damage requiring insurance. The hard part is the much bigger the list of risks we can't control.


----------



## Minnewaska

outbound said:


> M&M just wondering if you have any concern about judgement proof individuals. Someone who has little or no resources to make good on a claim........


I avoided getting too focused on this issue, as it could be perceived as personal. Several said they focus on damage they may cause to themselves, not the risk that another is damaged by them. I suspect some, that are arguing against risk and insurance, have few resources at risk and consider it will be partly the victim's problem, if they come up craps. Then again, who would openly admit that? 

It is true, if you have no assets, you probably won't be sued, even though you are liable. Unless, of course, you violate federal pollution laws. I think Federal judgements are hard to wipe out in bankruptcy.


----------



## Sal Paradise

outbound said:


> Was anchored in anagada when a big rusty steel schooner anchored up wind. The ultimate dream occurred. A shapely young lady took off her clothes and dived off the very high poop deck. Climbed out and did it again and again. In spite of the scenery given the near derelict look of the vessel we moved. It was clear if that huge steel vessel dragged she would make mincemeat of us. I sincerely doubt they had money for insurance. Didn't even have money for a swimsuit ��


Some risks are worth it!! 

True story - I once anchored right next to some sunbathing beauties. Their boat swung around and 

In a supreme act of gallantry, I moved my boat to preserve their modesty. Very slowly, and with the boy friend glaring, but I moved.


----------



## outbound

Unfortunately sailing and cruising does incur risk. I'm not wealthy to the degree I can dismiss the risks. Risk is higher for someone like me where there's no longer an income coming in and one of my major assets is my boat. If I injure a multimillion dollar boat or even my own and have to pay for losses out of my pocket I'm broke. The dream is over and the quality of life even if returning to land would be miserable. Yes there are some with greater resources where this is not a concern. But think for 99.9% of us the reality is it is a concern. Perhaps a few can self insure either because of a sustained income stream or the value of their vessel is such its loss can be absorbed or they are so wealthy it doesn't matter. But if you have a pot to pee in you stand to lose it from the other guys claim. Regardless if the pot is old rusty iron ( mine) or a beautiful porcelain antique chamber pot ( >1%ers). 
Yes this is personal. But not at the level one would think at first glance. Rather, other than the fortunate few it effects us all.


----------



## Waterrat

MikeOReilly said:


> So much of the off-topic sailing/cruising discussion seems to me to orbit around issues of security. We get into heated discussions about anchors, guns, hatch locks, technology, money, insurance, investments, old age, retirement, keel design, old vs new, etc, etc, etc... It seems to me what we're really often talking about is levels of security.
> 
> I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the subject. This is really what the original question of this thread is after: How "afraid" should we be of sailing?


Fear. It is about the most basic emotion written into our DNA. Most of your evolutionary tree survived to reproduce by figuring out the threats that exist in their lives. Those that survived tough times had fears for shelter, water, security, crossing the horizon. We all carry fears and we all find security and quiet in many ways. It takes time to think past our underlying deeply written fears. Some find security in absolute simplicity and others need it all and many never have it. What a great medium we have here to talk it all out with many perspectives. I assume most folks like me read way more then what they post. I have satisfied many fears reading about everyone else's fears.

Our genetic code encourages animals to warn others of danger. Plants even warn other plants of herbivores. Nature is filled with warning calls. Those that learned about danger from others reproduced while those that didn't died off. We all must listen to the warning call and asses risk. It is in our DNA and takes thought, reflection and empathy to quite the fear. Our general media is a pretty good reflection of humans need to listen to fear. Flashing fear and warning lights get clicks and we all must look read and pay attention. We all are starting and following different paths to the same source. Each of us may vary.


----------



## MikeOReilly

outbound said:


> M&M just wondering if you have any concern about judgement proof individuals. Someone who has little or no resources to make good on a claim.
> ... No Mike think you're a sweetie but can see even with good seamanship you damaging another boat where the expense of repair or replacement far exceeds your net worth.


It's a good question OB. And yes, I run the risk of causing damage beyond my means. But that is true of all of us. We all run the same risk. It's just that the benchmark is different.

Liability insurance is typically $2M, so in the scenario I mentioned earlier, if my boat (due to negligence) catches fire and burns down the marina, then that $2M ain't gonna go very far. So to if I plowed through a multimillion dollar yacht. I'm screwed, even with my liability insurance (which I do carry, BTW). So what's the answer? Buy more insurance I suppose ... or accept that life comes with risk, and no guarantees. Sometimes things work out badly.



outbound said:


> Was anchored in anagada when a big rusty steel schooner anchored up wind. The ultimate dream occurred. A shapely young lady took off her clothes and dived off the very high poop deck. Climbed out and did it again and again. In spite of the scenery given the near derelict look of the vessel we moved. It was clear if that huge steel vessel dragged she would make mincemeat of us. I sincerely doubt they had money for insurance. Didn't even have money for a swimsuit ��


Oh man ... some things are definitely worth the risk :devil


----------



## MikeOReilly

Waterrat said:


> Fear. It is about the most basic emotion written into our DNA. Most of your evolutionary tree survived to reproduce by figuring out the threats that exist in their lives. Those that survived tough times had fears for shelter, water, security, crossing the horizon. We all carry fears and we all find security and quiet in many ways. It takes time to think past our underlying deeply written fears. ...


Yes, exactly. We're also, not just to register fear, but to lean towards false positives rather than false negatives. In other words, our fear reaction is triggered easily, while our "just chill" reaction comes in much slower, and much less. It makes perfect sense when you're wondering if that rustle is a tiger, or just the wind. Those who were more sanguine about it did not pass on their genes.

This highly sensitized fear reaction is well understood, and exploited all the time in our modern world. Advertisers and politicians understand it well. So does the media ("if it bleeds, in leads") and religions. Those who want to sell us stuff, from the latest drug to the newest alarm systems, all prey on this fear reaction. And why not? It works!


----------



## Waterrat

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, exactly. We're also, not just to register fear, but to lean towards false positives rather than false negatives. In other words, our fear reaction is triggered easily, while our "just chill" reaction comes in much slower, and much less. It makes perfect sense when you're wondering if that rustle is a tiger, or just the wind. Those who were more sanguine about it did not pass on their genes.
> 
> This highly sensitized fear reaction is well understood, and exploited all the time in our modern world. Advertisers and politicians understand it well. So does the media ("if it bleeds, in leads") and religions. Those who want to sell us stuff, from the latest drug to the newest alarm systems, all prey on this fear reaction. And why not? It works!


I can think of a lot of reasons why not to use fear. The problem is the goal. The goal is always about money. If that is the goal then yes it makes sense. USA health care is partially so expensive because the goal is not health it is to make money. I am not saying no one shouldn't make money just that it should not be the goal.


----------



## Waterrat

outbound said:


> Unfortunately sailing and cruising does incur risk. I'm not wealthy to the degree I can dismiss the risks. Risk is higher for someone like me where there's no longer an income coming in and one of my major assets is my boat. If I injure a multimillion dollar boat or even my own and have to pay for losses out of my pocket I'm broke. The dream is over and the quality of life even if returning to land would be miserable. Yes there are some with greater resources where this is not a concern. But think for 99.9% of us the reality is it is a concern. Perhaps a few can self insure either because of a sustained income stream or the value of their vessel is such its loss can be absorbed or they are so wealthy it doesn't matter. But if you have a pot to pee in you stand to lose it from the other guys claim. Regardless if the pot is old rusty iron ( mine) or a beautiful porcelain antique chamber pot ( >1%ers).
> Yes this is personal. But not at the level one would think at first glance. Rather, other than the fortunate few it effects us all.


I know that when I pay insurance it is for my own protection of assets, and potential liability. My choice and my risk tolerance compel me to purchase insurance. I don't care if others buy it or not. Would you propose boat insurance be required similar to auto insurance? I understand marinas requiring it. Maybe it is my Libertarian part of me that says to each their own.

(I am not a Libertarian.)


----------



## robert sailor

Interesting subject. I think you can rationalize almost any scenario where you don't have enough insurance. If your boat catches on fire in a large marina you might need tens of millions in liability which I'm sure none of us carries.. Personally i think all c ruisers should carry a reasonable amount of liability insurance, its not that expensive and odds are you will never need it. Given a choice I would not anchor on top of a really expensive yacht. There are sailors out here that don't have a pocket to piss in and don't carry any liability insurance, which is their choice off course, you can sometimes tell by the boat and they are best avoided. The cruising community is no different than other communities, there are always outliers and after all freedom is supposed to be a big part of this lifestyle.. The problem is that many folks feel a need to evangelize their decisions as correct and look down on others that don't share their world view, kinda like religion.


----------



## outbound

Last two posts are a honest assessment of this issue. At the end of the day you must neither have a rose colored glasses view nor the sky is falling view and make the personal decision of what's right for you. To the extent we can allow the continuance of the few personal freedoms we have remaining agree this should not be mandatory. Also agree discussions are helpful when educational causing us to be aware of pitfalls or concerns that weren't on our radar. Hopefully not overly pedantic or evangelical. I continue to grow in my respect for others who present thinking not congruent to my own on this site. Thank you M&M.
Going through the registrations and contact lists on the safety gear plbs/epirbs etc. tonight. There's a point you just have to stop. Waste of time/money/effort. You can spend money on that stuff or the boat. But think it's foolish to not to at least think about where that point is for you. I stopped at one each for wife/me and the big one for the boat. Others have none or one in raft, one in boat and one for the 4-6 harnesses they carry. View insurance the same way. Don't think none is a great idea. See no reason for eight. But that's my choice. It may not be yours but it doesn't make you a bad person.


----------



## MikeOReilly

I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Yes ... finding the right balance between security and freedom seems to be the fulcrum that these discussions teeter on. We all have different needs, different experiences, different abilities. There is no right answer for everyone, and thank Dog for that!

Some people chase security to the detriment of freedom. In our culture and in the cruising context, this could mean they may work too long to afford the big boat, all the best tools, and the perfect pension. Retirement delivers freedom, but at the cost of years of life.

Others take the view that everything will always work out for the best. They leap without looking, and sometimes lose big time when they learn the Universe doesn't really care about them.

I think you guys are right. It's about balance, and finding what is right for you. Look at the situation. Look at the data. Make the best choice -- for you.

At a recent anchorage we made fast friends with two separate couples. One was on a solid, simple and beautiful _good old boat_. The other was on a new, tough, complex new boat. One was smaller than us, the other larger. The smaller boat housed an older couple who had cruised extensively. The other was planning to do the same (and I believe they will make it). One boat had all the safety and security systems one could dream of -- in duplicate. The other was simple and solid, but lacked much of the safety gear found on our other friends' boat.

Neither are Right, with capital "R". Both are right for themselves.


----------



## outbound

Mike you speak to a larger issue. The source of much contention here and probably the most common reason some get banned, some give up cruising and others flourish 
Remember the old Rolling Stones song " you can't always get what you want"? Well my dad was an advertising exec and had a permutation of that.. He said when selling anything even a toothbrush you sell to what they want ( even if you create that want) not what they need. Problem for sailors is they don't know what they need until after they been actively cruising for awhile and due to economics many decisions are irreversible. They also don't know what they want until they've been cruising for awhile as the experience of cruising makes that a continuously moving target. To confound things further features which are needs not just wants in one sphere conflict with needs in another.
Examples-
Mono v. multi- blue water multis ( Outremer, Catana, Rapido etc.) win out on speed and space. Cruising the world great. Cruising highly populated areas not so much. Dockage, hauls, even anchorage becomes problematic. Yes you leave the world of draft restriction to enter the world of space restriction. T docks are your friend. Have friends who owned a small Freedom. They go sailing for an hour or two at the drop of a hat. Go off cruising New England with a direction in mind not a destination. They kept the freedom leaving it on the hard and bought a 52' cf cat. Off to the carribean. Now back and the boat rarely leaves the dock. To much work to day sail. To scary to dock in a wind.
Same applies with old and new- old maybe be tried and true. Old may be beautiful. But old is slow. At any size has age decreases PHRF numbers fall. This is of little concern coastal cruising if you have no schedule demands or if you are long term cruising with two but if you need space to live or need three to allow sleep for passage that 125/d v. 175-200/d takes on a different meaning on multiple levels.
Then again complex v. simple- no genset, no watermaking, no AP, no AC etc. less to break and maintain. But at what point do you start to miss the house where these functions were assumed.
Point I'm trying to make is being dogmatic about any of this stuff is foolish. Any decision you make will be great in one situation and stupid in another. Effort should be spent in understanding the choices and trying to differentiate between wants and needs. That's the best you can do.


----------



## robert sailor

Good post. My first year cruising was an eye opener, very sweet sailing boat that was constantly breaking down. One day I was aboard a new friends steel boat with this ungainly looking windless (mine had just broken down)and asked him how many years it had been working well. He responded that it had always worked. All I could think about after that was how a practical boat was superior to a pretty boat when it came to cruising. We are on our 4th cruising boat and still don't have it nailed but closer. Over the years you get very opinionated and justly so as you have earned your opinion, it wasn't developed by Google it was developed by experience. Having said that, it's only your experience and may or may not be the same as other long time cruisers although you normally tend to share some similar opinions. There are very good reasons why experienced cruisers make the choices they do and those reasons vary a great deal. There are no best choices out there for everyone, it's just the nature of the beast. If you can keep an open mind (world's most difficult task) and try to put yourself in the other persons shoes you just may begin to understand why they have different thoughts than yours and why in their world those thoughts are just as legitimate. It's these differences that make these forums as interesting as they are from time to time. It's easy to have a discussion with experienced cruisers on topics of disagreement, almost impossible having the same discussion with an inexperienced Goggle master.


----------



## MikeOReilly

outbound said:


> Mike you speak to a larger issue. The source of much contention here and probably the most common reason some get banned, some give up cruising and others flourish
> Remember the old Rolling Stones song " you can't always get what you want"? Well my dad was an advertising exec and had a permutation of that.. He said when selling anything even a toothbrush you sell to what they want ( even if you create that want) not what they need. Problem for sailors is they don't know what they need until after they been actively cruising for awhile and due to economics many decisions are irreversible. ...
> 
> Point I'm trying to make is being dogmatic about any of this stuff is foolish. Any decision you make will be great in one situation and stupid in another. Effort should be spent in understanding the choices and trying to differentiate between wants and needs. That's the best you can do.


Yes, _wants vs needs._ We're trained in our consumerist society (desparately trying not to sound political here) to pursue wants. It's how our economy works now, so we're all surrounded by the messages to constantly acquire more. And you're so right about not really knowing what we need until we're off the dock for a while. It's why I usual answer those novice "I'm just starting, what should I do?" posts with some version of get a solid but older 25-32 foot boat and go cruising for a while. Only then will you start to understand what your actual needs are.

Unless resources are very large, most of us can't afford all our wants. But we can likely get all our needs (cue Rolling Stones music...). But you are Robert are so right ... my needs are not the same as yours. Learning what each of us needs is an individual task, but for most of us it also involves serious de-programming from our culture of more, More, MORE!



robert sailor said:


> ...We are on our 4th cruising boat and still don't have it nailed but closer. ... There are very good reasons why experienced cruisers make the choices they do and those reasons vary a great deal. There are no best choices out there for everyone, it's just the nature of the beast.


Good point. Needs are different from person to person, but also change over time, and can depend on the place. All we can do is keep trying to learn. And I would say, look with great scepticism at every new "must have" tool that comes along. Especially ones wrapped up in the profit motive.



robert sailor said:


> If you can keep an open mind (world's most difficult task) and try to put yourself in the other persons shoes you just may begin to understand why they have different thoughts than yours and why in their world those thoughts are just as legitimate.


Ah, now you hit on the hardest thing to do. Research shows humans have a hard time keeping an open mind. It's why our sports and our politics can become so brutal. We are tribal people who, once we've picked a team, or made a choice, find it very difficult to seriously consider the other side. It can be done with effort and practice (although I'm not very good at it )


----------



## Don L

I get boat stuff when I decide I want them more than the money it takes to have them. I just don't understand why it needs to more complicated than that.

Also it doesn't matter to me if others don't what the same things on their boat as I want on mine.


----------



## Waterrat

Excellent points above gentlemen. 

Sounds like we are all driven by some very basic biological survival needs. With thought and reflection we can over come and focus our basic coding. The brains malleability is quite amazing. 

I was having a conversation the other day with family. My step mother needed to book all lodging and have every location planned before traveling. My wife and I might have the first night book depending on arrival. I will have a list of ideas but like to see where the adventure takes us. Not booking anything with fluid plan is crazy to her as booking and planning everything. Neither way is wrong but both ways overcome each of our fears. 

I have found that when my life is simple and I have less stuff I am more care free and happier. Maybe all those monks are on to something. Well minus the dogma and what not.


----------



## jmf7654987

I think it follows that sailors have to know more about operating a boat than a motor boat operator, and so will be less likely to get into trouble, and are probably more paranoid in general. But it would be interesting to know if the people injured on sailboats are the boat owners or the guests. I always wear a life jacket and never drink while sailing. I can't always convince my adult guests to keep a life jacket on, and can't convince them all to never have a beer.


----------



## AutumnWare

This makes sense to me. In almost any situation, an assumption of safety contributes to errors in judgment. If you're in a larger boat that requires more attention to detail to operate in conditions that feel more dangerous in waters where help may be less available, you're going to be on your toes. If you're in a small boat in protected waters, you're more likely to allow over-confidence to lull you into inattentiveness. It's true of cars, too. The more comfortable Americans have become driving, the higher the death rates. 

I imagine situational awareness is at the root of both very safe and very unsafe sailing (and almost everything else).

We live in New Orleans, and when our teen walks anywhere, we give him specific things to report back on: How many people did you pass? How many stores were closed? etc. He thinks it's kind of Jason Bourne-fun, but it actually keeps him aware of his surroundings, which is just as important in a city as it is at sea.


----------



## ColoGuy

For those who never learned to swim, it is natural to feel great fear of the water. I doubt those people feel completely comfortable while sailing. 

Some people derive great comfort from knowing that their guns will allow them to defend themselves. I'm simply as aspiring sailor so I don't know myself. Others tell me that authorities will rip up your floor boards and find any firearms before jailing you for the offense. Others also exaggerate especially when they know they can get away with it. 

As for the question, "How afraid should we be?"....I don't think there should be any fear in any situation unless there are extraordinary things occurring. Such as losing a rudder during a savage storm or being boarded by pirates.

Don't most active sailboats and sailors spend about 90-95% of their time docked or moored anyway?


----------



## travlin-easy

adamsaquatics said:


> Don't most active sailboats and sailors spend about 90-95% of their time docked or moored anyway?


Not in my case, my boat spends about 80 percent of it's time underway, at least when the weather is warmer. Of course, right now, in the People's Republic of Maryland, it's still on the hard until mid April. The day after it hits the water it will be underway to saint somewhere.

Gary


----------



## MikeOReilly

adamsaquatics said:


> For those who never learned to swim, it is natural to feel great fear of the water. I doubt those people feel completely comfortable while sailing.
> 
> Some people derive great comfort from knowing that their guns will allow them to defend themselves. I'm simply as aspiring sailor so I don't know myself. Others tell me that authorities will rip up your floor boards and find any firearms before jailing you for the offense. Others also exaggerate especially when they know they can get away with it.
> 
> As for the question, "How afraid should we be?"....I don't think there should be any fear in any situation unless there are extraordinary things occurring. Such as losing a rudder during a savage storm or being boarded by pirates.
> 
> Don't most active sailboats and sailors spend about 90-95% of their time docked or moored anyway?


Interesting grouping of thoughts Adam. All sailors should fear falling overboard. Swimmer or not, the odds of recovery once you've fallen in diminish rapidly. Falling in is simply not an option while underway. Perhaps a non-swimmer would be ever more cautious, which might be a good thing.

Guns &#8230; from most reports they are a PITA when travelling to countries other than the USA. There are customs and bureaucratic hurdles when you arrive at the border of virtually all other developed nation. So you deal with those (including being barred entirely from some places), or you hide them and face the risk of losing your vessel if they are found, and perhaps spending time in the local jail. My attitude is simply not to go to places where I think I need a gun. The world is a big place, and the pirate areas are well known and very few. So don't go there.

Sailing is very safe, although occasionally terrifying. I think having a small amount of nervousness or fear for most sailing activists is good. Keeps you on your toes. Prevents you from becoming complacent. Mother Nature is big and beautiful, but she'll kill you in an instant if you take her for granted or disrespect her. I am nervous every time we haul anchor or leave the dock (although I'm usually more nervous as we approach a dock ). I think this is a good thing. Lets me know I'm not taking things for granted.


----------



## SanderO

Non swimmers should wear a harness especially true on deck or when heeled over.


----------



## roverhi

SanderO said:


> Non swimmers should wear a harness especially true on deck or when heeled over.


Sailing solo, sailing in challenging weather and just if you want to be safe is a time to wear a harness and alway have it clipped on to jack lines or padeyes.. Harnesses are to keep you safe, doesn't matter whether you can swim or not. Don't always wear a life vest with harness especially sailing here in Kona but do when I'm solo.


----------



## MikeOReilly

We're a sailing couple. Both us can swim (her a lot better than me ). We both have auto-inflate lifejackets with built in harnesses. We wear the lifejackets while underway b/c they are so comfortable and innocuous that it makes sense to have them all the time. I wouldn't be wearing a normal lifejacket all the time, but I barely notice the inflatable.

We use the harnesses (with jacklines and tethers) when conditions dictate OR whenever we're on passage under rotating watch system where one of us is running the boat while the other is off, likely down below asleep. In the latter situation the rule on our boat is you don't leave the cabin unless you're clipped in, no matter the conditions. The consequence of falling overboard with the boat on auto and the other crew member asleep down below is simply too horrible to contemplate.


----------



## RegisteredUser

MikeOReilly said:


> ....
> Guns &#8230; from most reports they are a PITA when travelling to countries other than the USA. There are customs and bureaucratic hurdles when you arrive at the border of virtually all other developed nation. .....d.


I'm a pro gun guy, but....
There are some countries where you 'check-in' and are required (legally) to give up and have your firearm/s 'safely' kept 'under protection'.
Your 'stored' firearms do not follow you as you sail around that paradise, so you have to go get it back...


----------



## Arcb

There are parts of Canada that I wouldn't personally wouldn't cruise without a fire arm. Northern Labrador, far Northern Ontario or far Northern Quebec all come to mind. Polar bears are scary.

At least a 30-30 or a 12 gauge, I don't think would be out of place in Polar Bear country. Especially if I had kids or a dog with me.


----------



## ColoGuy

Large bears are dangerous when they get surprised. It is hard to surprise a polar bear and attacks are quite rare. How do I know? Recently studied bear attacks.

Stopping a hungry polar bear? The state of Alaska considers the very large .375 H&H Magnum to be the minimum caliber for the brown bear threat...they are much smaller than polar bears.

I sure didn't expect to be reading about bears on a sailing forum....



Arcb said:


> There are parts of Canada that I wouldn't personally cruise without a fire arm. Northern Labrador, far Northern Ontario or far Northern Quebec all come to mind. Polar bears are scary.
> 
> At least a 30-30 or a 12 gauge, I don't think would be out of place in Polar Bear country. Especially if I had kids or a dog with me.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> There are parts of Canada that I wouldn't personally cruise without a fire arm. Northern Labrador, far Northern Ontario or far Northern Quebec all come to mind. Polar bears are scary.
> 
> At least a 30-30 or a 12 gauge, I don't think would be out of place in Polar Bear country. Especially if I had kids or a dog with me.


Yes. Guns are useful tools in certain circumstances. If I decide to head very far up the Labrador coast I will look into getting a large gauge gun. A friend/fellow cruiser went up to Nain and said he hired a guide-with-gun every time they went ashore.


----------



## travlin-easy

Adam, a Smith and Wesson, 12-gauge, sabo,t rifle slug will stop a cape buffalo from distances to 100 feet dead in their tracks. This is well documented. I'm more than confident that it easily stop a polar or brown bear equally as well. The only bear I ever shot, a mid size black bear, I took out with a single shot from a 7.62mm Russian with a 180-grain jacketed projectile. I dropped the bear at 80 yards and it tipped the scales at just under 200-pounds dressed weight. It tasted awful and I vowed I would never shoot another, and that was 50 years ago.

Gary


----------



## krisscross

Screw sailing in waters where I can get boarded by a polar bear...


----------



## ColoGuy

Wanted: freeboard that thwarts polar bear boarding.

That would raise some eyebrows.



krisscross said:


> Screw sailing in waters where I can get boarded by a polar bear...


----------



## MikeOReilly

We've had a few black bear close encounters while cruising (we'd see many while canoe tripping). This first one was when we were anchored close to shore. Hard to tell, but this bear is tearing apart a log looking for grubs I assume. It was perhaps 50 feet away from our boat's stern as we swung towards shore. Gave us a good show, and didn't even notice us. But it got me thinking that despite our boat's relatively high freeboard, that it would probably be able to climb up if it wanted to.










We came across this other bear as it was swimming across a fairly wide bay. It was about a 1/2 mile off shore at this point, and was headed to the other side another 1/2 mile.


----------



## CalebD

The bear essentials of sailing.


----------



## AJC506

First the Bears came for our schools and I said nothing. Then they came for our boats...


----------



## ColoGuy

When the bears came for me, there was nobody left.....

Should have been smart gringos and staged a pre-emptive strike!


----------



## Arcb

My first trip to the North was a real eye opener. I was working as a seasonal boat captain right after college and was laid off for the winter. Somehow I managed to luck out getting a one off job delivering a 1 ton truck from Toronto to around Sandy Lake via the winter/ice road.

The plan was for me to meet up with a local guide a few hours north of Dryden who was taking up a 5 ton truck with a cherry picker. We would have to stop along the road every so often to fix some issue with the vehicles or to have a meal. I noticed the other guy never got out of his vehicle with out his rifle. If he got out to take a leak 5' from his truck with the door open, he took his rifle with him. 

After a while, I got curious and asked him about it, and it turned out that he was equally shocked by my habit of getting out of the truck without one. He attributed my lack of common sense to me being from Toronto- fair enough.

Ever since then, I've observed that you don't see very many parties north of a certain latitude where somebody in the party isn't armed.

I wasn't really thinking about being boarded by wildlife, I was more thinking about going ashore for hikes and picnics, but I suppose it's possible.

I watched a good YouTube video about a couple who had trailered their trailer sailor up to Goose Bay, and then took the coastal freighter up to Nain. They then sailed from Nain, over 200 miles up through the Labrador Sea to the Torngat Mountains and back. It was something like a 6 week cruise.

Their boat was pretty small and pretty vulnerable looking. They beached it every night to camp. I'm not sure what kind of boat it was, it looked a little bit like a Precision 18 (correction, it was a Sunfish Daysailer 17), but I don't think that's what it was.

For that kind of cruising wild life would definitely make me nervous.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> ...The plan was for me to meet up with a local guide a few hours north of Dryden who was taking up a 5 ton truck with a cherry picker. We would have to stop along the road every so often to fix some issue with the vehicles or to have a meal. I noticed the other guy never got out of his vehicle with out his rifle. If he got out to take a leak 5' from his truck with the door open, he took his rifle with him.
> 
> After a while, I got curious and asked him about it, and it turned out that he was equally shocked by my habit of getting out of the truck without one. He attributed my lack of common sense to me being from Toronto- fair enough.
> 
> Ever since then, I've observed that you don't see very many parties north of a certain latitude where somebody in the party isn't armed.


Having lived in northern Ontario for 17 years, I'd say there is little to fear from black bears. Polar bears only inhabit the northern coasts of Hudson Bay of Ontario, and they are few. Ontario doesn't have grizzlies/brown bears.

I've never been to Sandy Lake, but I have canoed through major sections of northern Ontario, including paddling to Moosonee/Moose Factory on the coast of Hudson Bay. I've never carried a gun to deal with wildlife, and have never needed one despite numerous close encounters. Black bears don't typically see humans as prey. Most attacks are due to us doing something stupid or unlucky.

Polar bears, and to a somewhat lesser extent gizzlies/brown bears, are different. They will see humans as lunch.


----------



## Arcb

MikeOReilly said:


> I've never been to Sandy Lake, but I have canoed through major sections of northern Ontario, including paddling to Moosonee/Moose Factory on the coast of Hudson Bay. I've never carried a gun to deal with wildlife, and have never needed one.


No, I have never needed one either in Ontario. And no, there aren't polar bears around Sandy Lake too far inland. I think he more perceived it as an essential survival tool in case he some how got separated from his truck than specifically for defence.

However, if I was sailing on Hudson's Bay or around Nain I think I would want to bring one.


----------



## peikenberry

I worked in the Office of Boating Safety for over 20 years. Those are the people who compile those statistics. They are interesting statistics, But other than the number of fatalities dropping dramatically since they began keeping them in the early 70's, nothing much has changed as far as type of boats involved, except the addition of Personal water craft in the 90's. We used to say that if you could eliminate canoes/kayaks and jon boats, you could reduce the fatalities by 25%. But that's not likely to happen. And you need to look beyond the stats to see what has happened. In my first years in boating safety I was tasked with reviewing boating accidents, and determining causes and remedies. I reviewed hundreds of accidents over a three year period. Here a some conclusions.

Sailboats have always been a small number of fatalities and accidents. Why? lots of reasons. As mentioned, speed is one. Other than really high tech Americas Cup type boats, sailboats just don't go very fast. Speed kills. Lower the speed and you lower the number of fatalities. But another factor is simply most of us (I include myself, because I started sailing when I was about 12) took some sort of class or training and safety was stressed. Another is that in most youth sailing programs wearing a lifejacket is required and it becomes a lifelong habit. Plus we learn how to get ourselves out of things like a capsize. 

Another factor here is simply that most people who get into sailing as an adult realize they need some training. Sailboats are not turn key boats. There are literally thousands of people who buy a powerboat and all they ask is "how do I start they engine?" In many states now there is a boating course or exam requirement, and that is good, but there is still no requirement to actually get hands on training on how to operate a powerboat. 

Drinking. It is much more common for powerboats to operated by someone under the influence, than sailboats. why? the three B's, Boats Booze, babes (sorry ladies) For some reason powerboats with big engines are associated with those three. Just go look at a forum like PerformanceBoats.com. Not so with sailboats (yes we keep the boats and babes part, LOL) but most sailors know that the booze comes after the sail, not during or before. (By the way, these are my own opinions, not those of the Coast Guard)

Also, there are many safety standards for powerboats,such as safe horsepower, safe loading, flotation, and the list goes on. But there are practically none for sailboats. Why is that? Because, as I said, sailboats are simply not involved much in serious accidents. A collision in a sailboat rarely involves more than minor damage ad rarely involves injuries or death. Federal requirements for boats are based on demonstrated need, and the need for that in sailboats simply cannot be demonstrated. 

So Sailing is relatively safe, and most of the serious accidents are because the operator put themselves in a dangerous situation such as sailing into massive storms, or attempting something they do not have the experience or training to tackle. Oddly enough, if you look at the Coast Guard statistics on rescues at sea where a person or persons were taken off of a sailboat because of the weather or high seas, the boat almost always survives just fine and is found later and returned to their owner. 

So keep on sailing. Of the many boating activities it is by far one of the safest.


----------



## twoshoes

peikenberry said:


> ...but most sailors know that the booze comes after the sail, not during or before.


I think someone needs to send that memo out again, because there are a whole lot of sailors out there that I don't think ever got it.


----------



## outbound

Been gone from here for awhile off cruising. See things much the same.
We carry no firearms. Reality is scenarios I've heard about from fellow cruisers are:
Quiet boarding while you're asleep- petty thief (dinghy etc.) or sudden assault by multiple armed vermin. If you think a hand gun would be of any benefit you are fooling yourself. Being caught with an Uzi or the like in the countries we've seen means a life behind bars. Even then unless you are sleeping with it under your pillow it's meaningless. Things move too fast. 
Catastrophes are usually a cascade of difficulties from little things. Currently in harbor fixing waterpump to genset. It goes on when there's no wind/sun to make water. Although we carry multiple flats of "survival" water it the kind of thing that really affects your life. Just like no food unless the propane stove works. Hence we carry survival food needing no heat or refrigeration. 
We are replacing the wire between ssb tuner and insulated backstay. Small thing but on passage it's needed to get Chris Parker although satphone is our backup. 
We are getting rid of splitter to improve AIS signal.
All little things but the kind of things that could cascade into big troubles. There's a stressor that doesn't go away " what did I forget? What didn't I do"?


----------



## cboscole

Interesting thread. When discussing the topic "fear" it is about one persons fear vs another persons bliss. We encounter fear as a natural protection instinct when we are uncomfortable with our surroundings. Fear can be debilitating and prevent one from acting promptly and properly to adjust to surroundings to keep them safe. Some say the only thing to fear is fear itself. A small amount of fear though can keep you alert and respectful of natures power in the ocean. I have had my knees shake when hiking on a cliff ledge to the point i had to crawl back....but when offshore one night I was the one who went on the foredeck to fix the roller furler, it had to be done and fear played no part but to keep me alert as waves pushed me into the lifelines. I am recalling my first offshore trip from PNW to Hawaii. We did all the usual safety precautions but I had one crew that insisted that the longer we stayed at sea the more the risk. This meant that he wanted to pound the boat to windward when we encountered a low pressure system just to keep us on the rum line. I disagreed, that it was safer to steer away and head off the wind for a day or two away from rough conditions until more favorable wind/waves would back us to our direction. Pounding to windward is hard on the boat and fatiguing to the crew and when people are tired is when accidents happen. The shock loading on the mast and rigging and keel is tremendous when the boat crashes and falls down off waves etc. Its no wonder racing boats are dismasted. but that happens to cruising boats for another reason: failing to adequately maintain standing rigging. There are times when going to windward is required, lee shore, or general prevailing winds etc. but otherwise the one thing that you can count on is change out there and going with the flow of wind/waves is always preferred and I believe safer. That may be the difference of philosophy between racers and cruisers. After 3 ocean crossings I am most concerned with collision floating objects debris, logs, docks, containers etc. and so slow down at night to minimize damage from impact and post vigilant day watches. It is when we become complacent that is dangerous. Anytime you get in the car you are depending on the other guy not to cross the center line etc.


----------



## peikenberry

> I think someone needs to send that memo out again, because there are a whole lot of sailors out there that I don't think ever got it


I didn't say "all" . One thing you learn in the military is that there is always that 10% (sometimes more) that doesn't get the word.


----------



## RegisteredUser

outbound said:


> ..... or sudden assault by multiple armed vermin. If you think a hand gun would be of any benefit you are fooling yourself.......


I'm firmly camped in the Fooling Yourself group.
You didn't list 12g.


----------



## MikeOReilly

peikenberry said:


> ...Sailboats have always been a small number of fatalities and accidents. Why? lots of reasons. As mentioned, speed is one. &#8230; Another factor here is simply that most people who get into sailing as an adult realize they need some training. Sailboats are not turn key boats. There are literally thousands of people who buy a powerboat and all they ask is "how do I start they engine?" In many states now there is a boating course or exam requirement, and that is good, but there is still no requirement to actually get hands on training on how to operate a powerboat.


I recall talking with a long-time Canadian Coast Guard member. We got talking SAR experience and he echoed your findings. He said it is rarely sailors that get into trouble. The vast majority of emergency calls come from powerboaters. When I asked why, he said (like you) that it was b/c sailors tend to be more skilled boaters.

My experience with booze on sailboats also agree with your observations. The cruisers I know do not drink while the boat is underway. The beer comes out once the hook is well set, or dock lines are secured, but never underway.



outbound said:


> We carry no firearms. Reality is scenarios I've heard about from fellow cruisers are:
> Quiet boarding while you're asleep- petty thief (dinghy etc.) or sudden assault by multiple armed vermin. If you think a hand gun would be of any benefit you are fooling yourself. Being caught with an Uzi or the like in the countries we've seen means a life behind bars. Even then unless you are sleeping with it under your pillow it's meaningless. Things move too fast.


This is consistent with what most cruisers say. They are mostly a useless tool &#8230; unless you're in polar bear country


----------



## RegisteredUser

MikeOReilly said:


> ....The vast majority of emergency calls come from powerboaters.......


1- buy it
2- have it fueled
3 - load cooler
4- see how fast she will go

Because it's easy is why


----------



## krisscross

Things usually go bad when I get complacent, cocky, push the envelope, take avoidable risks, or when I'm in a hurry. There always comes punishment for such behavior, sooner or later, and then we sober up, become more humble, more prudent, more respectful.
And that is not just in sailing. The whole life is like that.


----------



## RegisteredUser

krisscross said:


> Things usually go bad when I get complacent, cocky, push the envelope, take avoidable risks, or when I'm in a hurry. There always comes punishment for such behavior, sooner or later, and then we sober up, become more humble, more prudent, more respectful.
> And that is not just in sailing. The whole life is like that.


Good post.
I'll add fatigued to that list, for me.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

I am amazed and relieved that so far nobody has brought out the "DON'T YOU KNOW THIS IS AN OLD POST!!!" comments. Thank you all.


----------



## Tanski

I've never felt the need for a gun anywhere in Canada, Like Mike I've also paddled to Moose river also the Kootnay.
Done extensive back country camping and climbing in the Rockies which IS grizzly counry, seen plenty of them too!
With proper precautions never had a problem never even been worried. Hell in Banff we used to chase black bears out of our backyard on foot pelting them with rocks! Far more afraid of a moose!
The ONLY place I've ever really worried about my safety incedently was travelling the states and that was the people not the animals.
Only time I've EVER had a gun pointed at me was by a cop when I needed directions in San Jose California!
Canada has a huge gun culture, the deer hunt is almost a religious holiday, yet there aren't that many gun fatalities and those that happen are usually in the cities by scum bags with unregistered american handguns!
And yes we can own handguns legally, need a restricted weapons permit. There are serious rules regarding transport, storage and use, Locked box in the trunk of you car going to the range ONLY!
I myself used to own a number of guns. Coolest was a little Armalite .22 survival rifle that packed down into it's own stock No idea why my grandfater ever bought it.


----------



## Arcb

It's worth noting I was not talking about carrying a fire arm for protection from black bears or grizzly bears. When I said "far northern" I was referring to polar bear habitat.

A couple of interesting articles.

http://www.canada.com/parks+canada+permit+guns+polar+bear+territories/5067807/story.html

Polar protection: Parks Canada calls for law allowing shotguns in national parks - The Globe and Mail

Should firearms be allowed in Canada?s northern national parks? ? Eye on the Arctic


----------



## Tanski

Give it a few more years and Polar bears won't be a problem anymore, no sea ice = no bears.
Not a global warming nutcase, just an observation. Personally have other things to worry about before I die. Like paying my hydro bill in Ontario!


----------



## Arcb

Tanski said:


> no sea ice = no bears.
> Not a global warming nutcase, just an observation.


I believe that is exactly the problem.

Check out this National Geographic article. In one town the polar bears are getting so aggressive/opportunistic they had to cancel Halloween!

4 Ways Polar Bears Are Dealing With Climate Change

:angel


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> I believe that is exactly the problem.
> 
> Check out this National Geographic article. In one town the polar bears are getting so aggressive/opportunistic they had to cancel Halloween!


Yes, I've heard similar things happening in Churchill MB; polar bears being driven onto the land and having to seek alternate food since the habitat (ice flows) are changing so rapidly.

I really would consider a gun if travelling in polar bear territory, but I've never had a problem in black or giz territory. I used to live in the interior of BC. Lots of hiking and even did the the Bowron Lakes canoe trip many moons ago.

Good observations about guns Tanski (he says &#8230; knowing he risks the wrath of gun zealots). Canada has lots of guns. In rural areas nearly everyone owns a gun, or two, or three. What we don't have a is a near-religion built around them. They are a useful tool, like a hammer or a tractor.

When did you canoe the Moose? We actually traced the old Hudson Bay Nor'wester's route from Lake Superior to James Bay along the Missinaibi and Michipicoten. We did it in three stages though, and always went down-stream. Those fur traders of old were nuts!


----------



## aeventyr60

Geez, you cold weather, polar bear fearing, fleece and wooly wearing sailors ought to head for the tropics..The gals only wear grass skirts here, lucky I have some grass shears!


----------



## Tanski

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, I've heard similar things happening in Churchill MB; polar bears being driven onto the land and having to seek alternate food since the habitat (ice flows) are changing so rapidly.
> 
> I really would consider a gun if travelling in polar bear territory, but I've never had a problem in black or giz territory. I used to live in the interior of BC. Lots of hiking and even did the the Bowron Lakes canoe trip many moons ago.
> 
> Good observations about guns Tanski (he says &#8230; knowing he risks the wrath of gun zealots). Canada has lots of guns. In rural areas nearly everyone owns a gun, or two, or three. What we don't have a is a near-religion built around them. They are a useful tool, like a hammer or a tractor.
> 
> When did you canoe the Moose? We actually traced the old Hudson Bay Nor'wester's route from Lake Superior to James Bay along the Missinaibi and Michipicoten. We did it in three stages though, and always went down-stream. Those fur traders of old were nuts!


Back in the late 80's early 90's I did all my tripping, funny I have done the Missinaibi as well, I've also done the Harricana and the Dumoine. I would give just about anything to do the Coppermine! Kootnay wasn't a major trip but the scenery was amazing. The hot springs at White Swan Prov. Park where we pulled out were an amazing way to end a trip. Quite the excursion you did.


----------



## Minnesail

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> I am amazed and relieved that so far nobody has brought out the "DON'T YOU KNOW THIS IS AN OLD POST!!!" comments. Thank you all.


I'm sure Smackdaddy would be thrilled to know that his seven-year-old thread is still going.


----------



## ColoGuy

Good Lord man. Ever hear of paragraphs?



cboscole said:


> Interesting thread. When discussing the topic "fear" it is about one persons fear vs another persons bliss. We encounter fear as a natural protection instinct when we are uncomfortable with our surroundings. Fear can be debilitating and prevent one from acting promptly and properly to adjust to surroundings to keep them safe. Some say the only thing to fear is fear itself. A small amount of fear though can keep you alert and respectful of natures power in the ocean. I have had my knees shake when hiking on a cliff ledge to the point i had to crawl back....but when offshore one night I was the one who went on the foredeck to fix the roller furler, it had to be done and fear played no part but to keep me alert as waves pushed me into the lifelines. I am recalling my first offshore trip from PNW to Hawaii. We did all the usual safety precautions but I had one crew that insisted that the longer we stayed at sea the more the risk. This meant that he wanted to pound the boat to windward when we encountered a low pressure system just to keep us on the rum line. I disagreed, that it was safer to steer away and head off the wind for a day or two away from rough conditions until more favorable wind/waves would back us to our direction. Pounding to windward is hard on the boat and fatiguing to the crew and when people are tired is when accidents happen. The shock loading on the mast and rigging and keel is tremendous when the boat crashes and falls down off waves etc. Its no wonder racing boats are dismasted. but that happens to cruising boats for another reason: failing to adequately maintain standing rigging. There are times when going to windward is required, lee shore, or general prevailing winds etc. but otherwise the one thing that you can count on is change out there and going with the flow of wind/waves is always preferred and I believe safer. That may be the difference of philosophy between racers and cruisers. After 3 ocean crossings I am most concerned with collision floating objects debris, logs, docks, containers etc. and so slow down at night to minimize damage from impact and post vigilant day watches. It is when we become complacent that is dangerous. Anytime you get in the car you are depending on the other guy not to cross the center line etc.


----------



## ColoGuy

I hope you simply overlooked using words like "may under extra-ordinary circumstances".

Statistically, multiples more people are mauled by grizzlies and brown bears. It is believed that is because it is quite possible to surprise them. It is hard to surprise a polar bear.

Black bears are timid unless provoked or cubs are involved.

I see it as equation involving how much time we spend in their habitat. An occasional jaunt? Don't worry about it. Several times/week? Carry some form of protection...if it makes you feel better.

If our time is spend in an unusually dangerous manner, we should know it and respond accordingly.



MikeOReilly said:


> Polar bears, and to a somewhat lesser extent gizzlies/brown bears, are different. They will see humans as lunch.


----------



## Anne Ellis

That is probably right, calm days with a beer in hand, no PFD, trying to get as much speed out of the thing as you can, having a convo for 4 mins and realizing the guy you are talking to desapared some time ago while you paid attention to the sails. Lol. In 10 footer on the Great Lakes in a 30+ sail boat even with beer in hand, everybody is wearing a PFD, everybody is alert and the BEER is probably to calm the nerve of a poor first timer lol


----------



## Tanski

Beer in hand will lose you your drivers license in Canada and give you a criminal record! No open alcohol unless your at anchor, even then there are rules as to the type of boat you can drink on, must be classed as a "home" - built in cooking facilities, sleeping arrangements and a built in head, portapotti doesn't cut it!
Personally all for this law! Alcohol is involved in 40% of boating fatalities according to US and Canadian coast guard.
I don't allow it on my boat at all, why bother inviting trouble. Don't care if others do so as long as the follow the rules. 
IF you NEED to drink I don't NEED you on my boat!


----------



## Minnesail

Tanski said:


> Beer in hand will lose you your drivers license in Canada and give you a criminal record!


Wow. Harsh.

That is soooo no the case here. There's a party lake nearby, Lake Minnetonka, that turns into an absolute zoo on the July 4th weekend. Mostly powerboaters, of course. In 2015 they had 75 calls to 911 on that one weekend.










I'm curious how the Canadian law works. Who loses their license? The person at the helm? What if you're on auto?


----------



## Tanski

Minnesail said:


> Wow. Harsh.
> 
> That is soooo no the case here. There's a party lake nearby, Lake Minnetonka, that turns into an absolute zoo on the July 4th weekend. Mostly powerboaters, of course. In 2015 they had 75 calls to 911 on that one weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how the Canadian law works. Who loses their license? The person at the helm? What if you're on auto?


It's the exact same as drinking and driving or anybody in the car having open alcohol 0 tolerance! Same charges under the criminal code. The captain or driver gets nailed to the wall. I imagine if you on auto it would be the boat owner or one renting it, that is an interesting question. I don't know that one!
The law changed a few years ago in regards to being at anchor to put an end to "party barges" and fishermen drinking while fishing. A coleman stove, portapotti and sleeping bag on the deck don't cut it. Used to be you could drink at anchor on anthing, problem was people then hoisting anchor. You pretty much have to be settled in for the night or under the legal limit (.08) if you decide to move.
I drive commercially during the winter so it's not worth the risk.


----------



## Arcb

Theoretically, somebody needs to self identify as the skipper, that person needs to have a Federal Boating license. My wife and I each have one, so if we were ever boarded (I was boarded once in my entire life in 1993 and that was by the USCG in Mackinac Michigan), we would point our fingers at each other and say "she's/he's driving 

But Tanksi is absolutely right, impaired boating can be leveraged against your provincial drivers license AND criminal charges.

But, not every one follows the rules all the time.

Potahawk Piss Up, Port Dover, Ontario, Canada, been many times, it's pretty fun.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Last summer I was anchored in a bay with perhaps a hundred other boats of all types and sizes, all watching an air show. There were all sorts of water cops patrolling around, checking for infractions. We had the hook down and were out on deck with a beer, and I could see the cops making the rounds, checking all the boats. I fully expected a visit but they passed us, and other cruising boats (trawlers and sailboats), by. 

I’ve never have a visit from a water cop for a booze check. In fact, I’ve only ever had two direct encounters with water cops over the last 12+ years, and one was b/c an RCMP member simply wanted to know how our windvane worked. My sense is that cruising boats are not the ones the cops worry about. 

Here in Canada, if you’re not being a dyck head, and not doing anything obviously stupid, it’s unlikely you’ll ever have have to worry about being checked by the cops. Of course, the opposite is also true. 

Booze is usually plentiful on our boat, but not a drop gets consumed while underway, and that includes on multi-day passages. The beer/wine only comes out once the hook is securely set or the dock lines are fastened (and there are no weather issues to deal with).


----------



## RegisteredUser

I miss the weekend sandbar boobie parties....


----------



## Sal Paradise

Guns and beer!! The critical safety issues we sailors all have to deal with!! LOL!!

I looked up the CG data..... 36 people died in 2008 in boats over 21 feet where alcohol was the leading factor. Its is reasonable to assume most of those were in power boats. So that's at most 17 sailboat accidents. 17 deaths where alcohol was the leading factor. Maybe...


There are 823 fatal accidents per 100,000 people in the U.S. According to NOAA there are 1,669,000 sailboats in the U.S. And yet there are only 17 or so alcohol related fatalities on sailboats.

And yet no doubt someone, probably many people, will come along and insist the government should send cops to randomly board sailboats and do breathalyzer tests - is it in the public's interest?

Cows kill 22 people a year. The public would be better served by police cow patrols. And the cows should have guns too.


----------



## ColoGuy

Cripes.....first the bears. Now it is the danged cows! Will the killin' ever stop?

Shiver me timbers! Back to bed for this guy! World is scary!


----------



## Minnesail

Everybody knows the boat sinks if you run out of beer. That's why sailors get so nervous when the beer supply runs low.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Canada/US specific....

Had a couple of moto friends who were denied entry into/thru Canada because they had DUI offenses in their past...US guys.
I remember years ago when it was wide open partying for the Ehs/Canuks....and visitors.
They may've gone a tad bit over the line, but I don't live there....


----------



## Tanski

RegisteredUser said:


> Canada/US specific....
> 
> Had a couple of moto friends who were denied entry into/thru Canada because they had DUI offenses in their past...US guys.
> I remember years ago when it was wide open partying for the Ehs/Canuks....and visitors.
> They may've gone a tad bit over the line, but I don't live there....


Don't like it, don't come here. My attitude towards the states. I'll never set foot in my home country again.


----------



## aeventyr60

I have more fears about coming "home" then anything that has happened out here...


----------



## twoshoes

Minnesail said:


> Everybody knows the boat sinks if you run out of beer. That's why sailors get so nervous when the beer supply runs low.


----------



## Arcb

RegisteredUser said:


> I remember years ago when it was wide open partying for the Ehs/Canuks....and visitors.


I think this might depend a little bit on who and where you ask. I think boating has gotten really expensive, prohibitively expensive for a lot of young people in places like Ontario and southern BC.

It's a combination of factors, the cost of electricity, the cost of moorage, the cost of surveys and maintenance, the cost of insurance, the cost of housing (average house price in Toronto is $800000, Vancouver is north of a million). Edit: the reason I bought my current bot was because I could barely afford the $1700 a month I was paying to rent a one bedroom apartment in Toronto, moorage is only about $600/month, so I figured, I may as well buy a decently nice yacht and live on it rather than pay that kind of rent. The live aboard communities (there are a ton of live aboards in Toronto), are really cool and fun places.

The result of these high costs of boating is a lot of boaters are old and wealthy, especially when you're talking about cruising size sailboats kept at a slip.

The last yacht club I was at (not my current marina) I had to be the youngest member by 20 years (except my wife, she has me beat by another 12). They really were a miserable stuffy old crowd. For these folks, I don't think sailing was perceived as a fun sport and day on the water, sailing was a way to push their floating retirement homes from place to place.

However, if you move away from those expensive areas, boating gets more and more accessible to a younger and more diverse cross section of society and it gets a lot easier to find a good fun party.

This is a generalisation of course, there are a couple of great party marinas in Toronto, and of course the racing crowd likes to party everywhere I think.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Arcb-

Interesting to hear of your clashing age demographics. 

I encounter the same thing at my sailing club. I'm 44 and the youngest person on the executive board by far. I don't dislike the old timers though. They are full of great stories about sailing "when it was cool" and most importantly, they understand all the legal in's and out's of operating the club and have all the network connections with the community when we need to get certain things done. They are passing this information on to me because they know they need to get the next generation of people involved or the club will eventually fail. I in turn, am working hard to recruit younger members to the club and getting them on the executive board.

The older club folks are kind of what you'd expect- Maybe not as stuffy as your crowd, but not very rowdy and not so hard sailing anymore. Rarely a curse word from anyone in the group. Exceedingly polite and quiet. 

I have a few friends with similar boats to mine that are closer to my age and I'm always encouraging others to get into it...with limited success.
Our work schedules prevent us from cruising together as much as we'd like.

I have another group of older sailors that I sail with. These guys... I hardly know where to begin. They come from all walks of life- Navy captains who were ship drivers, fighter pilots, a brilliant neurologist, a guy who works for DARPA, an IT VP, a research vessel captain... I can only handle sailing with these guys for a weekend at a time because my sides hurt from laughing so hard. The piles of empty, expensive rum bottles at the end of a weekend is astounding. These guys are also quite skilled sailors and don't hesitate to sail in snotty weather when we plan a weekend together. And the food...the glorious food. The wives send us off with some delicious, prepared food and we each contribute something to the main meals as well. We also race a Tartan 3000 on Friday nights.

Anyway, the moral of the story is- Not all old sailors are alike.


----------



## Arcb

Ajax_MD, I'm in no way suggesting all older sailors are stuffy. I'm talking about my experience at one particular club.

It was so bad that I paid something like $3700 moorage fee and my $2000 initiation fee and still pulled the plug after one season. These folks would sneak aboard my boat in the middle of the night and recoil my lines from standard coils to Flemish coils. 

This was only a few years ago and I notice a very different web site today than 3 years ago. "New lower fees" "families welcome", "a friendly family oriented club" (this one gave me a good laugh)"slips available for power and sail" what? This was not a club that tried to attract power boats when I was there.

Clearly they are suffering, they are shrinking, they have an uncomfortable number of empty slips and can't attract young (I'm also in my early 40's) sailors that will stay.

And I'm having a blast at the public marina with the good old boys, and the power boaters, and paying half as much.


----------



## Ajax_MD

> These folks would sneak aboard my boat in the middle of the night and recoil my lines from standard coils to Flemish coils.


Jesus, that's disturbed.

My earlier post wasn't a criticism of you, I was just making a general comment. Those stuffy folks will age themselves out of existence. The sad thing is when the club finally folds, a developer will swoop in and buy the waterfront property and turn it into condos. Then, only a handful of condo owners will be able to enjoy the water. If this club embraces young people quickly enough, maybe that can be prevented.


----------



## travlin-easy

Watch that old sailor stuff - I resemble that remark!  Keep in mind that us old farts had already been around the barn a couple times when the young whippersnappers were being conceived behind the barn. Some of us have done things that the youngsters are still dreaming of doing, we didn't smoke pot or do drugs, but instead, got our high on life itself. 

Now, someone above said they would never set foot in the US again. Amazing the number of Canadians I came across in Boot Key Harbor who loved being in the US, especially the Florida Keys during the winter months. Each and every one of them I met, which was more than 100 cruisers, said they regretted that they had to go back to Canada every six months to maintain their Canadian residency. 

So, if any of you young whippersnappers live long enough for your health to go to Hell, like I have, consider yourselves lucky. Though my lungs are pretty much shot to Hell, I intend to climb aboard that old tub of a Morgan this spring and bring my oxygen generator along and hope I don't trip over the oxygen line and fall overboard while trying to raise the main.

Enjoy life - you only have one of them to live,

Gary


----------



## outbound

Every anchorage I've been in people stop by. Usually because they note our homeport or occ or SDR burgees if they're nice a drink and snack in the cockpit follows . Way more Canadian s proportionally for population than US. Seem to have no trouble drinking my liquor


----------



## travlin-easy

The last time I was in Canada, the price of booze was outrageous, as was the price of most things I looked at. Musical instruments, particularly arranger keyboards, were 20 percent higher in Canada than they were in the US. Can't afford to drink booze in Canada.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## RegisteredUser

travlin-easy said:


> The last time I was in Canada, the price of booze was outrageous, as was the price of most things I looked at. Musical instruments, particularly arranger keyboards, were 20 percent higher in Canada than they were in the US. Can't afford to drink booze in Canada.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


There have been large swings in the exchange over the years.
I remember being there when a loonie was worth about 65 cents...and when it was right at $1.


----------



## twoshoes

My marina has struck a nice balance of party-fun and old fogieness. In the warmer months there is always a live band or DJ on the deck outside the restaurant/bar. I at age 40 and the rest of the much older farts party like rock-stars right up until 9pm when it all comes to a required screeching halt. The marina then becomes quieter than a funeral home so we can all take our back pills and retire to our cockpits for a nice quiet nightcap.


----------



## MikeOReilly

travlin-easy said:


> The last time I was in Canada, the price of booze was outrageous, as was the price of most things I looked at. Musical instruments, particularly arranger keyboards, were 20 percent higher in Canada than they were in the US. Can't afford to drink booze in Canada.


Too true, but we gotta pay for our "free" healthcare somehow .

Most booze is quite cheap in the US compared to home. One of the joys of travelling in your country for sure. This is one thing that scares me about cruising in Canada; how am I going to maintain my alcoholic tendencies .


----------



## aeventyr60

MikeOReilly said:


> Too true, but we gotta pay for our "free" healthcare somehow .
> 
> Most booze is quite cheap in the US compared to home. One of the joys of travelling in your country for sure. This is one thing that scares me about cruising in Canada; how am I going to maintain my alcoholic tendencies .


Grasshopper,

You sail a bit further west and I can introduce you to a few duty free ports. You'd have to really WORRY about being able to make ice!


----------



## Ajax_MD

travlin-easy said:


> Watch that old sailor stuff - I resemble that remark!
> 
> Gary


Gary,

You're not stuffy and you're sure not sneaking aboard anyone's boat to recoil their lines Flemish-style.


----------



## Arcb

Ajax_MD said:


> Gary,
> 
> You're not stuffy and you're sure not sneaking aboard anyone's boat to recoil their lines Flemish-style.


We don't know that. We don't know what Gary's doing when he isn't sailing, fishing and playing Tiki Bars.

Maybe he's an obsessive line coiler. Maybe he is out measuring women's dresses to ensure they're an adequate length. Or as one woman put it to my wife "I think that dress is a little light for this time of year".


----------



## Ajax_MD

Pffft... If anything, Gary's trying to get women OUT of their dresses, not the other way 'round!

irateraft:


----------



## Donna_F

Ajax_MD said:


> Pffft... If anything, Gary's trying to get women OUT of their dresses, not the other way 'round!
> 
> irateraft:


Don't encourage him!!


----------



## outbound

Would note coiling your lines so they lie flat is pretty but traps dirt and they take forever for the underside to dry. If you must at least bring the tail back onboard or better hang it on the life line. Some lay them down in a figure 8. At least it drains


----------



## travlin-easy

Donna_F said:


> Don't encourage him!!


Dirty old men need love, too! 

Gary


----------



## Boston Charter Boat

come on now.. sailing is easy. skiing is what will you kill you.


----------



## travlin-easy

Skiing is insane, IMO. Tried it a couple times, gut busted up pretty bad, decided the best part of skiing was sitting in the lodge in front of the fireplace with a Margaretta in my hand and watching all the ski bunnies parade by. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## ColoGuy

How about sailing around Cape Horn? One unlucky couple got hit by a 100' rogue wave but were able to get their boat repaired. Got hit by another rogue wave and threw in the towel I think.

Rogue waves aren't quite as rogue around the Cape Horn area. I'd like to avoid the risk if possible. The Panama Canal is both expensive and lowers the accomplishment of sailing around the world.


----------



## aeventyr60

ColoGuy said:


> How about sailing around Cape Horn? One unlucky couple got hit by a 100' rogue wave but were able to get their boat repaired. Got hit by another rogue wave and threw in the towel I think.
> 
> Rogue waves aren't quite as rogue around the Cape Horn area. I'd like to avoid the risk if possible. The Panama Canal is both expensive and lowers the accomplishment of sailing around the world.


Just concentrate on getting out of Colorado first. That will be the most fear you've ever experienced.


----------



## robert sailor

Too Funny!!


----------



## ColoGuy

Tongue in cheek? Past times: skiing, climbing, extreme snowmobiling, scuba, sailing, bike racing, extreme 4 wheeling, firefighting, international backpacking, auto racing, football, and a few others. Nickname was "Dang" as in danger at one time.



aeventyr60 said:


> Just concentrate on getting out of Colorado first. That will be the most fear you've ever experienced.


----------



## MikeOReilly

ColoGuy said:


> Tongue in cheek? Past times: skiing, climbing, extreme snowmobiling, scuba, sailing, bike racing, extreme 4 wheeling, firefighting, international backpacking, auto racing, football, and a few others. Nickname was "Dang" as in danger at one time.


OK, now I'm "afraid" :eek

&#8230; yes, I'm having a bit of fun here.:angel


----------



## Minnesail

ColoGuy said:


> Tongue in cheek? Past times: skiing, climbing, extreme snowmobiling, scuba, sailing, bike racing, extreme 4 wheeling, firefighting, international backpacking, auto racing, football, and a few others. Nickname was "Dang" as in danger at one time.


Are you Carlos Danger?

Please, do NOT tweet us any pics.


----------



## SV Chineel

I'm seeing some serious logical fallacies here from OP and the majority of commenters, rooted in a misunderstanding of statistics. 
The figures you quote simply reflect that most people own smaller boats, are minimally educated, don't go to sea in rough weather etc etc.
Without the accompanying figures stating how many people go to sea safely in each category, these statistics are meaningless.

A better measure of safety would be deaths vs cumulative hours at sea for a given category or such.


----------



## ColoGuy

1) Logic would indicate that smaller boats would generally be more dangerous.
2) You must mean unskilled and inexperienced when referring to education.
3) Rough weather is logically the greatest danger by far.

I wonder how many die that are sober and wearing a lifejacket and using an epirb. Also know how to swim and know enough to stay calm. Panic is a big killer.

The stats say that sailing is pretty safe. Are you saying that it isn't because of "most people own smaller boats, are minimally educated, don't go to sea in rough weather etc etc"

Just seeking clarification because safety is pretty important to most .



SV Chineel said:


> I'm seeing some serious logical fallacies here from OP and the majority of commenters, rooted in a misunderstanding of statistics.
> The figures you quote simply reflect that most people own smaller boats, are minimally educated, don't go to sea in rough weather etc etc.
> Without the accompanying figures stating how many people go to sea safely in each category, these statistics are meaningless.
> 
> A better measure of safety would be deaths vs cumulative hours at sea for a given category or such.


----------



## Tanski

An epirb and lifejacket are not some magical devices. Fall of your boat where I sail chances are you'll die of hypothermia long before anybody can get to you well into summer. Stay on the boat! Wear a harness and have STRONG jacklines. STAY ON THE BOAT!
You are giving yourself a false sense of security if you think technology or any kind will save your ass. Just makes it easier to find the body.
Until you get out there and do it you don't know jack!
Try doing a MOB drill in 25-30 knots of wind and 3 meter seas. Good luck! Anybody can do it in flat calm conditions. The conditions when a person is likely to fall overboard is another story completely. An amazing number of people are NOT recovered even by highly skilled crews.


----------



## MikeOReilly

SV Chineel said:


> ...A better measure of safety would be deaths vs cumulative hours at sea for a given category or such.


You're right, but I think this point was made quite some time ago Chineel (unless was that another thread &#8230; there have been so many like this)

BTW, according to USCG accident stats, the greatest cause of damage, death and injury is some form of collision. This is followed by "Skier Mishap," then "Flooding/swamping" and then "Fall Overboard."

The most common type of boat involved in these accidents are, by a huge margin: "Open motorboats," followed (by 1/2) "Personal watercraft," and then by 1/2 again "Cabin motorboat." "Auxiliary Sail" finally makes the list at a very distant fourth.

The top causes of accidents are "Operator Inattention," "Operator inexperience," "Improper Lookout," and "Excessive speed."

So, if you want to be legitimately afraid, travel in an open motorboat with a distracted or inexperienced driver. If you're on a sailboat, you're odds of _any_ event happening are very low.


----------



## TomMaine

MikeOReilly said:


> You're right, but I think this point was made quite some time ago Chineel (unless was that another thread &#8230; there have been so many like this)
> 
> BTW, according to USCG accident stats, the greatest cause of damage, death and injury is some form of collision. This is followed by "Skier Mishap," then "Flooding/swamping" and then "Fall Overboard."
> 
> The most common type of boat involved in these accidents are, by a huge margin: "Open motorboats," followed (by 1/2) "Personal watercraft," and then by 1/2 again "Cabin motorboat." "Auxiliary Sail" finally makes the list at a very distant fourth.
> 
> The top causes of accidents are "Operator Inattention," "Operator inexperience," "Improper Lookout," and "Excessive speed."
> 
> So, if you want to be legitimately afraid, travel in an open motorboat with a distracted or inexperienced driver. If you're on a sailboat, you're odds of _any_ event happening are very low.


That's true but isn't the leading cause of death, drowning? One of the most dangerous things a sailor does is getting to and on his/her boat.

The last sailing death I recall in my area was a drowning. 2 men rowing to their boat in our harbor. They went out on a following breeze that got quite stiff as they were in more open water.

Seas built and swamped their hard dinghy. They were not wearing PFD's. They couldn't get on a boat so one held onto a mooring ball. He was saved by the luck that someone on shore, saw them. The other perished trying to swim to shore.

They were no more than a couple hundred yards from shore with houses around. You don't see much in the water with white caps and even screaming doesn't carry then.

What I could deduce: Their dinghy was too small for the load and conditions, which is a risk that many sailors take (I have ).

Not reading the weather: You're in the harbor, onshore where the water looks flat, wind not to bad. But look up at the tree tops, look out on the outer harbor(white caps were large). An easy mistake to make.

A few years prior, friends in an inflatable got lucky. They too went out with a stiff following breeze. Their outboard packed up, their toy oars fell apart in no time.

The wind blew them out of the harbor and into the bay. Darkness fell.
A cell phone failed.

Good thing they were sailors! With a shirt on an oar they were able to put just enough direction into their DDW drift, to fetch a point of land. They sailed all night,...

Had they not fetched up on that point, the next stop would have been the Azores.


----------



## Arcb

I definitely agree that hypothermia is a big killer, I still think PFD's are pretty effective in most types of boating, obviously not fast single handing offshore, but realistically, I'm not sure that is the most popular type of boating. I wear my PFD.

Without reading all 38 pages again, I'm curious if there was ever any evidence to support the theory that people in smaller boats are on average any less experienced or less educated than people on bigger boats? This sounds like a fact that was made up by someone that happened to have a big boat.

In total I have 5 boats. An 8' kayak, an 8' Sailing Dinghy, a 14' canoe, a 16' beach cat and a 35' sailboat. I probably spend as much time under way on the two smaller sailboats and in the canoe as on the bigger sailboat. My experience and education on the water is the same regardless of what boat I'm on. I have known excellent watermen who by choice select a canoe as their preferred mode of transit. I have also known (plenty) of not very good watermen who used there ample bank accounts to buy their way into the 40+ foot sailboat club, but still suck at sailing/seamanship.


----------



## MikeOReilly

TomMaine said:


> That's true but isn't the leading cause of death, drowning? One of the most dangerous things a sailor does is getting to and on his/her boat.


Yes, drowning is rated as the number one cause of death (by far) according to these stats: https://bard.knightpoint.systems/PublicInterface/Report1.aspx

Although, given the nature of boating, I don't think this is surprising.

I'm not sure the data supports your assertion about getting to the sailboat as being particularly dangerous. Might be true, but I don't think this dataset shows that.


----------



## TomMaine

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, drowning is rated as the number one cause of death (by far) according to these stats: https://bard.knightpoint.systems/PublicInterface/Report1.aspx
> 
> Although, given the nature of boating, I don't think this is surprising.
> 
> I'm not sure the data supports your assertion about getting to the sailboat as being particularly dangerous. Might be true, but I don't think this dataset shows that.


But how would it fit in the data, Mike? A dinghy with a motor is a motorboat. Without a motor, what's the classification? Under 16'?

I guess my point is, the above death wouldn't go as a sailing casualty but sailors having accidents while in their dinghy's isn't too rare.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> I definitely agree that hypothermia is a big killer, I still think PFD's are pretty effective in most types of boating, obviously not fast single handing offshore, but realistically, I'm not sure that is the most popular type of boating. I wear my PFD.
> 
> Without reading all 38 pages again, I'm curious if there was ever any evidence to support the theory that people in smaller boats are on average any less experienced or less educated than people on bigger boats? This sounds like a fact that was made up by someone that happened to have a big boat.


The data I cite isn't able to show that. It does indicate that canoes/kayaks account for a significant number of deaths (1288) over the dataset's years 2005 to 2015. The number one type of boat death is "Open motorboat" at 3601.


----------



## MikeOReilly

TomMaine said:


> But how would it fit in the data, Mike? A dinghy with a motor is a motorboat. Without a motor, what's the classification? Under 16'?
> 
> I guess my point is, the above death wouldn't go as a sailing casualty but sailors having accidents while in their dinghy's isn't too rare.


That's true Tom. I'm not making a claim either way. I'm just saying I don't think the dataset I've pointed to is able to show this. Might be as you say, might not be. I'm sure you're correct in that there is some number of people injured or killed rowing to/from their sailboat.


----------



## Arcb

MikeOReilly said:


> The data I cite isn't able to show that. It does indicate that canoes/kayaks account for a significant number of deaths (1288) over the dataset's years 2005 to 2015. The number one type of boat death is "Open motorboat" at 3601.


 I don't think that reflects on education. How many times have you dumped a canoe? I'm thinking I have probably dozens of times (almost always with a PFD and more often than not a helmet too). I have never capsizes my 35' sailboat. Same goes for swamping small stink pots, I'm not sure how many times I've done it, but more than a few times, but I've never swamped a keel boat (unless a Melges 24 counts).


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> I don't think that reflects on education. How many times have you dumped a canoe? I'm thinking I have probably dozens of times (almost always with a PFD and more often than not a helmet too). I have never capsizes my 35' sailboat. Same goes for swamping small stink pots, I'm not sure how many times I've done it, but more than a few times, but I've never swamped a keel boat (unless a Melges 24 counts).


If I were to infer anything from the dataset I'd say the best correlation to injury/death is with boat speed. The dataset does have a field for education and experience. Maybe you can make something out of that. It's not clear to me what it says.

Funny thing about canoeing &#8230; I rarely wore my lifejacket when I was wilderness tripping. I only put it on when I thought it was necessary. The reason was plain and simple: comfort (or lack thereof). And yes, I ended up in the water more than a few times, but always when I was wearing the lifejacket. I guess this means I'm a decent judge of my own skill level. Of course a truly wise person would have taken the portages in those circumstances .

Ironically, on my sailboat I almost always wear my lifejacket even though I've never fallen overboard. The reason: comfort. I wear an inflatable on the sailboat and it is so unobtrusive that it makes sense to have it on. Often times I forget I'm wearing it, and keep it on even when I go ashore (and usually get laughed at).


----------



## ColoGuy

Drowning is the killer. How many were wearing buoyancy gear and still drowned? How many were decent swimmers yet the storm was so bad that it didn't help much? How many were sober? How many were storm related?

I'll bet driving is far more dangerous. They ramped up interstate deaths in Colorado when they encouraged speeding in the left lane. You get the middle finger salute and maybe a slap on the brakes if doing anything less than 85mph. And the Highway Patrol can give you a ticket if are not using the left land for passing. So the right lane become a traffic jam while the left lane has high speed flyers with the law on their side these days.

High speed rollovers are often fatal. I'll bet that most drownings involve at least two out of four: 
1) alcohol/drugs
2) no buoyancy gear
3) inadequate swimming ability
4) stormy weather

I'll bet that lifeguards don't drown very often unless they are in a rescue situation. Rescuing can be pretty dangerous in my experience.


----------



## Arcb

MikeOReilly said:


> If I were to infer anything from the dataset I'd say the best correlation to injury/death is with boat speed. The dataset does have a field for education and experience. Maybe you can make something out of that. It's not clear to me what it says.
> .


I took a read, but it doesn't mean anything to me, especially the education part. I guess the numbers for experience seem to indicate moderately experienced people are at the greatest risk, while the least experienced and most experienced seem to be at the lowest risk.

I'm not really sure, I don't have much experience working with statistics.

I do know my personal greatest safety concerns when sailing, in no particular order are falling in the drink (while sailing, at dock or at anchor) and not being able to get back on board, a catastrophic loss of bouyancy (sinking) and a catastrophic loss of maneuverability which leads to a Cascade effect.


----------



## Tanski

What constitutes a small boat? In my current marina and the yacht club in Toronto before that I'd say "small" 30' and under was the rule rather than the exception.
I've been sailing my entire life, 47 years for sure of 48, and the biggest boat I've owned is 25', smallest was an Opti dingy.
I know people in the Kawartha lakes (cottage country) that have never owned anything over 16' yet have 20, 30, 40 years of sailing experience. No point in owning anything bigger!
At my current marina the is one boat over 30' and thats a Hunter 38 I've never seen under sail, it's the guys first boat. Only owned it 2 years, this summer will be his 3rd. He can write the cheques for it but can't sail it as far as I know! Powers out to the middle of the bay and drops anchor for the weekend, powers back Sunday night.


----------



## ColoGuy

Maybe the Hunter owner just needs to relax with some peace, quiet, and privacy. Something about being on the water helps with that.


----------



## TomMaine

Arcb said:


> I do know my personal greatest safety concerns when sailing, in no particular order are falling in the drink (while sailing, at dock or at anchor) and not being able to get back on board, a catastrophic loss of bouyancy (sinking) and a catastrophic loss of maneuverability which leads to a Cascade effect.


Those are mine, too. Alone or not, we usually tow our Nutshell tender(a beamy hard tender). I can get back into that when swimming, without swamping it, pretty easily(we test that now and then).

That doesn't work for most people(and I'm not advocating it), and under AP is useless, but it's another chance, maybe.

However, I sail in Maine and I often sail alone. If I go overboard - I figure I'm dead.

If I go overboard with a PFD not that far offshore, a little later, I'm dead too(water temperature).

Sinking is quite a bit down my list, but that's dead, too. 

But having said this, after a lifetime of sailing, it's about the safest activity I do. Way safer than driving or bicycling, say.


----------



## Tanski

ColoGuy said:


> Maybe the Hunter owner just needs to relax with some peace, quiet, and privacy. Something about being on the water helps with that.


Since you know so much how much boat traffic on that bay?


----------



## MikeOReilly

TomMaine said:


> ...But having said this, after a lifetime of sailing, it's about the safest activity I do. Way safer than driving or bicycling, say.


This gets back to the original point of this thread. No matter how you measure it, sailing a keel boat is a very safe activity - much safer than many other activities we all routinely do like driving, bicycling or eating certain foods. This doesn't mean anyone should be cavalier about the risks. Appropriate practices and safety equipment should always be used, but nor should we be "afraid."


----------



## smackdaddy

AutumnWare said:


> This makes sense to me. In almost any situation, an assumption of safety contributes to errors in judgment. If you're in a larger boat that requires more attention to detail to operate in conditions that feel more dangerous in waters where help may be less available, you're going to be on your toes. If you're in a small boat in protected waters, you're more likely to allow over-confidence to lull you into inattentiveness. It's true of cars, too. The more comfortable Americans have become driving, the higher the death rates.
> 
> I imagine *situational awareness is at the root of both very safe and very unsafe sailing (and almost everything else).*
> 
> We live in New Orleans, and when our teen walks anywhere, we give him specific things to report back on: How many people did you pass? How many stores were closed? etc. He thinks it's kind of Jason Bourne-fun, but it actually keeps him aware of his surroundings, which is just as important in a city as it is at sea.


Thanks for reply Autumn. I think you nailed it with the bold part.

We were through NO last summer on our boat. Absolutely love your city. And I have two teen boys as well. I think I'll get them Jason Bourne-ing a bit more. That said, they did an amazing job on the 2-1/2 day run from Panama City to Tampa...even in a pretty rough storm. I was very proud of those dudes.


----------



## outbound

Been off sailing so haven't looked at this site in some time. Now back in the good old USA. Nice to see you're back Smackie so I have some one to set straight.


----------



## outbound

Turning back to the OP. Yes situational awareness is key. But real awareness comes from experience not courses nor reading. Those things are good supplements but experience remains the best teacher. Example is the recent passage home.
Got all set for the 1500nm home. Had two crew. One very experienced and one with one prior passage. For the first time my wife was going to the passage home. The experienced crew was going to do the same passage on another boat them immediately jump on a plane fly down and sail with us. We delayed the scheduled leaving date to allow this to happen so was scheduled to leave 5 days after the SDR fleet.
That crew bailed citing illness. Now left with a newbie and my wife with one day before SDR were to leave. Scrambled around and found a delivery captain not otherwise occupied through one of my delevery captain friends but he was in Utah. Told him I'd captain and asked would he consent to be crew.
Ended up leaving two days behind the fleet. It was rapidly apparent newbie crew was excellent, delivery captain did not have current knowledge of common systems, adequate but not great on sail trim but excellent attitude. Radar went down so ended up calling a different captain friend on sat phone as one on my boat was not helpful. Fortunately got it up. Coming up for watch would find leach of either jib or main fluttering so needed to curtail sleep to attend to trim even when off watch. Had engine problems and chafe on some lines. Captain was excellent assistant but was on my own as to thinking it through.
Seeing all this from prior experience knew to judge the capabilities of the boat and crew with some accuracy. Listening to Chris Parker was told a huge trough was going to come through. Related weather would extend from Nova Scotia to Abacos. Associated t storms in Abacos could have 40kt. winds. Portion lying on our rhumb line to Newport could have 60kt winds. What to do?
Boat could handle the weather if required. Had storm sails and jsd if needed. But this was the first 1500nm passage for my wife and there were only two people on the boat with true storm not just gale or line squall experience.
So I bailed. Headed to Abacos slowly but not slowly enough. Then hove to for six, yes six, glorious days. Thinking was no need to be a hero or prove anything to anybody. Do what's safe although the other three were clamoring to get home. 
Trip which normally gets ~1 1/2 weeks or less took 16 days. Never saw weather. Even flew full main and genny during the day.

In short if you put your ego aside and your judgment is tempered by experience under more skilled sailors and you do your preparation there is no reason to be afraid.


----------

