BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?

Subject: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST,Rod
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:32 AM

Much has been said on this site about Richard Hammonds who kept doctors and nurses busy this week by his own foolish actions. Should people who climb mountains against the advice of weather reports and then risk up to twenty other peoples lives having to rescue them be charged for their actions ? The only people who rattle on about this guy being a hero are those who seem to think speed is acceptable. All cars should have restricters fitted, after all the maximum speed limit in the UK is 70mph. The B.B.C. should be made to pay for the waste of time of our doctors and nurses. Noel Edmonds got a young guy to proform a stunt some years back, which resulted in the guy being killed. This is unacceptable and if you cause a road accident you are expected to pay by law.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:48 AM

There's no yes or no answer to this, but I don't go along with your implicit premise that its all about money.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:56 AM

Someone has to pay for it. If you took it upon yourself to drive your car this afternoon in a manner which caused damage and injury you would face court action and your insurance company would be within their rights not to pay out, resulting in court action and possibly losing your home. There is a big difference between an accident and someone planning and setting out to do something which has a very high risk to life and property. He should have been made to sign something explaining his home could be at risk if this stunt went wrong. We will no doubt see this guy hobble about on television shortly hailed a hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:58 AM

It might not all be about money, but when large sums have to be spent cleaning up the mess made by these idiots then yes, they should be required to foot the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:12 AM

John, what large sums? What mess? You make it sound as if this took place on public roads and a lot of infrastructure was damaged.

I don't condone excessive speeds on public roads, neither am I a speed freak. I do watch TG when I have time and find it very informative and entertaining however - and not necessarily because of any speeding involved, but for its road testing of various models.

The test Hammond was carrying out was perhaps unnecessary for any other than sensationalistic reasons, I'll grant you that. But I don't micromanage the BBC, I just pay my licence fee. And in the end Hammond was risking a lot more than the possible "waste of money". Why? I won't make a guess, why not ask him?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:32 AM

If the doctors who treat Richard Hammond learn something from that experience which helps them save the life of another accident victim, should Richard Hammond bill that casualty for his contribution towards their recovery?
Of course not, that idea is just as fatuous as some of the other curmudgeonly ideas being expressed by some in this thread.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: jonm
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:33 AM

Interestingly enough, the "cost" to the Yorkshire Air Ambulance of this incident is many thousands of pounds in the negative! The size of the donations received as a result of the appeal resulting from the publicity outweighs the cost of the single operation manyfold.

As for this misguided speed-limiter scenario, it is always safer to have a safe margin between your normal speed and the vehicle's limits, and faster vehicles tend to also come with better braking and suspension systems. My vehicle is capable of exceeding any UK limit by about 60%, but I drive at either the speed limit or the limit of the conditions, whichever is lower, exceptional circumstances notwithstanding.

I found the margin most useful yesterday, when overtaking (at a legal speed) a car determined to speed up and prevent me getting past. Given that his chav mate behind did likewise, I had only the option of accelerating in order to avoid an accident. Having previously survived an accident where I met an overtaking car coming the other way on a blind bend with a closing speed of about 120mph, I did indeed report both registration numbers to the police, although in the absence of witnesses, they will do between nothing and f@ck all.

Most of the problems on the roads are not due to speed, but inappropriate use of speed. If you look at the accident statistics published by their percentage causes (e.g. for 2004 fatalities, excessive speed 45%, alcohol 25%, drugs 10%, driver error 35%, road conditions 65% approx.) you will see that the percentages add up to way over 100%. Most accidents have multiple causes, and generating revenue for the police by targeting speeders is a lot easier than improving surface condition and signage on the roads, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:22 AM

This question also has bearing on how many times people should be offered governmental flood insurance ( i.e. below market rates) after being flooded out more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:00 AM

I took the opening post to be a general question using Hammonds as an example. My comment was aimed more at the "adventurers" with more money than sense, but who quite often rely on the emergency services of whatever country they are closest to when their plans come unstuck. I should also confess that I have not read the other thread, so maybe I'm way off topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:08 AM

No, you're not John - the range between sheer adventurism and taking risks as part of a job (even a job like Hammond's that shouldn't really require him to take such a risk when more experienced test cirquit drivers were available) has a lot of shades of grey. It was a fair point, even if I disagreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:41 AM

BBC newsflash !

3.30pm UK time

a helicopter transporting over 20 of the worlds leading nature conservationists is reported missing in bad weather
over mountains in Nepal.

that is risk taking in the line of dedicated professional duty..


may they all be found safe and well..


but who wil gain most news coverage, praise, and sympathy over these coming next few days ???

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:48 AM

Yes, absolutely- ALL people should know in advance what is going to happen and prepay a fee for help needed.

In fact none of us should get out of bed in the AM withOUT a paid professional rescuer on hand with jaws of life, defibrillator, and a fire-ax on hand.

I know I, for one, will never get laid again without a personal ER staff on standby.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:57 AM

I'd be prepared to take that risk Susan, if only I can remember what to do!
G. ☻

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 11:03 AM

:~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 11:07 AM

updated report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 01:12 PM

Susan,

I fully agree with you; however, make sure when they say they are doctors and nurses that they don't just want to play at it!

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM

It's always good to follow an argument to its logical extremes. Of course the opening post describes insanity in action. Now, how and where does one draw the line, and who draws it? There needs to be a line-- agreed. Now as to the practicalities.... oops, it's herding wet cats up a rope, every time, isn't it?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST,Rod
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 01:37 PM

Let us look at this case guys. This guy is a television presenter. Did someone explain to him that doing this stunt could result in? and it was nothing more than a stunt.Was he told,You have a wife and kids, you could be killed or seriously injured.

A medical team could be working to save someones life, and have to decide if a second team is available or do they work between two cases ? Would smartass still have got into that car to boost his ego ? My brother in law is a diver by profession, he is also part of a underwater rescue team. When he took out a joint life insurance policy he came under the section "dangerous activities and pastimes" He pays through the nose to help other people.

There is a clear line between what this guy did and your everyday RTA. If a guy breaks your living room window with a bottle, the court makes him pay for the damage. If someone reverses into your car you expect him to pay for it. There is a price on everything in life and just because this stunt involved a face from television who was being a total p..t, too many people are looking on it as an accident. It was an accident planned and waiting to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Becca72
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 02:14 PM

To give another example, I read yesterday where a guy was walking across a bridge counting his money and a $20 bill blew out of his hand. So the bastard went after it! 50 foot drop to the river below. He got his money back and then had to be fished out of the river by a dive team. IMHO, he should have to pay that dive team's fee.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 02:17 PM

Rod your brother pays high premiums because he is a professional diver, not because he is part of a rescue team, diving is a dangerous occupation.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 02:37 PM

The question has been asked the wrong way.

"If you decide to climb a mountain, swim an ocean, do whatever, should I have to pay for shit that goes wrong on your expedition?"

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM

That's why people carry insurance folks.
Just remember fo those who may not be aware of the UK healthcare setup.
The National Health Service delivers health care to all UK citizens free of charge at the point of delivery. This is done for the richest AND the poorest, so I would get the same treatment as Richard Branson in theory.
In fact however most of these well known people like Richard Hammond carry private health insurance with someone like BUPA, and I am quite sure that his insurance will cover the full cost of his treatment.
To say the antics on Top gear encourage boy racers to drive dangerously and cause accidents, is akin to say that reading the bible encourages people to walk on water, and this causes lots of deaths by drowning annually!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Midchuck
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM

In the US, people who get themselves lost in the mountains, hiking, or more likely skiing out-of-bounds, get a bill for the costs of the rescue.

Speed restrictors on cars is unrealistic, I think. Retrofitting them to the entire existing fleet would be a practical impossibility. If you merely required them on new cars that were sold, so many people would just hang onto their old cars that we'd have a depression.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:35 PM

There is risk in everything, and as people crave excitement they will always gravitate towards taking bigger risks. Organized events should carry some "duty of care" and most do. Race events usually have firefighters and first aid/paramedics available.

Trans Atlantic singlehanded racers have been a problem, but most countries accept Air Sea Rescue as being an International obligation without cost. Spain discussed billing a Canada for a medevac at sea, and were interested in going after cost recovery for Medevacs until we (Canada) pointed out that we Medevac far more Spanish fishermen from the Flemish Cap fishing grounds than they Medevac Canadians off their coasts; and would they like us to bill them for the service? They declined to charge of course.

The average cost for a Hercules and a Cormorant Helicopter during a long range Medevac (4 to 6 hours) is $6000 an hour per aircraft. The average Cuban sailor is paid $14 a week; and most third world sailors a few hundred a month. Some shipping companies would throw a person overboard rather than foot the bill for a Medevac.....

Food for thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM

I doubt if Hammond will be queuing up at the local nhs germ pit for his physio.

Following the premise of the opening post should anyone overweight/underweight/who smokes/drinks more than recommended...etc be charged for treatment?

Of course Richard Hammond shouldn't be, although I reckon the BBC will cover all costs over and above as well as the huge donations already sent from the public.

If we were all too scared to take risks we would still be living in mud huts.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST,smartarse
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:49 PM

.. actually, mud huts are very risky to live in..



"To say the antics on Top gear encourage boy racers to drive dangerously and cause accidents, is akin to say that reading the bible encourages people to walk on water, and this causes lots of deaths by drowning annually!"
Giok



no it's not..

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:55 PM

"Food for thought?"

Food for sharks is more like it. But good points, lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:00 PM

You are a smartarse aren't you?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:02 PM

Sometimes. But I don't think you were addressing me.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:21 PM

British Government has just taken a step away from speed restricting motorbikes after it was proved conclusively that the accident rate would increase when riders no longer had the ability to accelerate out of dangerous situations. Restricting the vehicle is not the answer to ending dangerous driving.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Scoville
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:28 PM

When I lived in Colorado, there were invariably young cocky guys who ignored avalanche zone signs so they could go skiing or snowboarding on out-of-bounds slopes, and often they had to be rescued. I always thought they should have to pay for the cost of the rescue. These were POSTED off-limits areas and then a bunch of volunteers had to risk their own necks to go save them.



Except a lot of people don't carry insurance. You wouldn't believe the number of people who live on flood plains around here, where land is cheap, and then want us all to chip in and bail them out when it rains and they get flooded. Sorry, dudes. You knew it was going to rain--it does it every damned year here--and I have no interest in helping you rebuild on the EXACT SAME SPOT that just got washed out.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:38 PM

I awake often (too often) to get to scenes requiring rescue personnel. I do not object. However, when a drunk has rolled his vehicle, I tend to feel it would be nice to smack him upside the head a few times.

And even when these assholes have insurance coverage, the fact that it gets paid by their insurance company simply means that sooner or later MY premiums go up too.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:40 PM

Does their insurance cover them if they are convicted of drunk driving?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Bernard
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:51 PM

A drunk driver's insurance is automatically invalidated... and once they get their licence back, insurance is very expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:58 PM

Point taken.

Make it maybe the folks they hit. They have coverage--as they should--and your insurace rates rise because of the drunk.

Make it a tired driver who's fallen asleep at the wheel. Of a guy reaching for his damned cell phone.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Bernard
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:03 PM

...or a smoker who's dropped a lit match...

When I used to be a biker I had a lot of near misses with burning fag ends carelessly tossed out of cars. Get one of those up your visor, and you could lose an eye - or your life.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:32 PM

When I climb I have insurance. If I had to be rescued cos something went wrong, I would definitely be raising money for mountain rescue to say thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM

What about the one who has a serious encounter with the Grim reaper and comes out brain damaged, or in a wheel chair? How would he/she pay?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:06 PM

A guy in a solo round the world yacht race got into trouble in the Southern Ocean and had to be rescued by the Aust. navy. When the first pictures were flashed onto TV he was wearing a channel 7 hat. His people and channel 7's people had already done lunch before he was even found.

He said thanks for saving my life, and got written up as a hero because that's the story he bought.

Wanna be a hero? You will need just the right balance of attributes: You dreams and your wallet must be bigger than you intelligence and your capabilities.
Instant hero. Just add something to fall off of.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:17 PM

£70,000 has so far been donated to emergency services regarding Richard Hammond's accident.

But no risk takers have an important role in society and shouldn't pay unless by choice.

Some die and the world is less populated. Some succeed in an amazing venture and the world moves forward with new ability. Some suffer horrifically and the world learns about risk.

Risk takers teach us, no matter what the outcome of their risk. We can learn from good or bad results.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:36 PM

When there's a risk worth taking and is taken by someone who knows what the're doing, that's a different matter, but the world has already been circumnavigated. Mt. Everest has been climbed (or should I say 'conquered'?)

Richard Hammonds is what? A TV journalist? Something similar?
An elite sportsman? Apparently not.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:46 PM

Surely any risk taken is considered worth taking by the taker. And breaking the speed record was one that Hammond thought worth taking. A tyre blew on his sixth run (they think.)

Statistically he probably risked his life less than anyone of the millions who light up a cigarette every morning of their adult life.

If we understood his thought process and thought alike we would all be attempting the record. That's what sets risk takers apart from us. It doesn't make them wrong. It makes them different.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Scoville
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:50 PM

They can be as different as they want as long as they're prepared to take the consequences. I'm not a risk taker, but then I've never driven up anyone's insurance or been on TV begging for somebody to help bail me out.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: JennieG
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:52 PM

We have people who go bushwalking (the Ozzie bush can be very unforgiving) with only enough water for a few hours, no sunscreen, etc. When they 'fail to return' and the alarm is raised, many folk - both volunteers and emergency services - spend much time and money searching for them, sometimes at risk to their own lives. Each time this happens the question is raised "should people pay for or at least contribute to the cost of their own rescue", but I don't think a solution has been agreed on.

Me, I say make them pay.

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:00 PM

I dislike risking my life because of dumb fucks who do stupid shit. It's that simple. For those risks, the group I work for carries a $300,000 life insurance policy on each guy/gal. Small solace when your kids or wife/husband find out you're not coming home anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM

Hmmm. I think I'm beginning to see both sides.
JennieG, do we really want bushwalking for the rich only?

A line needs to be drawn between the genuine accident and the provoked mishap, but where, how and by whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:40 AM

The UK government has backed away from making insurance mandatory for mountaineers and hill walkers and the like. The RAF mountain rescue people say they are happy to do it, as it is valuable training.
I do think that the jibes about Richard Hammond being 'just' a journalist, a bit unfair. He's a journalist who drives for a living and writes about it, week after week we see him on TV driving faster cars than most of us could cope with, and in rough terrain too sometimes.
He is more of a professional driver than many weekend cowboys who race, rally, and drive dragsters in situations where there is often no more than a St John's Ambulance volunteer with a wee satchel in attendance.
I detect a wide streak of schadenfreude in many of the posts on this subject.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: eddie1
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:27 AM

Hi Giock
I can only speak with any authority on drag racing and even then, only on the strips at Shakespeare County and Santa Pod in the UK, but at each, there is a full ambulance team and a rescue team in attendance. They are paid from the entrance fees which are paid by competitors and spectators alike.
Safety is a Number 1 priority in drag racing and racing is suspended for any oil stains or rain on the strip. I'm still not quite sure what Hammond was driving, jet car or rocket car, two completely different vehicles but my main concern would be whether he was licensed to drive such a vehicle on the track, something which competition drivers are required to be – this would give some indication of his level of experience.

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: JennieG
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:33 AM

John O'L - I don't think the rich would be interested in bushwalking! What annoys people here is the unprepared person or group who has no idea how to look after themselves for a few hours or a day in the bush, but insists on going anyway. There are many organised bushwalking clubs and it is very rare for a club member to run into trouble in the bush, because they know what they are doing.

I went bushwalking once - I was knackered - never again!!!

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:39 AM

The amount donated to the Yorkshire Air Ambulance service has now risen to £130,000.

(I keep having to fend off the uncharitable thought that if it had been James May who had the accident less fuss would have been made and less money donated. I hope I am wrong.)