BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:01 AM

Er... who?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:44 AM

That's cruel George, we all love James May, and he writes the funniest page in the Saturday Telegraph Motoring Section too!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:23 AM

I feel certain he would have signed some such paper, GUEST. Even when one goes on those "team-building" jollies, say paint-balling or quad-biking, they have to sign one. I think it's inconceivable that Hammonds would have been let anywhere near the vehicle before doing so as well.

And he carries insurance, which no doubt because of the risks he takes, would be a lot higher than yours and mine. And the BBC carries incurance too. All this talk of "my insurance premiums are high because of people like Hammonds" is misplaced - my car insurance is high because of other road drivers, not vehicle-testers or TV programme makers.

Yes, someone has to pay for it; his insurance and the BBC's does. And their next premiums will be higher because of this accident. THEIR premiums for staff insurance, not yours and mine for car insurance or home insurance or third party liability insurance. It isn't all one big bucket, insurance is slightly more complex and sophisticated than that.

So this isn't about money. Neither is it about teaching the youngsters (if their parents are waiting for the BBC to educate their children, they have abdicated responsibility). It is about the question of where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk; and between the lines, perhaps a also little about people venting on the next TV personality that comes to their attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:26 AM

Sorry Giok, I honestly don't know this May bloke. I don't read the Torygraph anyway. I'm sure he's good though, I will borrow the paper from Robb Johnson one of these days and read his column;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM

Now we have to face this midget being on our screens day and night being called a hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 01:13 PM

Slow day in MN obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:30 PM

It is generally believed that these "Dare devils" are born with an addiction to the adrenalin rush. They are thrill junkies.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:36 PM

I used to have one of them but I outlived it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:36 PM

Have a dispatcher say, "You are responding to a motor vehicle collision involving an automoblie and an SUV. Three casualties. Two adult, one child. . . ." WHOOOOOOOOOSH.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John O'L
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:49 PM

Yes, point taken guest, and a good one too, but I came back to say what I meant was if one nudges the boundaries one may get a result and live to tell the story. On the other hand if one just says "I can do that" and takes a leap, then one runs the risk of becoming a hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 08:08 AM

Guest, I was thinking of those nuts who bungi jump from a 500 foot bridge, or try to jump over a line of cars on a motorcycle. People who drive at break neck speed on the public roads are not dare devils, they are idiots. Big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 08:31 AM

Bunjy jumping of a 500 foot bridge isn't a good example. Doing so without actually measuring the distance down, calculating the cord you need, and testing it with a correctly weighted sack would be.....

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Grab
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 10:57 AM

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?

Yep, I think so. As a fairly keen hillwalker and hang-glider pilot, I wouldn't hesitate to pay extra insurance for rescue services if I had to. And in fact I take a big hit on life and long-term-illness insurance because I fly.

But suppose you've done everything right, and a boulder you're standing on just happens to roll. You were doing something inherently dangerous - hillwalking - and in spite of all your preparations, it goes wrong. What then?

Or if it comes to that, suppose you're driving well within the speed limit, and you happen to hit a bit of black ice. What then? This isn't a hypothetical situation - it actually happened to me, and I ran into the back of another car at the grand speed of 15mph. I admit I was approaching the queue a little faster than maybe I should have, but had I been going slower I still wouldn't have been able to stop in time. (While we were exchanging details, an artic did precisely the same thing in the same place at about 5mph, and slid with wheels locked for several yards - luckily there was no-one in front of him!)

Or, and now we're getting down to it, suppose you're driving at motorway speeds (which are fast but nothing you couldn't handle any day of the week) and a tyre blows out? In modern cars, they're designed to cope with that, but say you're driving something older like a Mini. Who's responsible when you lose control and go off the road?

And that's where it looks like we are with RH...

As regards air ambulance services, I think it's disgraceful that they're not funded by the government, because they're an essential part of the ambulance service. And they're not just volunteers like the RNLI or mountain rescue - these are professional pilots and paramedics.

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.

Given that there was a risk assessment, I think you can say that it's a 100% certainty.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:00 PM

Nobody should be rescued from the consequences of their own stupidity, financially or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:10 PM

GUEST, the next time you are careless anough to catch a virus or develop an illness that could have been avoided with a sensible diet and exercise, follow your own advice and don't call a doctor.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:16 PM

catching a virus has nothing to do with stupidity, as you well know. the rest of your comment reeks of nonsense, if you don't mind my saying so. We recently had a bloke here who decided to row across the Atlantic, he prepared on a rowung machine in his lounge. A lot of money later he was rescued in bad a bad storn three miles from shore. That is stupidity. I do not believe that that behaviour ought to be subsidized, do you ?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:46 PM

I don't mind you saying so, but stupidity can be involved nevertheless. If you skip that extra bit of cleanliness, if you flush the toilet with the lid up, if you frequent populated places with inadequate airconditioning and don't bring your own tankard from home to the pub, one could go on...

I repeat - it isn't about the money; read my post further up.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:03 PM

Yes, I know you could go on, but I do wish you would not. I realize it is not about the money. It is about the utter disregard these people have for those who are obliged to "rescue" them. The jerk rowing the atlantic nearly cost several children their father.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM

Not a valid comparison Guest. Richard Hammond was properly prepared and equipped, anyway at the moment it looks like mechanical failure, could happen to anyone.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST,Free as a Birdman
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

One thing I want to do before I die
is to high altitude sky dive without a parachute;

co-ordinating with a fellow skydiver
to meet in mid fall
so I can strap myself in to continue in a tandem decent.

Or if it is practicable, to be handed a parachute
rigged for easy quick self attachment.

I don't know if this has been done before,
and wonder if it is a viable idea to approach any charities
which could potentially benefit from donations
if I were to solicit the public for sponsership.

Would insurance be a serious problem and obstuction
to this future proposition ?

BTW.. I am a single man who has never married or fathered any children.

I think it would be very exciting !

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 03:23 PM

Sounds good. One favor please. Aim for the X so folks know where to locate you in the event . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Grab
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 06:37 PM

So Guest, where would you draw the line on "stupidity"?

For an example, my family sails - my mum's been sailing all her life, and my dad started when he was at uni. With about 20 years of experience in dinghies, and 10 years experience in cruisers, they got caught in a storm halfway back across the Irish Sea to Liverpool. Normally this'd be nothing more than an annoyance - reef down, roll up your collar and carry on. They'd got masses of experience sailing the boat in those sort of conditions with both of them (and in fact it only takes one person to crew it in a pinch). But my mum happened to stick her head up at the wrong time as the wind switched and the boom came across, which left her semi-conscious, concussed and with a busted eye socket. And the wind switched to leave Liverpool dead into wind, which made it harder. Dad got them both into Liverpool OK, but the RNLI sent out a lifeboat just to be on the safe side.

So does that count as stupidity? Yes, they were out in a storm. But they'd been through literally hundreds of storms before. Both had (and still have) top-notch sailing skills, and they *never* leave safety to chance (if it's only them on the boat, they live in harnesses in anything above a force 4).

Re rowing across the Atlantic, there were a whole bunch of them along with Ben Fogle and James Cracknell, doing that race. Several needed rescuing after things went wrong. Stupidity?

Or if it comes to that, look at all the runners who've damaged knees/ankles by pushing too hard to win. Stupidity?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:45 AM

One ought to be able to see that the man I described as attempting to row across the ocean is stupid, people caught in a storm are unfortunate. Those who injure themselves because they are driven to win are vain..stupids cousin.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST, Topsie
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:03 AM

It is possible to be too cautious.
I once bought a skipping rope from the Avon catalogue - it came with a warning that it was not suitable for children.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: 3refs
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:20 AM

I read most of the threads, and very few had much to say about what compels a person to put themselves in peril. Especially men! Now I know that women have accompished much, but they make up a small percentage of the people I'm commenting about

They've been referred to as jerks, stupid ands nuts just to name a few. Now in no way do I want to be accussed of defending those in the "Jack Ass" movies(can't tell you what I really of them).

I'm talking about those who choose to reach the highest, be the fastest, go the longest or be the strongest. For hundreds of thousands of years these four attributes could mean the difference between life and death. Now, since the birth of the industial age, a hundred or so years ago, most of these abilities are no longer a necessity, they have evolved into games! Since the earliest of times modern man, we have always had competition. Native North Americans have played lacrosse for thousands of years, Scots still toss the cabre and Aborigional Austrailians have been waiting for their boomerang to come back for years. The point being, in the begining we did it because we had to. Now we do it because we want to. I would suggest that we will always want to know "WHO'S THE BEST" at whatever!

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:44 AM

PRE-CISELY 3refs!

That says it all, and it shouldn't be forgotten that most of the technological advances which reduce our chances of dying in car crashes have come directly from motor competition in its many forms.

When I was seventeen, I was a motor cyclist, and in anything other than perfect weather it was down to pure chance whether I would live or die if forced to swerve or brake hard. The level of grip that modern cycles have is a direct result of motorcycle racing.

The same applies to cars, in terms of tyre performance, chassis strength, and braking efficiency.

Without these "stupid jerks" who take calculated risks, I might long since have been dead and buried. I thank God for their legacy.

BTW, I am surprised at what happened to RH, but for a different reason to those expressed above. Having watched drag racing for many years, I am astonished that he was injured at all.

The safety record of these vehicles stacks up well against any other motor sport, with a minute number of serious injuries and deaths.

Over the years, more drivers have benn hurt, or died, in small saloon car racing than in dragsters. Crashes at over 200 mph are far from rare, and in most cases the drivers get out and walk away. Of those that are injured a majority are home again the same day.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:56 AM

The men and women doing the rescues know who's best.

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:55 PM

Risk and stupidity are not the same thing...are they ?

Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:22 PM

No, they are not.
If you undertake something dangerous without having consider the risks, that is stupid.
If you do the same but having first considered the risks and taken any possible precautions, that is sensible.
If you de exactly the same, having considered the risks and found them to be insurmountable, but proceed anyway because of some other higher priority, that is courage.