|
23 Sep 06 - 05:32 AM (#1841367) Subject: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST,Rod 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:48 AM (#1841372) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: DMcG There's no yes or no answer to this, but I don't go along with your implicit premise that its all about money. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:56 AM (#1841375) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:58 AM (#1841376) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 06:12 AM (#1841385) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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? |
|
23 Sep 06 - 06:32 AM (#1841410) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 06:33 AM (#1841413) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: jonm 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 07:22 AM (#1841443) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:00 AM (#1841456) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:08 AM (#1841460) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 10:41 AM (#1841488) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 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 ??? |
|
23 Sep 06 - 10:48 AM (#1841491) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: wysiwyg 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~ |
|
23 Sep 06 - 10:57 AM (#1841494) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie I'd be prepared to take that risk Susan, if only I can remember what to do! G. ☻ |
|
23 Sep 06 - 11:03 AM (#1841498) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: wysiwyg :~) ~S~ |
|
23 Sep 06 - 11:07 AM (#1841499) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST updated report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world |
|
23 Sep 06 - 01:12 PM (#1841519) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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! |
|
23 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM (#1841522) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: wysiwyg 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~ |
|
23 Sep 06 - 01:37 PM (#1841525) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST,Rod 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 02:14 PM (#1841529) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Becca72 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 02:17 PM (#1841530) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie 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 |
|
23 Sep 06 - 02:37 PM (#1841532) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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?" |
|
23 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM (#1841537) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie 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 |
|
23 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM (#1841542) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Midchuck 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 03:35 PM (#1841548) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Dave (the ancient mariner) 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? |
|
23 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM (#1841554) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 03:49 PM (#1841561) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST,smartarse .. 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.. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 03:55 PM (#1841565) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST "Food for thought?" Food for sharks is more like it. But good points, lad. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:00 PM (#1841610) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie You are a smartarse aren't you? G. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:02 PM (#1841615) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST Sometimes. But I don't think you were addressing me. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:21 PM (#1841627) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Liz the Squeak 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 |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:28 PM (#1841633) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Scoville 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:38 PM (#1841643) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:40 PM (#1841648) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: bobad Does their insurance cover them if they are convicted of drunk driving? |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:51 PM (#1841658) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Bernard A drunk driver's insurance is automatically invalidated... and once they get their licence back, insurance is very expensive. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:58 PM (#1841662) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 06:03 PM (#1841665) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Bernard ...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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 07:32 PM (#1841697) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Fibula Mattock 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM (#1841702) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: kendall 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? |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:06 PM (#1841718) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:17 PM (#1841727) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST £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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:36 PM (#1841739) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:46 PM (#1841740) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:50 PM (#1841742) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Scoville 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 08:52 PM (#1841745) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: JennieG 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 |
|
23 Sep 06 - 09:00 PM (#1841750) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM (#1841752) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L 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? |
|
24 Sep 06 - 03:40 AM (#1841827) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie 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 |
|
24 Sep 06 - 05:27 AM (#1841874) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: eddie1 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 |
|
24 Sep 06 - 07:33 AM (#1841929) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: JennieG 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 |
|
24 Sep 06 - 07:39 AM (#1841930) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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.) |
|
24 Sep 06 - 08:01 AM (#1841937) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris Er... who? |
|
24 Sep 06 - 08:44 AM (#1841964) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie That's cruel George, we all love James May, and he writes the funniest page in the Saturday Telegraph Motoring Section too! Giok |
|
24 Sep 06 - 09:23 AM (#1841992) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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. |
|
24 Sep 06 - 09:26 AM (#1841996) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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;-) |
|
24 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM (#1842150) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST Now we have to face this midget being on our screens day and night being called a hero. |
|
24 Sep 06 - 01:13 PM (#1842155) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie Slow day in MN obviously. |
|
24 Sep 06 - 08:30 PM (#1842487) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: kendall It is generally believed that these "Dare devils" are born with an addiction to the adrenalin rush. They are thrill junkies. |
|
24 Sep 06 - 08:36 PM (#1842491) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L I used to have one of them but I outlived it. |
|
24 Sep 06 - 08:36 PM (#1842493) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
24 Sep 06 - 08:49 PM (#1842503) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John O'L 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. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 08:08 AM (#1842758) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: kendall 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. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 08:31 AM (#1842779) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Bunnahabhain 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..... |
|
25 Sep 06 - 10:57 AM (#1842899) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Grab 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. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 12:00 PM (#1842936) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST Nobody should be rescued from the consequences of their own stupidity, financially or otherwise. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 12:10 PM (#1842943) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 12:16 PM (#1842952) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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 ? |
|
25 Sep 06 - 12:46 PM (#1842971) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: George Papavgeris 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. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 01:03 PM (#1842988) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
25 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM (#1842998) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: John MacKenzie 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 |
|
25 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM (#1843015) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST,Free as a Birdman 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 ! |
|
25 Sep 06 - 03:23 PM (#1843091) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST Sounds good. One favor please. Aim for the X so folks know where to locate you in the event . . . . |
|
25 Sep 06 - 06:37 PM (#1843229) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Grab 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. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 06:45 AM (#1843534) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 07:03 AM (#1843545) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST, Topsie 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. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 08:20 AM (#1843585) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: 3refs 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! |
|
26 Sep 06 - 08:44 AM (#1843605) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 09:56 AM (#1843651) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST The men and women doing the rescues know who's best. |
|
26 Sep 06 - 01:55 PM (#1843883) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST Risk and stupidity are not the same thing...are they ? |
|
26 Sep 06 - 02:22 PM (#1843902) Subject: RE: BS: Should people pay for their own risks ? From: GUEST 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. |