Solo Sailor Missing

[fishwife]

This is off topic but in line with the way the discussion is going. I'm to some extent in line with those who advocate the right to take responsibility for our own actions but I'd like to explore that a little further.

Suppose.. that you have a job in a machine shop. You are working on a large press that has lots of guards and interlocks that limit the throughput on the machine. You are on piece work and decide to remove the guards and disable the interlocks. You know it's dangerous but you do it and within 10 minutes you're a candidate for a Darwin Award. Is it right that your family may sue, expecting your employer to have taken steps that prevent you making those modifications? (In my experience, just about any safety mechanism can be defeated.)

To put this in context, is it right that the 'state' requires you to to take sensible care of your own life, recognising that there is very seldom just you who would be a victim. Viz the many comments in this thread regarding loved one grieving and possibly suffering ecomomic hardship.

My 2c

Paige

[RunningFish]

The conversation about USCG costs got me thinking. Seems like most of the cost is in the search, and not the rescue, right? Flying around in aircraft for days on end is surely more burdensome than a focused rescue, which is probably more in line with the cost of a training exercise. So maybe the coast guard could save the taxpayers a ton of money by giving ALL coastal boaters EPIRB's!

[Hampus]

Originally Posted by fishwife

This is off topic but in line with the way the discussion is going. I'm to some extent in line with those who advocate the right to take responsibility for our own actions but I'd like to explore that a little further.

Suppose.. that you have a job in a machine shop. You are working on a large press that has lots of guards and interlocks that limit the throughput on the machine. You are on piece work and decide to remove the guards and disable the interlocks. You know it's dangerous but you do it and within 10 minutes you're a candidate for a Darwin Award. Is it right that your family may sue, expecting your employer to have taken steps that prevent you making those modifications? (In my experience, just about any safety mechanism can be defeated.)

To put this in context, is it right that the 'state' requires you to to take sensible care of your own life, recognising that there is very seldom just you who would be a victim. Viz the many comments in this thread regarding loved one grieving and possibly suffering ecomomic hardship.

My 2c

Paige

But how far should we go to prevent people from hurting themselves?

If you get hit in the head by the boom, you won't be able to activate your EPIRB. Should we pass a law that requires sailors to wear helmets? Or sue the boatbuilder for not padding the boom properly? People are mostly sane enough to take care of themselves. And those who aren't... well, nature will fix that, Darwin style!

/Hampus

[Pacific Jewel]

Well said Sourthern Star and KerryDeare. Nastiness and name is just plain unattractive.

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by Hampus

If you get hit in the head by the boom, you won't be able to activate your EPIRB.

Good point. Of course, you're either dead by then, or you'll wake up with a headache. If you dont carry a way of communicating an emergency to the outside world, and you haven't filed a floatplan with special instructions, then by my reckoning you will be found someday, but shouldn't have a cent wasted on a search and rescue operation. We've already had an instance of someone not pushing a button on his "Spot" locator triggering a search operation while he snorkled and layed around in the sun, strictly because he was a day overdue and forgot to push the button updating a blog for his friends. No MAYDAY, no search IMHO...

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I have been raging on this topic since Michigan passed the seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws 25 years ago!

We need a law that makes it illegal to have laws that dictate lifestyle choices in order to save money on Federal/State mandated insurance. Think car insurance, national health insurance, etc. Many people will give up Constitutional freedoms and pass rules to save a few dollars.

I thought our US Constitution protected us here but maybe we need more protections.

Uh, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, etc., ....I could care less if a rider smashes their melon all over the roadway, as it harms only themselves (well, and those that have to clean up the mess too, but that's psychological...and a career choice). Seatbelts, however, are a different story entirely, and any person too stupid to fasten their seatbelt these days (which keeps them in position/control of the vehicle during sudden maneuvers), should have their license yanked for repeat offenders since their disregard puts other lives in jeopardy as well, much like drinking and driving does.

Believe you me, I'm for doing away with many of the 'nanny laws'* which keep Darwin from winnowing out the ninny's in society ....just not the ones (like seatbelt laws), that protect the more intelligent from the rampant idiots among us.

As for EPIRB or not... that's a personal choice for a solo sailor. Think of it as free training for SAR, as they don't have to go to the time and expense of dreaming up the training mission(s) and the necessary training mission preparations required to successfully carry out the fake training scenario, which I'm sure is substantial....if for nothing else just in the cost of donuts alone.


* An excellent example of worthless nanny laws would be those product warning labels that advise people, for example, not to play with electrical items while taking a bath, and other such laws which would be doing society in general a favor by their removal.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Seatbelts, however, are a different story entirely, and any person too stupid to fasten their seatbelt these days (which keeps them in position/control of the vehicle during sudden maneuvers), should have their license yanked for repeat offenders since their disregard puts other lives in jeopardy as well, much like drinking and driving does.

Big big stretch here especially with a 3 pt attachment on the seatbelt. Maybe go to a 6 point attachment to do it right.

Let's ban car radios because everytime you adjust it you take your eyes off the road. Let's ban eating for 6 hours before driving. Everyone knows eating makes you sleepy and sleepy drivers have pretty bad driving records. Let's elimate deer because there are more car/deer accidents than just about any other kind.

Bottom line is there is risk in living and all risk cannot be driven to zero. The closer the risk is to zero the more you're not living.

[s/v Beth]

I am in favor of getting rid of almost all nanny laws. The way information is available now days, anyone can get the proper training to complete almost any task. I am a great believer in consequences. Risks are well defined by now. I'm' sorry, I do not feel someone else's lack of training is my responsibility. And i feel that way about my own preparedness.
Still, if there was a rescue i would still probably volunteer.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Uh, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, etc., ....I could care less if a rider smashes their melon all over the roadway, as it harms only themselves .

Agree, that is as long as the rider has enough medical insurance to cover the cost of being hooked up to life support for the rest of their lives so I don't have to pay for it out of my tax dollars.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Agree, that is as long as the rider has enough medical insurance to cover the cost of being hooked up to life support for the rest of their lives so I don't have to pay for it out of my tax dollars.

Yeah, you and many others would and do sell your freedom!!

Keep going down that road. Remember, I don't want you to be overweight, or smoke, or consume alcohol because it will drive up the cost of national health care. (These points are already being debated wrt national health care)

I don't think you should sail offshore because I may have to spend alot of money to effect search and rescue. Or, when you go offshore you need to put down a $1M dollar deposit in case S&R is required.

BTW, I can do this all day.

[cathyoz]

fair comment

[cathyoz]

Originally Posted by Chuteman

Freedom of Sail



Or maybe sign a waiver that NO rescue planes, boats, diverted comm'l ships etc of any kind are required to respond no matter who calls ..........now that's Freedom.

fair comment ,
Anyway ..one can always get the safety compulsary
stuff, and "send it overboard" as a grand gesture of Ego, and complesency.....
personnaly, thanks to modern technologie, and modern gear, warm clothes ..ect..ect..and i will work few months more to pay for them and equipe my boat with them..

[cathyoz]

Originally Posted by Christian Van H

Good point. Of course, you're either dead by then, or overdue and forgot to push the button updating a blog for his friends. No MAYDAY, no search IMHO...

I do agree,
no mayday, no search paid by the public.

it could then be a choise to seach by the relatives , family or so call 'hero' wanted to put hand in they pocket to go an a rescue mission.

and if i disapear and do not send a Mayday , well, i would not expect my son to morgage his home to seach for me...like he knows if i go 'funny' in my old age, no way !, he should feel responsible .
he got his instructions :
put the oldchick in a states place, she worked and paid taxes long enough for that..

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Yeah, you and many others would and do sell your freedom!!

Keep going down that road. Remember, I don't want you to be overweight, or smoke, or consume alcohol because it will drive up the cost of national health care. (These points are already being debated wrt national health care)

I don't think you should sail offshore because I may have to spend alot of money to effect search and rescue. Or, when you go offshore you need to put down a $1M dollar deposit in case S&R is required.

BTW, I can do this all day.

I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. I said, quite clearly that I don't care if someone rides with or without a helmet. I also don't care if someone drinks to excess, is overweight, I don't even care if he or she wants to inject heroin into the jugular vein.

I do object when the actions of another effect me. That includes me having to pay my money for results of their choices, especially dumb ones. That includes someone drinking and driving and crashing into my car. Your freedom ends when it takes away my freedom. I'm not selling anything, just not paying your bills. With freedom comes responsibility.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. I said, quite clearly that I don't care if someone rides with or without a helmet. I also don't care if someone drinks to excess, is overweight, I don't even care if he or she wants to inject heroin into the jugular vein.

I think your point was; seat belts make drivers drive safer and therefore imposing seat belt laws makes everyone safer.

My point is the probability of a better outcome with a seat belt is near zero. Seat belt laws were not put into place to allow you to avoid accidents or to "drive out" of a tough spot. This scenario almost never happens (and a 3 point attachment for a seat belt is not adequate for that purpose.) Instead, they are in place only to save money i.e., selling your feedom.

Additionally, my point was that there is a balance between imposing rules to improve the common good and taking away freedom. In my mind seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws cross that line. As well as forcing me to purchase S&R insurance or putting up a deposit to go offshore.