I am reminded of the conversation about "would you sleep with him for 100 bucks, etc etc etc "
Measuring the effectiveness of safety
devices, especially in ocean/sea rescue
is actually very difficult. A person that is so rescued after deploying these devices will of course be convinced as to their 100% effectiveness.
My local fire station has a mixed track record
in saving buildings, some it does and some it doesn't. However no one questions the propose of a fire service
, because in effect one life saved justifies the service
( if you see the argument)
90% of EPIRB
activations are false, sometimes resulting in wasted SAR efforts. I see no demand to discontinue SEN style systems. In fact the rescue
agencies are trying to improve them.
Equally its clear there are many rescues ( from a small pot) where casualties have been recovered from life rafts. Whether this was a justified abandonment is a mute point. Its not really relevant.
In my experiences almost all safety gear
"works", but it works in a context and sometimes that context is wrong. Leaving aside the "wacko" inventions of course.
did a major study of life rafts, it substantially altered liferaft
design. It did not suggest discontinuing such devices. In that regard its rather like the EPIRB
My own personal experience, and the empirical cases I have studied, is that the 'moral hazard' issue is much stronger with the 'press here for rescue' devices and less with rafts.
I suppose here is where you and I differ considerably. I take the SAR industry view,that irrespective of objective evaluation, if you feel you need to be rescued, then its better to be able to be rescued then not. ( Boaties recent Azorian escapade, shows that reaction is the name of the game
, rather then evaluating potential danger
, though rescuing him from two women alone on a slow cat should be justification for any right thinking man , its just not fair and can't be allowed sort of thing )
Its easy to sit back, and "review" abandonment cases, god knows its been done enough on this forum. But what matters it to us, if someone decides to leave a boat, in a circumstance that you or I might not. People get scared, some handle it, others want off.
Most of the rescues , are a function of insufficient knowledge leading to under evaluating of the risks, few are of the "inevitable" type. ( certainly in leisure rescues)
Hence your annoyance, might be better directed at the underlying cause of such rescues rather then criticising the method of their rescue.
Should be allow people to die to prove a point I think not.
The moral hazard contention I, afraid remains just that a contention, intellectually interesting, but with no practical application.