Pay for Your Own Rescue

[hellosailor]

I find it most curious that a government could say "Don't go there it is too dangerous" without also recognizing that if someplace (within a government) is "dangerous" then that government's first responsibility is to MAKE IT SAFE for everyone.

If you don't put down the bandits and contras, you can hardly blame the civilians who are victimized by them. Ooopsie, a state admitting it is a FAILED STATE.

Unless you're a two-faced government, I suppose.

[Healer52]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

I find it most curious that a government could say "Don't go there it is too dangerous" without also recognizing that if someplace (within a government) is "dangerous" then that government's first responsibility is to MAKE IT SAFE for everyone.

If you don't put down the bandits and contras, you can hardly blame the civilians who are victimized by them. Ooopsie, a state admitting it is a FAILED STATE.

Unless you're a two-faced government, I suppose.

You mean like the various National Parks, and Monuments, along the southern US border - that are closed off because it's too dangerous for rangers to enter, due to drug smugglers?

Yeah.

[Opie91]

Most insurance companies will only insure you to 75 nm off shore without special insurance(In US at least). Why not have a mandatory SAR insurance for off shore vessels? I'm sure this would not be very popular, but it could off set some of the costs. It is only a matter of time before some serious dumb a$$ mounts a huge mid ocean SAR bill and they put an end to the free stuff.

Lets face it there are a lot more land lovers than there are of us.

[osirissail]

As others have mentioned and it is the critical point in the discussion - who decides what is foolish and what is reasonably do-able? Charging for offshore rescues opens up a bag of worms that is indeed monstrous in scope. Every weekend along the coasts of the USA, there are constant calls for rescue from boaters who are sinking because they left the flush valve on the toilet open; or never inspected any raw water hoses from the engine; to those lost because their GPS batteries failed; or (I actually encountered this one) a sail-boarder fell asleep after getting out where an offshore current grabbed him. There are thousands or more example of "stupid" rescues versus any one "round the world" failed attempt.
- - I am all for the "Darwin Awards" principle of cleaning up the gene pool by letting the stupid do themselves in - but who decides? In real life that is an unanswerable question and grumble as they may, rescuing both the competent and the stupid is not going to stop.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by osirissail

As others have mentioned and it is the critical point in the discussion - who decides what is foolish and what is reasonably do-able?

Good question.

Given the wording of the French legislation, the costs will be paid for by:

people who have deliberately exposed themselves, without a legitimate motive stemming from their professional situation or a situation of emergency, to risks of which they could not have been unaware'

So, I guess the lawyers decide.

And with this definition, I guess you could say that everyone who sails "deliberately exposes themselves...to risks of which they could not have been unaware"

Bit scarey these nanny legislators eh?

[hellosailor]

"mandatory SAR insurance "
We do have that already in the US, it is called "the general tax pool". Everyone pays taxes which fund all kinds of rescue, from FBI kidnap teams to USCG SAR. Still, the expectation is that there are reasonable norms involved all the way around. The debate is mainly whether to charge actual SAR costs for the folks who insist on doing something particularly stupid. Like, sailing without an adequate crew or watch in some of the most dangerous waters of the world, with no good reason to do so.
If I play Russian Roulette, that's arguably my right. If I want Medicare to pay for my rescue after I lose...that might be expecting a bit too much.

"closed off because it's too dangerous for rangers to enter, due to drug smugglers?" I didn't know any of them were actually CLOSED. But the US certainly has forgotten the lessons of prohibition, and one might argue that the federal government is on its way to becoming a failed state for the second time. Second--because this IS our second national government, formed because the first one wasn't working out.

[rourkeh]

I guess the real question is where do you draw the line? Who makes the call? What would dictate reckless behavior? Boaters who venture out of sight of land? People who climb mountains for recreation? It is a very slippery slope. It is amazing how much of this sort of knee jerk legislation pops up in times of economic misery. And how about we the public charge the government for allowing a privleged few on wall steet to rape us of our hard earned cash. Face it we live in a rights society with no personal responsiblity. If the government wants to hold us acountable for our actions they should give us the same rights.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by rourkeh

I guess the real question is where do you draw the line? Who makes the call? What would dictate reckless behavior? Boaters who venture out of sight of land? People who climb mountains for recreation? It is a very slippery slope. It is amazing how much of this sort of knee jerk legislation pops up in times of economic misery. And how about we the public charge the government for allowing a privleged few on wall steet to rape us of our hard earned cash. Face it we live in a rights society with no personal responsiblity. If the government wants to hold us acountable for our actions they should give us the same rights.

rourkeh,

I hear your frustration and appreciate the sentiment, but aren't we the "government'? And if not, who is? Our government is just a reflection of our society. What I'm saying is ... we elected them and only we can replace them, its up to the citizens (what you call the "public")to take charge and make the changes they want to see. Otherwise, its just more whining.

[David_Old_Jersey]

I would have no problem (in principal) with no Govt funded or manned rescue service. Overall I think that would be no bad thing.

But those who wished to have such a service available could both pay for & man it themselves (both commercial and recreational)..........or simply not go

But am firmly against a service such as this being provided by a Govt and then rationed (whether via size of bank balance or by hair colour ).

I understand that for foreigners some sort of mutual duty to rescue, but no harm in making this about diverting a warship, if one available. and / or making it a legal requirement for other Mariners in the area to assist, at least on a best effort / if prudent basis............folk could then decide whether or not to visit an area in the full knowledge that the SAR was in practice SFA

[osirissail]

"What I'm saying is ... we elected them and only we can replace them, its up to the citizens (what you call the "public")to take charge and make the changes they want to see." I don't think that would work and is currently no politically possible. As Mark Twain said: "We have the best government that money can buy."
- - So you shouldn't contemplate holding your breathe waiting for change. Besides, the Surgeon General has warned that holding your breathe waiting for government to change is hazardous to your health.
- - Add in the fact that setting up any kind of "user fees/insurance" for USCG rescues probably would subject the USCG to budget cuts since they would be getting paid from other sources - which I really think their bureaucrats would fight tooth and nail.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by osirissail

"What I'm saying is ... we elected them and only we can replace them, its up to the citizens (what you call the "public")to take charge and make the changes they want to see." I don't think that would work and is currently no politically possible. As Mark Twain said: "We have the best government that money can buy."
- - So you shouldn't contemplate holding your breathe waiting for change. Besides, the Surgeon General has warned that holding your breathe waiting for government to change is hazardous to your health.
- - Add in the fact that setting up any kind of "user fees/insurance" for USCG rescues probably would subject the USCG to budget cuts since they would be getting paid from other sources - which I really think their bureaucrats would fight tooth and nail.

I have to disagree. It's the only way it has ever worked, at least in our democratic society. It's messy and takes forever sometimes, but in the long run its the only way change comes about. As for the Mark Twain quote, when we get tired on the lobbyist running things we will make the necessary changes. Until then ....

[svHyLyte]

When we purchased a SPOT Messenger device for our daughter's cruise from St. Maartin to Trinidad we also signed up for the GEOS SAR service. Basic coverage for a suscription price of $12.95 USD per annum covers up to $100,000 USD of search and rescue and evacuation services. We added coverage for additional services including private SAR for not a great deal more, just to be on the safe side, and we've kept it in force since and use our SPOT to keep people advised of our where-abouts just in case.

For what its worth I don't care for the idea of a shoreside bureaucrate deciding whether our sailing is too dangerous (I've already had one suggest that I am irresponsible for taking my wife and daughter on our annual trip to the Keys as its "so dangerous"). On the other hand, launching one's child off on a trek in the southern ocean in mid-winter is rather off the charts and I see nothing wrong with expecting one to accept the liability that accompanies the extraordinary risk of such an adventure, no?

[nautical62]

In principle I don't mind the idea of people having to pay for or provide insurance for their own rescue. We are responsible for many other hazards that have economic impact on us or our possessions, and usually purchase insurance to safeguard against such potential loss.

What seems inequitable to me however, is to have to have both land and sea government run rescue services, one of which is paid for mostly with taxes and the other one would paid for largely by the person being rescued. Why should I be paying for land rescue services which I clearly won't be using and have to pay for sea rescue services myself? Why should whether you are on land or in water be a determining factor? Seem fairly inequitable.

I also think this is part of a larger tax based issue. If I'm out cruising, I'm not using roads, schools, or many other publicly provided services, but I am still required to pay for them through my taxes.

[hellosailor]

"where do you draw the line? Who makes the call?" Who make all the calls, all the time? If you didn't know the answer (the legislature and the courts) then you should be barred from voting, because the voters ultimately control both of those.

David makes a point: Britain's LifeSaving Service is all-volunteer, not at all like the USCG. And yet, they manage to make it work. OK, they don't have air assets, but that's also their choice.

In a democracy, the minority get screwed. In the New American Mobocracy, we screw everyone equally. A vast improvement, apparently.

[svHyLyte]

For what its worth, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a volunteer lifesaving service funded by contributions but is only one part of the UK SAR program which is managed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an agency of the Department for Transportation. (DfT) The MCA’s response to emergencies is "...undertaken by Her Majesty’s Coastguard (HMCG) which is the authority responsible for the initiation and co-ordination of [largely taxpayer funded] civil maritime search and rescue within the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Region (UKSRR)..." In essence, the situation in the UK is not unlike that in the US, and I suspect the body politic there may have similar viewpoints with regard to providing "Free" SAR eh?