Sailer lost at sea

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But who defines the 'beaten' path? - I used to do MotorX when I was younger for instance, that (at least the way we used to do it in an old Chalk quarry) was ludicrously dangerous looking back on it ..... similarly I have friends who have learnt to fly gliders, another incredibly dangerous prospect if it goes wrong etc.

I'd expect if you look into it statistically you'd probably find that her sailing is less dangerous (taking into account her experience and skills) than a lot of more common activities taken by unskilled people - eg. hiking through the wilderness etc.

Were you going by yourself and were you a two-day drive away from civilization or at least the closest person? Would you bring a GPS transponder or two with you and expect somebody to monitor it and come looking for you if something went wrong?

Sailing, per say, isn't overly dangerous but neither is walking. But if you're walking across the Sahara or on the North Pole, that sure changes things, doesn't it?

Like Noop just said, if you want to do something dangerous, fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to feel sorry for you/risk life and limb to save you/exhaust every resource possible to find you...that's being extremely selfish.

[molson]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Were you going by yourself and were you a two-day drive away from civilization or at least the closest person? Would you bring a GPS transponder or two with you and expect somebody to monitor it and come looking for you if something went wrong?

You've never gone for a two-day hike?

I've been on many, and yes, I would expect somebody to come looking for me if something went wrong. That's why you sign in with the park service and notify other people of your plan.

I can see the appeal of the "disaster insurance", but like mandatory health insurance, it's ultimately a silly idea, because you can't humanely turn someone away at the emergency room, or intentionally leave someone out to die in the ocean because it will take you two days to get there (unless you're johnnyshaka, apparently)

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by molson

You've never gone for a two-day hike?

I've been on many, and yes, I would expect somebody to come looking for me if something went wrong. That's why you sign in with the park service and notify other people of your plan.

And if that park ranger suggested you postpone your hike because their was a bad storm getting ready to settle in would you still go ahead with your plans? And if so, would you expect the park ranger to get suited up to try and brave the fierce storm to find you after warning you not to go?

Conditions of the environment play a very large role and I'm curious as to why that keeps being ignored? Sailing, hiking, hang gliding, mountain biking, etc...can be safe activities but when the environment isn't ideal that's when things go bad very, very quickly.

Originally Posted by molson

I can see the appeal of the "disaster insurance", but like mandatory health insurance, it's ultimately a silly idea, because you can't humanely turn someone away at the emergency room, or intentionally leave someone out to die in the ocean because it will take you two days to get there (unless you're johnnyshaka, apparently)

Health insurance is a poor example, in my eyes at least, because up here we all have the right to basic health care. Why can we make it law to have auto insurance and not do the same for disaster insurance? Does that sound so far fetched?

[SportsDino]

I'll claim I'm chief hater of the thread, and I do hate the girl. I've already stated why, and I see no argument for liking her. I don't feel sympathetic or responsible for her situation, but the claim of the board is that I should. Either by exclaiming 'oh noes, that poor little darling' or by paying a portion of tax money towards saving her and those like her.

I know merely disliking it by itself is unlikely to mean anything, just like my dislike of the wars, or BP's oil spill, or how tax money is spent in general, does not change those things from being as they are.

I reject that such hatred is somehow monstrous (as it is being made out here), particularly given some of the other examples of aimless hatred we have lurking around here (at least I try to be specific in my targets of hate, why I hate, and what could be done to chill me out). The girl's fate and everything else tied up in it, is a symptom of an attitude I've complained about many a time already (risk-blind selfishness), and so I hate where most people don't see such a big deal. To ya'll it is a stirring adventure gone awry, and the responsibility of moral men to stand in and save her... to me it is immoral greed playing upon the sympathy of others to sacrifice for another person's ego-driven desire.

If you can't afford the downside (or a probabilistic slice of the risk), you shouldn't be in the deal to begin with. Like someone else said, i think this should be covered by insurance, or failing that, a long string of small payments to the entities that bailed your ass out until you've made up at least a token portion of the trouble you chased.

Allow the government to sue the person for rescue, I'll admit some legal standard needs to be established, but that would be a good use of all those lawyers judges and politicians in washington, rather than making them the handout police which is what they've become. Figure out how law should work and stop trying to dictate distribution of the dollars.

[molson]

Damn, SportsDino, this broad sure rubs you the wrong way.

[JediKooter]

In two more years, she can start to rub him the right way.