SailNet Community banner

141 - 160 of 204 Posts

·
Land lubber
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
those two shouldnt be allowed to set foot on a boat of any description
Why not? They were out there doing it. They didn't hit their distress beacon the first time the coffee maker didn't work.

Yes, they (or the one at least) sounds very unstable. But, they are free to do what they want with their lives. Let them go!
I think the most compelling reason for not allowing them on the water is because THEY HAVE NO BOAT (because she wrecked her last two). What captain would be gullible enough to give permission to board?

joub, if you want to be her sugar daddy go ahead. Their GoFundMe is still at $5, so you don't appear to have put your money where your mouth is.
What about them not having a boat makes you think you or anyone else should dictate whether they 'are allowed' to go back out on they water. What happened to the concept of mind your own f$^#n business?

I didn't contribute to their gofundme, so obviously I have no interest in being their sugar daddy. Where was my mouth that my wallet wasn't? Or are you just talking crap again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,246 Posts
What about them not having a boat makes you think you or anyone else should dictate whether they 'are allowed' to go back out on they water. What happened to the concept of mind your own f$^#n business?...
What about this is too difficult for you to understand?

She wrecked two boats in a row, and has raised $5 for her replacement. The only way she can get back on the water is on someone else's boat. I don't see a groundswell of people offering "permission to board," so under the current circumstances, she will not be "allowed" to go back out on the water ... unless she buys a ferry ticket or something.

If you want to allow her to pursue her fantasy, go ahead. But it seems like you're just the same as the rest of us in saying, "no way, not on my boat!"
 

·
still boatless
Joined
·
185 Posts
The only argument that I can see for leaving them alone, is that one of the best ways to defeat an attention hog, is to starve them of attention. In that sense, the best thing we could possibly do is never speak of either of them or their boat ever again.

But I for one come down on the side of a con artist ought to be called out as being one, before they make off with good people's money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
I'd be all for someone like Peter Thiel sponsoring them into a new shiny boat for a RTW journey.

As long as they signed off on a global DNR - DO NOT RESCUE so Darwin can take its natural course.

Maybe add that other death-wish drifter if he's still in transit somewhere in Asia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
Like the DNR concept except seems a bit harsh. I always think of the expense ( which we eventually pay) and risk to first responders both government and civilian when I hear these stories. I’m reminded of the father and son team who repetitively went to sea on unsafe boats. Finally weren’t allowed to leave.
Think international law of sea should have some mechanism to charge for services/ impound/arrest individuals who place the SAR folks at risk for grossly unseamanlike behavior. I don’t mean just poor judgment or results from inadequate maintenance or prep but only truly blatant foolishness. I guess the issue would be where to draw the line.
In this case one could wonder if their gofundme represents fraud and is actionable legally. Wonder who gave them the five bucks and if they are willing to be the plaintiff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,639 Posts
While only occasional, I would favor a program that had consequences for the owner, if they required excessive rescues. Your first is always on us. Maybe your second, but I start to think how long it's been since the first. There have been egregious examples of some requiring these free services a half dozen times or more. The stories always seem to have a suspected issue of mental health.

How to do it, I'm not exactly sure. After your Xth rescue over some period of time, you somehow pay up. Full reimbursement for the next rescue is probably impractical. Maybe you are banned from being on the water at that point, until you successfully pass a difficult course (ie one that someone suffering from mental health issues probably wouldn't pass). Maybe you pay a large, but standard fine, or require a special permit to be on water for some number of coming years.

I think the USCG does have the authority to impound your boat, if they think either the vessel or the skipper is incapable seaworthiness. I think they very rarely get in the grey area of trying to prove that's the right call. Not paying the fine or passing the test or complying in some form, would be definitive. They can just send someone to chain you to the dock.

I admit I don't have the details for these consequences figured out exactly, but I favor something other than just sending the USCG out time and time again. For pilots, if you goof up, the FAA can require that you return to a flight instructor with whom you must demonstrate your knowledge and flight skills and be signed off again to return to the cockpit. Until you pass whats referred to as this "709 ride", named for the section of regs that call for it, you are grounded. This section also applies to aircraft, engines, propellers, etc, as well. They can ground you or the plane, until they re-evaluated safety. Since recreational boaters require no licensing at all, that isn't done. But maybe it becomes mandatory, after your Xth rescue.
 

·
Captain Obvious
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Unfortunately, this is one example where the "slippery slope" argument surely applies. Criminalization of rescue is a bad idea. I think we lose more freedom and endanger more people than we realize with that one. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


I don't exactly know where the line is between calling b.s. on a story and condemning the people who are rescued but I don't want to cross it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
Re: We should all help these poor ladies

I think our species needs "harsh" regular herd thinning, should allow predators above us in the food chain to roam population centers. Yes we'd lose some babies, but of less fit parents.

Trying to think what film(s) expounded on that idea, Brad Pitt comes to mind. 12 Monkeys or Fight Club most likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,639 Posts
Not sure I see why the thread needs to close. No bad behavior or rampant personal attacks (at least beyond some members who seems to have an inherent probelem with each other). If one doesn’t like the content, then skip it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,639 Posts
Unfortunately, this is one example where the "slippery slope" argument surely applies. Criminalization of rescue is a bad idea. I think we lose more freedom and endanger more people than we realize with that one. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


I don't exactly know where the line is between calling b.s. on a story and condemning the people who are rescued but I don't want to cross it.
To be clearer than I may have been, I was not suggesting criminalization of a rescue. I’m suggesting we have a system that forbids you from leaving the dock, on your next passage, if you require excessive rescues and don’t comply. The idea of a big fine may be what you dislike and I can understand the point that someone may not request a rescue, if they think they can’t afford it. But I will modify the various suggestions to say that none are due and payable for any rescue in itself. However, cross the line and you are simply not legally allowed to be on the water again, until you do comply. That logic currently applies to our roads and airways, so why not on the water? Too many incidents/accidents in either space, that are determined to be your fault, and you lose the privilege. Maybe you lose the privilege for a period of time, maybe until you comply with remedial training, maybe until you pay a fine. I’m open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
I think forbidding launching is a lot harsher from a freedom / civil liberties POV than my idea of a global DNR document.

Everyone should have the right to kill themselves however they like, long as they're not endangering others.

Obviously all aboard must be informed and agree to the DNR.

And please don't object on Green grounds, just too hypocritical as high-footprint first-worlders, we're rapidly hurtling toward our own extinction anyway no turning back now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
To be clearer than I may have been, I was not suggesting criminalization of a rescue. I’m suggesting we have a system that forbids you from leaving the dock, on your next passage, if you require excessive rescues and don’t comply. The idea of a big fine may be what you dislike and I can understand the point that someone may not request a rescue, if they think they can’t afford it. But I will modify the various suggestions to say that none are due and payable for any rescue in itself. However, cross the line and you are simply not legally allowed to be on the water again, until you do comply. That logic currently applies to our roads and airways, so why not on the water? Too many incidents/accidents in either space, that are determined to be your fault, and you lose the privilege. Maybe you lose the privilege for a period of time, maybe until you comply with remedial training, maybe until you pay a fine. I’m open.
Boat operators should be licensed and it should be a serious standard to get the license. BUT now anyone can operate any private yacht for pleasure... That's scary.
 

·
Land lubber
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Boat operators should be licensed and it should be a serious standard to get the license. BUT now anyone can operate any private yacht for pleasure... That's scary.
What is scary to me is people who have the need to be enslaved. Thus, they feel the need to enslave everyone to make themselves feel better/safer. Apparently, to them, freedom is a vague concept which should be crushed at every opportunity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
What is scary to me is people who have the need to be enslaved. Thus, they feel the need to enslave everyone to make themselves feel better/safer. Apparently, to them, freedom is a vague concept which should be crushed at every opportunity.
This is not a matter of freedom but a matter or responsibility and cooperation in society where people share the commons.

I don't want anyone any age without any training or qualifications operating a car or a boat which could endanger the lives of innocents people.

And that would include YOU and me.

You are now in my book a persona non grata...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
This is not a matter of freedom but a matter or responsibility and cooperation in society where people share the commons.

I don't want anyone any age without any training or qualifications operating a car or a boat which could endanger the lives of innocents people.

And that would include YOU and me.

You are now in my book a persona non grata...
What about people who go hiking then get lost? Should they be required to take map reading training before hitting the trail so they don't endanger the lives of the rescuers? How about home owners who get stuck on the roof requiring the fire department to rescue them? Should those home owners require certified training on the proper method to secure ladders? At what point does this government certificate of responsibility end?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
Be glad you don't live in Canada - We do have a ladder course! Don't have it you can't use a ladder at work! Never know, might set the ladder up upside down and end up climbing down instead of up.....
We also have a joke of a required boater course(money grab) that a kid can pass, we do have a decent VHF course that is required.
 

·
Land lubber
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
This is not a matter of freedom but a matter or responsibility and cooperation in society where people share the commons.
What about people who go hiking then get lost? Should they be required to take map reading training before hitting the trail so they don't endanger the lives of the rescuers? How about home owners who get stuck on the roof requiring the fire department to rescue them? Should those home owners require certified training on the proper method to secure ladders? At what point does this government certificate of responsibility end?
Thanks Jer, you saved me from a diatribe I doubt anyone wanted to see :p

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If you are not personally responsible and think any government can make up for that, you are soon to lose your freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
What about people who go hiking then get lost? Should they be required to take map reading training before hitting the trail so they don't endanger the lives of the rescuers? How about home owners who get stuck on the roof requiring the fire department to rescue them? Should those home owners require certified training on the proper method to secure ladders? At what point does this government certificate of responsibility end?
cars, trains, boats, cranes, planes, buses, are a good start
 
141 - 160 of 204 Posts
Top