Switch
Captain
Nobody forces someone to come out to rescue them. If you're unwilling to rescue someone, then don't.
State Emergency Poll
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Nobody forces someone to come out to rescue them. If you're unwilling to rescue someone, then don't.
In that situation, the authorities do indeed have to rescue you; it's their job. But the whole point is that, in emergency situations, some people insist on ignoring warnings, or in this area, purposely going into rivers, etc, that have been declared unsafe. Then the rescue units get the call to come rescue the jackass and by law, they have to go. It happens so often that there are calls to add higher fines to the bills these people end up with.
Switch
Captain
They don't have to do anything. Nobody has a right to be rescued from their own foolishness or bad fortune. Society has decided to create institutions that don't distinguish regarding such matters, and folks have decided to join up with those institutions knowing the conditions under which they operate. If folks aren't willing to assist all who're in need, they can quit. If society isn't happy with the costs incurred by the institutions under their current practices, it can change them.
I don't think it should be illegal.
What it's effectively doing is declaring certain activities to be illegal as a way of helping services to operate more efficiently... which I think that's a dangerous road to go down.
I promote personal freedom with personal responsibility. So if you want to put yourself in dangerous situation, then so be it ~ it's your life, but don't expect people to be enthusiastic about jumping in to rescue you.
What would be better in my opinion is to not consider all emergencies as equal. Risk as a result of one's own stupidity (voluntary risk) is less urgent and less deserving than risk as a result of being caught up in a natural disaster (involuntary risk).
A rescuer should not have to put their own life at risk to rescue someone who has chosen to ride an inflatable down a raging torrent, but I would not forbid someone from doing that if they want to dice with death.
What it's effectively doing is declaring certain activities to be illegal as a way of helping services to operate more efficiently... which I think that's a dangerous road to go down.
I promote personal freedom with personal responsibility. So if you want to put yourself in dangerous situation, then so be it ~ it's your life, but don't expect people to be enthusiastic about jumping in to rescue you.
What would be better in my opinion is to not consider all emergencies as equal. Risk as a result of one's own stupidity (voluntary risk) is less urgent and less deserving than risk as a result of being caught up in a natural disaster (involuntary risk).
A rescuer should not have to put their own life at risk to rescue someone who has chosen to ride an inflatable down a raging torrent, but I would not forbid someone from doing that if they want to dice with death.
You need to stop saying this because it simply isn't true. Public rescue workers are typically bound by law to make every reasonable effort to rescue you--it is their job, after all. It is also not always apparent whether you made a recklessly stupid decision that put you in danger. Rescue workers aren't going to have time to figure this out, either, nor should they try to. Their job is to rescue you regardless of how you got into such a mess.
You have the right to act like an idiot and put yourself in harm's way. Since the state is obligated to rescue you, you also have the right to pay the bill incurred by your stupidity.
My thoughts, as well.
If people want to do something stupid, that's certainly their right, but if the state has to spend money saving you from your own idiocy that shouldn't come free of charge.
My main concern, though, is that we don't start billing people for penny ante shit. It should be reserved for instances where someone did something miraculously stupid during a declared emergency... like trying to ride the rapids with a blow-up doll.
If you think your car can make it through some standing water and it turns out you can't and you get washed down the river, that's a different situation as far as I'm concerned. You weren't trying to do something stupid just for the hell of it. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of resources investigating stuff like this during an emergency, so it should have to be pretty open and shut that you were being a moron, endangering the lives of yourself and/or others, and wasting limited state resources on rescuing your ass.
Why should that be considered a separate situation at all? Anyone who drives through standing water, especially in a riverbed, is demonstrating rather clearly that they are, in fact, a moron. The sad thing is that this happens all the frigging time out here.
So much so that we've enacted a law where drivers who have to be rescued at river crossings are forced to reimburse the state for it's expenses incurred while rescuing them.
I agree with Switch on this one. Many municipalities in the U.S. are, however, charging outrageous fees for showing up UNASKED to accidents, then sending a bill for showing up... whether they do anything or not. This is the other side of the coin, to turn a phrase.
Miss Chicken, I do not fully understand your view, especially in light of your signature line.
Which says that you are keeping an eye on Big Brother, yet many of your posts call for Big Brother to take action for the most detailed of life's situations. I was always taught "You cannot have it both ways". Can you help me reconcile that disparity?
Last edited:
My thoughts, as well.
If people want to do something stupid, that's certainly their right, but if the state has to spend money saving you from your own idiocy that shouldn't come free of charge.
My main concern, though, is that we don't start billing people for penny ante shit. It should be reserved for instances where someone did something miraculously stupid during a declared emergency... like trying to ride the rapids with a blow-up doll.
If you think your car can make it through some standing water and it turns out you can't and you get washed down the river, that's a different situation as far as I'm concerned. You weren't trying to do something stupid just for the hell of it. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of resources investigating stuff like this during an emergency, so it should have to be pretty open and shut that you were being a moron, endangering the lives of yourself and/or others, and wasting limited state resources on rescuing your ass.
Why should that be considered a separate situation at all? Anyone who drives through standing water, especially in a riverbed, is demonstrating rather clearly that they are, in fact, a moron. The sad thing is that this happens all the frigging time out here.
So much so that we've enacted a law where drivers who have to be rescued at river crossings are forced to reimburse the state for it's expenses incurred while rescuing them.
A couple inches of standing water aren't going to wash your car away. And depending on the clearance/power of your vehicle, you might be able to make it through several inches of standing water. It's a judgment call and some people will inevitably make the wrong decision. I don't think that's necessarily as hare-brained as trying to ride a swollen river on a blow-up doll, though.
The "Big Brother, the people are watching YOU" is something Julian Assange said. I think there is a need for the people to watch Big Brother just as they are times that Big Brother should watch out for people. A time of severe emergency is a time when I think that the government and services such as the police should take control because they best understand the situation because they have the resources to.
The government is being quite open about information during this flood. They aren't keeping facts from the people, they are warning people's of the dangers.
And the people are most definitely watching Big Brother during this crisis.
The government is being quite open about information during this flood. They aren't keeping facts from the people, they are warning people's of the dangers.
And the people are most definitely watching Big Brother during this crisis.
My thoughts, as well.
If people want to do something stupid, that's certainly their right, but if the state has to spend money saving you from your own idiocy that shouldn't come free of charge.
My main concern, though, is that we don't start billing people for penny ante shit. It should be reserved for instances where someone did something miraculously stupid during a declared emergency... like trying to ride the rapids with a blow-up doll.
If you think your car can make it through some standing water and it turns out you can't and you get washed down the river, that's a different situation as far as I'm concerned. You weren't trying to do something stupid just for the hell of it. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of resources investigating stuff like this during an emergency, so it should have to be pretty open and shut that you were being a moron, endangering the lives of yourself and/or others, and wasting limited state resources on rescuing your ass.
Why should that be considered a separate situation at all? Anyone who drives through standing water, especially in a riverbed, is demonstrating rather clearly that they are, in fact, a moron. The sad thing is that this happens all the frigging time out here.
So much so that we've enacted a law where drivers who have to be rescued at river crossings are forced to reimburse the state for it's expenses incurred while rescuing them.
A couple inches of standing water aren't going to wash your car away. And depending on the clearance/power of your vehicle, you might be able to make it through several inches of standing water. It's a judgment call and some people will inevitably make the wrong decision. I don't think that's necessarily as hare-brained as trying to ride a swollen river on a blow-up doll, though.
In the case of the man who has been charged in Queensland, the guy tried to drive over a flooded causeway which is a considerably more stupid thing to do that driving through a few inches of water.
Avoiding the whole vague law problem, it's analagous to fining someone for going out onto ice when the red flags are out. This could be put in place. Although I doubt someone who is about to take a blowup doll down a raging, flooding river is going to come to their senses because there's a $500 fine.
I have mentioned that yesterday the Victorian police has declared some rivers to be on the Maritime Exclusion List which means people are not allowed swim or boat on them until they are delisted. If people do swim or boat on them they will be fined of caught.
However the river that this stupid couple rafted down is not on the list.
My thoughts, as well.
If people want to do something stupid, that's certainly their right, but if the state has to spend money saving you from your own idiocy that shouldn't come free of charge.
My main concern, though, is that we don't start billing people for penny ante shit. It should be reserved for instances where someone did something miraculously stupid during a declared emergency... like trying to ride the rapids with a blow-up doll.
If you think your car can make it through some standing water and it turns out you can't and you get washed down the river, that's a different situation as far as I'm concerned. You weren't trying to do something stupid just for the hell of it. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of resources investigating stuff like this during an emergency, so it should have to be pretty open and shut that you were being a moron, endangering the lives of yourself and/or others, and wasting limited state resources on rescuing your ass.
Why should that be considered a separate situation at all? Anyone who drives through standing water, especially in a riverbed, is demonstrating rather clearly that they are, in fact, a moron. The sad thing is that this happens all the frigging time out here.
So much so that we've enacted a law where drivers who have to be rescued at river crossings are forced to reimburse the state for it's expenses incurred while rescuing them.
A couple inches of standing water aren't going to wash your car away. And depending on the clearance/power of your vehicle, you might be able to make it through several inches of standing water. It's a judgment call and some people will inevitably make the wrong decision. I don't think that's necessarily as hare-brained as trying to ride a swollen river on a blow-up doll, though.
The problem is that while it may look like just a couple of inches to us, it can turn out to be a couple of feet of water. Also, even a foot of moving water can wash a car away. We have heard about it on the news here far to often and yet, even with the law in place people try it. Almost unanimously they tell reporters (if asked) that it looked like it was only a couple of inches of water.
I specifically said "standing" water, not "moving" water.
If you come upon a body of water and it's very obviously moving, you're not going to be able to judge how deep it is and you'd have to be a right dumbass to try to ford it. Standing water (like a large puddle) you might be able to make a good call on.
It's perfectly reasonable to criminalize reckless behavior during a declared emergency. Not only does reckless behavior strain resources and cost money, but it puts rescue workers in additional, unnecessary peril. There's very little danger that such a law would effect people who were in danger through no fault of their own and it would act as some measure of deterrent for morons. Anybody found guilty should be fined and required to do community service.
I am sorry, but it's people like you calling on laws and controls and measures to be introduced, that are responsible for the deterioration of our society and the subjugation of free men by the police state.
Has it not occured to you that people, born with intelligence and the ability to reason, are able to assess for themselves whether an activity is worth doing or is safe or whatever? We do not need some faceless Big Brother In Charge telling us what we can and cannot do.
God Australians are so timid. How I wish we had a bit of European spirit. Europeans burn their speed cameras you know. Here it's all 'we must obey the law' without ever stopping to ask if the laws are just.
Has it not occured to you that people, born with intelligence and the ability to reason, are able to assess for themselves whether an activity is worth doing or is safe or whatever? We do not need some faceless Big Brother In Charge telling us what we can and cannot do.
God Australians are so timid. How I wish we had a bit of European spirit. Europeans burn their speed cameras you know. Here it's all 'we must obey the law' without ever stopping to ask if the laws are just.
Don't get me started on suicide. How can that be illegal? It is nobody's business but the chap who wants to carry it out. The government has no business mandating that the lives of its citizens are to be preserved even against the wishes of the citizen in question.
Moreover, since when was getting rescued compulsory? If I wanted to go for a swim in a swollen river on a sex doll - or doing like that American chap did fifteen years ago and go bush out in the desert for 40 days - mark my words 'getting rescued' and thrown back into the awful society that I had just managed to escape from would be a fate worse than death.
The government needs to learn to collect taxes, pay for services, and shut the hell up.
