RNLI Rescue charges

[Sybarite]

I'm not altogether sure about this, but I believe in France whereas there is obviously no charge for saving lives, there is a charge for recovering the boat as an alternative to claiming salvage. As in the UK, no public money goes them (SNSM).

The charge is not extornionate but may dissuade the pan pans for lack of fuel.

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

If you take total annual running costs including depreciation and divide by the average number of launches .... etc etc

John

Anything to get to 500 posts tonight.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Ken, Its more to do with the fact that the RNLI would never charge because it might stop someone calling for help sooner rather than later.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Over there ....

they do things rather differently ... SNSM costs substantially less. As an inhabitant, perhaps you might throw some light ...

Possible reasons are:
a) they receive local government support but last set of SNSM accounts did not show this although French accounting leaves a lot to be desired, I've found, or
b) charge as you suggest or
c) the French simply have less need of a rescue service

The SNSM accounts show cost of £10m per annum - RNLI £100m - no small difference


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Over there ....

French lifeboats are not in the same league as ours, many seem to be no more than simple motor boats in SNSM colours with a blue light on top. They also I think call on other official boats and/or navy to help. Much as I like France if I ever need help please let it be on our side of the channel. The RNLI has to be the best in the world and that is BECAUSE of not DESPITE being totally independent of any funding authority or constraints.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Cultural Change

Not if they charge a realistic rate. Sea Starts enough for a RIB, one man and a few spanners. It would be an insurance size claim, like salvage, so expect your premiums to rocket. Unless The RNLI charge annual premiums. These could be very high as with any premium brand. Of course if they ever charge they'll have to pay the blokes and load the thing up with admin overhead and legal stuff.

I hope it never happens.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

There's no doubt that the vast majority of us are delighted with the way the RNLI operates. However I think that the objective of this post was that when someone does something that is not just stupid but foolhardy with the knowledge that responsible authorities have advised them against a course of action ie the harbour master in this case.And in so doing have put 3rd party lives at risk then is it appropriate that some sort of action be taken against them? Or ... are these occurrences rare enough and the threat of such action unlikely to restrain any such future behaviour, that any penalty is irrelevant?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Not the RNLI. The MCA if anyone

The RNLI must be left out of this! They are a charity, and they cannot get involved in penalising people.

The people who should perhaps look again at their stance are the MCA.

The MCA have a get home free card called the Lifeboat - it costs them nothing and it will always respond. There is definitely a tendency on the part of some MCA staff to call the Lifeboat out when it is not really necessary to do so. Yes, the RNLI will say that it is good practice for them, and they will put a brave face on it, but...

An example:

A professional delivery skipper and crew were taking a big boat from Gibraltar to the Clyde. The engine failed halfway across Biscay. No problem; they went easy on the batteries and informed the Irish Coastguard who kept an eye on them. Entering the Clyde they notified the MCA, mainly so as to warn any shipping that they were less manoevrable than usual. They promptly got a Lifeboat which they had not asked for and did not need.

Let's leave the Lifeboat out of this and think about how the MCA might perhaps be helped to do things differently.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

I agree. But it must never be the RNLI seen to be judgemental.

I don't know if they still do it but in Salcombe Harbour if you speed ( over six knots) they warn you and ask you not to do that. Regular offenders find their boats chained to a mooring buoy. They loose their boat for a short while and most get the message, very few repeats after that. Simple penalties are better than costly legalistic nonsense.

That bloke who took all his kids out on a jetski and nearly drowned them should have had the thing impounded until he showed he'd learnt some new stuff.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Skyva_2]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

That sounds a bit punitive for someone who was probably frightened and desperate, wet, cold and tired and in a poor state to take the decision. As usual the crew was in a worse state than the boat. Foolish yes, criminal no. What it does show is the benefit of having a passage plan and thinking beforehand about the alternatives in bad weather.

I would not want to be there and hope I would have the determination to stay offshore.

As for going down the SNSM route and charging, they also do a fantastic job, but any hint of Government involvement would scare me. Next thing we know we will have foundation lifeboats (except maybe in Scotland and Wales).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

If I drive a car, fall asleep, crash and wipe out family XYZ I'm criminally negligent am I not?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

I'm not sure the charge would be criminal negligence - more likely manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter or causing death by reckless drving.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[jimi]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

Agreed but all these are criminal charges arising as a result of criminal negligence. Difference between manslaughter and murder is mens rea, or the intention to kill. If I do'nt intend to kill someone but someone dies as a result of my actions and these actions can be shown to be negligent, then a charge of manslaughter (which is a criminal charge) could succeed.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Aeolus_IV]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

But the key difference between your example and the incident in question is why the victims are where they are. In the case of the family in a car they are there by chance, for the RNLI they choose to be there.

I am most angry about this event because having ignored good advice, and not requested assistance while at sea, they created a situation (accidentally, yes) where the local lifeboat felt impelled to assist at extreme risk to all concerned. The headline could so easily have read "2 Sailors and 2 RNLI Crew crushed to dead, LifeBoat seriously damaged".

Perhaps the question should be: How do we educate poeple to make better decisions while at sea? After all, if there had been no lifeboat based in the harbour they probably would have been seriously injured if not killed. While sailing you must surely assume that you are on your own, that nobody is necessarily going to get there in time.

Jeff.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Heading for the big 100! nm

`

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[jimi]

Re: Heading for the big 100! nm *DELETED*

Post deleted by jimi

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

This has happened. The yacht Signature entering Tynemouth on 3 April 1998. The yacht, Bavaria 46, broached and was knocked down 120 degrees. Two lives were lost and the skipper was charged with manslaughter. I think that the relatives of the victims sued.

The skipper, in the morning & on the way out, asked Tyne Harbour the conditions and was told of a heavy swell. He got through that comfortably. The motion was too rough for some of the crew so he returned and, again, asked for advice on conditions at the entrance (Tyne has two piers forming a narrow entrance and an ebb tide with swell out to sea causes steep waves in the entrance). Tyne Harbour told him it was OK to proceed.

The MAIB made the point that "The shoreside operator may not be a yachtsman with an instinctive feel for the type of information a skipper would find useful".

On the other hand, the boat that ploughed into Portland breakwater at high speed was charged with having inadequate safety equipment ...... there were no casualties other than bruises etc



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Heading for the big 100! nm

£10 shurely .....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Penalise the criminally foolhardy?

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.maib.dft.gov.uk/sd/0101/29.htm>Signature</A>

It is interesting to see that the skipper got off.

IMHO there was real criminal negligence in this case, more in the fact that novices were not wearing lifejackets and were not clipped on in these conditions.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Whoa

If I am to be charged for creating a situation where a £5 charge is incurred - will I not be tempted to refrain from posting?
Is it not irresponsible of me with a Wife and 3 Bar staff to keep - to deliberately set upon a course of action in the sure knowledge that the road to impecuniosity beckons?
Or is it a responsible course of action knowing that I am doing something to fund one section of the RNLI - the Fleetwood Lifeboat - which they don't bring out on wet days - when I read that funds are squandered on dozy sods on the South Coast who get themselves into trouble by not listening?



<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif