Search and rescue

[Bergman]

A familiar argument on this forum

Never quite sure where it leads.

To avoid cost to taxpayer charge people for being rescued, which leads to an insurance solution. If people do not insure rescue anyway and charge anyway. Then go through courts to recover debt. Perhaps better to leave them to drown.

Alternatively charge everyone who takes part a small fee to cover potential cost. But huge overhead would mean not so small fee. Look at cost of radio license for provision of absolutely no service. Further as SAR organisation would exist anyway would stil be a cost on taxpayer. Perhaps possible with boats but how could you do it for hill walkers and climbers - boot tax?

Perhaps we all follow "drown like gentlemen" example, except all people responsible for SAR constantly tell us to, or make us, use radio, EPIRB etc. so we can call them and not drown.

Maybe we could extend this argument ashore, make people pay for being rescued by fire brigade, after all much of their work due to people mot taking proper precautions or driving carelessly. Now that may solve another problem.

 

[bedouin]

While I understand the sentiment, I thank God that we don't live in a society like that.

As a society we have decided that people are not penalised if they get into difficulties partly through their own folly. So we don't charge smokers or drinkers (directly) for the cost of treatment on the NHS. We don't get presented with a bill every time the Fire Brigade turn up and put out a fire.

While this principle may seem a little unfair, it is vastly better than the alternative.

 

[Shorn100]

Can we just make it clear please that the RNLI is not 'self-financing'. It relies on the goodwill of the public. It's a charity and has no government funding.

Recent downturns in the stock market has meant that it's reserves have been severly cut. Talk of 2 years reserves are now far from the truth. It costs over £100 million a year to run the RNLI - 80% goes to the lifeboats, 17% on fund raising and 3% on admin.

Should they charge for the rescues - definitely not, as long as people continue to support it with donations.

Which is why we should all belong to Offshore. If you're not, just think of all those fund raisers miles from the sea and rarely see a boat let alone go out in one, who spend hours and hours running bazaars and fetes, knitting scarves to raise money to save our necks. Humbling isn't it. Join now!

Shorn

 

[bigmart]

Re: I apologise for being reasonable...

My point really is, that there are, an awful lot of vested interests these days, who for other reasons than the incompetent few, who you mention, would like hijack alternative methods of funding their agencies.

The best defence against these types is to bite back like a rabid dog so that they are afraid to even consider exploiting the cash cow that they perceive us to be.

To treat their suggestions as reasonable is to give up and hand over the cash. The only reasonable attitude, for a civilised society, is that the provision of safety cover is the responsibility of the whole society and not the perceived main users of the resource.

Otherwise if I am taxed to provide helicopter cover, to do I have a preferential call over that helicopter, to rescue me from my boat, than a child whofalls over a cliff on a ramble, and makes no payment towards the service.

Martin

 

[Observer]

Just time for a last one

You and I and every other taxpayer are paying for it anyway. The point about "blue water" SAR services is they are only ever likely to be used for the benefit of a vanishingly tiny minority. I'm not suggesting the tiny minority should meet the whole cost but an additional contribution, particularly if made on a voluntary basis (e.g. a levy by race organisers) would, perhaps, quieten the complaints of those who cry "elitism". In a similar way, the willingness of most leisure boat users in the UK to undertake voluntary training has thus far held back the pressure for compulsory licensing.

It's a debatable point, I grant.

 

[Observer]

Just on the point about radio licences

£20 a year is pretty nominal and there is a service. Coastguard weather info, radio spectrum management (could hardly be left as a free for all), to name just two.

 

[steveh]

The system works as is is at present, why change it ?
If it an't broke leave it alone.

 

[nicho]

Re: RNLI

I see your point - in my business (motor racing), Teams all contribute to an emergency Medivac helicopter in their championship Registration fees.

 

[jamesjermain]

Quite so, this is what I meant. I am well aware of the financing of the RNLI; I wanted to make the distinction between it and agencies which rely on government money - badly phrased on my part, sorry.

JJ

 

[bigmart]

Re: Just on the point about radio licences

Coastguard Weather Service is not provided the Radio Licensing Authority and could be argued to be a cost cutting exercise(less callouts to people with better information).

Radio Spectrum Management is increasingly seen as aCash source by Government. Look at the costs of 3G licences and the declared desire to migrate consumers to digital TV.

Like many, I consider, the £20.00 fee is extortion for the service I get.

Martin

 

[Bergman]

Re: Absolutely right

RA provide no service whatsoever.

Spectrum management is done by ITU

Government only concerned with using thier ability to pass laws forbidding things to raise money in return for allowing them.

Nothing more than a source of hidden taxation.

 

[Ohdrat]

Mountain Rescue in Scotland is a good example of this.. and so is the RNLI.. both voluntary orgs funded by donations... is that what you mean??

 

[bigmart]

Re: Just time for a last one

Blue water rescue services are alerady in place for commercial shipping.

I didn't here a chorus of complaints when those American Choppers were borrowed to rescue that yacht off the Scillies earlier this year.

I can see all the sailors queing up to say "I am an irresponsible boater and I'm going offshore to sisk my life here is my money!"

I don't think so.

Martin

 

[HMCG]

When the compulsory wearing of seatbelts was introduced in the UK many people like yourself saw it as over regulation. Seatbelts save hundreds of lives each week.
Regulations for maritime matters are there for the same reason.

The MCA and the IMO do not just sit in a nice little office thinking "what rediculous regulation can we come up with today just to make sailors spend more money on equipment...........how can we inconvenience them as much as possible".

Regulation is there for the safety of you, your family and the people around you.

Remember that the next time some idiot in a speed boat ignores the anti collision regs and you wave your fist in anger at him whilst hanging on for dear life with the other hand. (not saying that all those in speedboats are idiots.)

Safer lives, safer ships, cleaner seas.

 

[graham]

HMCG , I have to differ in your comparison of road safety and sea safety.

Motor vehicles are the most regulated part of most of our lives yet the roads are full of irresponsible drivers ,unsafe vehicles and driving is a hazardous occupation.

By comparison recreational boating is largely unregulated yet boating remains statistically a very safe passtime.

The seas are not full of irresponsible idiots though obviously they do exist giving the huge majority of sensible boaters a bad name.

In my opinion you cannot bring in safety at sea by regulation.The idiots will become licensed idiots,well aware that there is little chance of them being apprehended.

What is working is education and training such as the various RYA schemes and the countless yacht clubs who offer instruction and safety advice to members.

A good example is the RNLI safety check. If it was compulsory the irresponsible element would borrow safety equipment for the check or buy a dodgy certificate in a pub.

Lets keep things in proportion ,leisure boating is a safe passtime on average. Im all for promoting voluntary safety schemes which have real benefit but dead against government interference which will be largely inefective and create another layer of red tape from the nanny state.

 

[HMCG]

Quote "What is working is education and training such as the various RYA schemes and the countless yacht clubs who offer instruction and safety advice to members."

TRaining from the RYA and yacht clubs will only ever reach those who are already semi aware of safety. The people that will not use these resources are those who are causing problems for other recreational users so that is not the answer. On the other hand if regulation is imposed it will apply to everyone.

I do consider the regulation of our roads to be similar to that of regulating use of the sea. Consider what would happen if only trucks and buses had to have an MOT and a licenced driver and cars (for many a type of pleasure craft) had no regulation. Imagine roundabouts with no laws about which way we go around them. Now consider similar maritime examples...the Merchant Navy (trucks of the sea) all have to be trained to a specified level in order to drive the boat and follow the correct flow of traffic in appropriate places (eg traffic seperation schemes) whereas and untrained yachtsman who requires no qualifications goes where he wants because as far as he is concerned it is his god given right. yes there will always be those that do not comply by the rules both on the roads and at sea but regulation and penalties have now reduced that number significantly.

Yes there is one major difference between roads and sea. If you have an accident on a road help is a short distance away (normally less than 30 minutes) at sea it is a different story, the nearest help may be several hours away....if they can find you.....

Remember the nanny state next time you have an accident at sea or on the roads and you require assistance from one of the nannys emergency services.

Safer lives, safer ships, cleaner seas.

 

[bigmart]

You seem to have missed the point of my post.

I didn't say that the organisations you mentioned sat around thinking up pointless regulation.

I did say that there was a vested interest in raising funding from any source possible. I mentioned no particular agency, but if the cap fits.

Leisure boating is incredibly safe. Which also happens to be the reason that funding is pulled from what seems to be under-utilised resources.

Martin

 

[Ohdrat]

Regulation only works when it is policed stringently.. look at the road chaos we have .. so many people who if the police were around could be hauled over the coals for danger driving/driving with out due care etc etc.. we've all seen road rage, some of us have experienced it and when have the police / legal system ever dealt with anything but the most severe cases and then debatably how effectively?

If the seas are going to be regulated.. who is going to fund the effective policing of the open waters.. beyond national boundaries???

 

[Gunfleet]

I believe the Prestige will have had every document and certificate necessary and that all her deck officers will have been certified. What a farce! What advantage have the people of NW Spain had from all this regulation?

 

[HMCG]

If leisure boating is so safe then I take it that you won't mind if the Portland helicopter just gets scrapped instead of just relocated. Also Maybe we should close a few of the south coast stations who spend the bulk of the year dealing with pleasure craft.

Don't take that to mean that I would like to see these things happen....I am just making a point.

Safer lives, safer ships, cleaner seas.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by HMCG on 30/11/2002 12:57 (server time).</FONT></P>