I'm very sorry & deeply regret the loss of the passengers/crew, however-

For these extreme sports which cater mostly to the super-rich, I suggest that the sponsors be required to post a Bond commensurate with the risk & foreseeable search & rescue costs in the event of a tragedy so the non-participants won't have to foot the bills.

I hope this doesn't come of as cruel or heartless, but rather some economic & social responsibility for these super-risky happenings.


All activities including investments have some risk involved, the question here should be 'who pays'?

I sleep well nights knowing that the super-rich are, to a greater extent, taking good care of themselves.

But please, if anyone stumbles across a 'Gö-Fünd-më-Page' for any of the passengers or crew, please post the link!

The question I pose is partly to help these promoters use more care beforehand in order to qualify for a bond; How could Go Fund benefit the passengers and/or crew?

Your final question in the OP ended with, "...who pays?"

I was just doing my humble part!

More jurisdictions will bill people who need rescuing or extraordinary assistance. The State of New Hampshire comes to mind, and I've read reports of others.

I've always wondered what kind of bills are sent to people by Matt's Off-Road Recovery. I find his videos very entertaining--but also cautionary tales.

Arizona has a "Stupid motorist law". It really is called that. If you get swept away driving across a flash flood, you get billed for the rescue.

Good idea, but: is cost covered by insurance?

I think large-scale things should be bonded beforehand to help make safety increase as well as taking taxpayers off the hook.
How about hikers & pilots too?

White-water rafting companies & users

It's in the statutes.

https://www.phoenix.gov/fire/safety-information/onthemove/motorist

I remember it passing the legislature sometime around 1995. It could have inspired other states.

Tennessee is similar. If you destroy a highway guardrail (your fault) you pay for its restoration.

I totaled my car some 10 years ago or so when I hit some gravel going off a freeway and hit the guardrail. It knocked my bumper off. It wasn't destroyed, but I assume they put a new one on. Glad they didn't charge me for a guardrail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 12:15PM by cl2.

My deep dive into Mormonism ended when I reached crush depth. Nobody came looking for me.

thanks for ur posts, hoping for more tomorrow, even those who don't agree with my idea!!

A bond might not be a bad idea.

I saw an interview with James Cameron this morning. The community of people who have traveled to those depths is a small one. He said that there was widespread concern in that community that Ocean Gate's submersible was not certified, and that a number of people in the community had signed a letter stating that.

In a separate news piece, it was stated that there are/were only eight submersibles capable of carrying humans to that depth, and Ocean Gate's was the only one *not* certified. From what Cameron said, the company did not seek certification before launch in an effort to keep costs down.

So it looks like lawsuits will be an inevitability.

I admit to being shocked at the amount of attention devoted to these 5 hyper-rich people who knew the risks compared with the 300+ probable deaths of "migrants" (i.e. people seeking a better life...) on the boat that foundered off Greece just 2 weeks ago. We have our values fixed on upside down.

I'm guessing it's hubris -- for the same reason that the original "unsinkable" Titanic has held continuing interest, or a disaster on Everest (i.e. Krakauer's "Into Thin Air") is fascinating to many. You see the best and worst that humanity has to offer all wrapped up in one event.

Many years ago I used to teach about the Titanic disaster to my elementary students as a part of our ELA curriculum. At the end of the unit, I would ask them to write an essay about Captain Smith's decision making that evening -- did he make reasonable, or bad decisions that night, and why? My thinking is that you can make a case either way.

I would also read to them about other famous shipwrecks, many of which came after the Titanic. You would think people had learned valuable lessons from the Titanic disaster about staying safe at sea, but evidently not.

One notable shipwreck that happened only two years after the Titanic was that of the RMS Empress of Ireland, which went down in the St. Lawrence River, killing more than a thousand people. While it had an adequate number of lifeboats due to the Titanic disaster, I seem to recall that many of the passenger portholes had been left open. Therefore the ship took only 11 minutes to sink. The shipwreck is at a relatively shallow depth, and advanced divers can access it. Again, working from memory, human remains are still aboard the ship -- just bones, now. One compartment on the ship is full of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Empress_of_Ireland

As for migrants, I think that everyone understands that they are desperate people in a desperate situation. They are just trying their best to feed their families and put a roof over their heads in safety. I know that for two of my students' families, they walked all the way to the U.S. from Central America. One of the mothers was pregnant at the time. Can you imagine? So, IMO there is no hubris involved -- just desperate people willing to take significant risks in order to further themselves and their loved ones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 10:18AM by summer.

"We have our values fixed on upside down."

Quote of the year as far as I'm concerned, Soft Machine.

Couldn't agree more.

"I do what I can..."

--Anonymous Lamanite RfM Poster

"Honey, five people died today. We need to do our part to replace them."

I understand what some of you are saying about where our values as a society and as individuals lie.

I just think there is no way you can fail to render assistance, or attempt to do so anyway, based on a person's wealth status, or lack of it.

I agree there are yawning inequities. That just seems to be the way mainstream society has always been structured. Hopefully, enough voices will be heard to make the needed changes and enough will step forward to help.

So for me, it isn't a case of thinking anyone deserves either more, or less, concern, care, assistance or value based on their status.

Suleman, one of the passengers, was just 19 years old. He couldn't help it if his father was rich. He reportedly didn't even want to go as he feared the prospect but he did so for Father's Day.

From NBC News: "Azmeh Dawood — the older sister of Pakistani businessman Shahzada Dawood — told NBC News that her nephew, Suleman, informed a relative that he "wasn't very up for it" and felt "terrified" about the trip to explore the wreckage of the Titanic.

"But the 19-year-old ended up going aboard OceanGate's 22-foot submersible because the trip fell over Father's Day weekend and he was eager to please his dad, who was passionate about the lore of the Titanic, according to Azmeh."

I can totally relate to his terror but for his dad, the loving son went on the trip. I couldn't do that for anyone or anything (far too claustrophobic). I also don't understand the attraction of it. But he did and sadly, he doesn't get a do-over.

I don't understand the passion people feel for the sea or for extreme adventures or sport but each to their own is my view. It's part of the whole big messy spectacle of life and yes, there are vast inequities. It doesn't make me care less about rich people, many of whom are philanthropists who make good things happen for people who otherwise might well suffer even more without them.

The recent sea disaster in the Med is horrific, no doubt. Rescuers did rush to the scene and saved over 100 migrants. Tragically, many more did not survive.

People do care. There is plenty of compassion felt. It just doesn't get spread around enough, or in time, all too often, true enough.

It's like whack-a-mole. One tragic event after another. Misery abounds.

The 'Anonymous Lamanite' may or may not be goofing off but "I do what I can" is not a bad personal motto at all. If we can each use our resources and ideas and will and strength in reaching out we can help somewhere, sometimes, someone - no doubt.

And we can lend our voices in various ways to try and make a positive difference.

Meanwhile, helping one doesn't mean not being able to help another. We can't dictate who others should care about but we can be good examples with our own efforts.

All too often, for sure, the spotlight shines on the fortunate and switches off for others more in need. That seems to be the way of the world. I don't know what we can do except ensure we make an effort to help people and address inequities in whichever ways are open to us. And speak up, as you are doing here, when we see the need for change.

I admired the cohesion of the multilateral response to the sub disaster, as I posted about, seeing nations working together in coordination, good will and a united purpose. No doubt, at all, that if we could do that more often then achievements could be limitless.

Meanwhile, people are grieving for their lost friends and family members and I feel for them. Rich or not, grief hurts.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 04:00PM by Nightingale.

GNPE has a perpetual cow here about the fact that there are people driving cars in his state while registering them in another state, thus depriving the state of 0.00132% (yes, made-up statistic) of the state's potential tax receipts.

So he's worried about the cost of the search for the rich tourist submersible.

OK, several points. While I am hardly an expert on maritime law (or much else, but that's another story, I'm a retired fart keeping kids off my non-existent lawn) I am pretty sure that ships at sea have both a moral and legal obligation to aid in a search and rescue of people in danger at sea. They are expected/required to deviate course if needed and render what assistance they reasonably can, The stupidity or lack thereof of the persons needing aid is not a factor.

Incidentally, that obligation only applies to people, and not the craft or crafts they are on. If your sailboat gets disabled in the middle of the Atlantic, any ship nearby is required to pick you up. Towing your boat into port for repair is your problem. If you can work out a deal with some ship to rescue your craft, fine, but they are under zero legal obligation to do so.

So there's that. I believe any ship coming to aid in the search does it on their own dime. If they were requested to come, presumably whoever made the request could be billed. Various Coast Guards probably do their searches without charging. Coast Guard ships are no doubt expensive to operate, but the cost of crew salaries is there whether they are engaged in a rescue or not. They are full-time government employees. The only additional expense is fuel plus wear and tear on the boat, which is not nothing, but it is not huge either.

So for a hypothetical, suppose the search cost $3 million a day, or $15 million for the entire search. And further suppose the US government picked up the entire tab, which almost certainly is not true. Just a hypothetical.

That would come to 5 cents for every man, woman and child in the US. I think we can cover that expense. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the media didn't make several dozen millions of dollars in extra ad revenue from all the eyeballs they picked up for a week, and will end up paying more than $15 million in taxes on that revenue.

My point is that figuring the cost of the rescuse efforts is not all that straightforward, and on a per capita basis is really not very much, if you are spreading the cost over a large group of people.


And lastly, what makes you think the owners are not insured/bonded? I think financially they are going to be toast, regardless of their insurance. The customers are rich enough they don't actually need a settlement, and I suspect governments are picking up most of the search costs, and maybe they will bill the business and get some pittance back, maybe not; That's of little importance.

But, like the out-of-state license plates, there are much bigger issues in the world than the cost of this search, or even the loss of life in this case, which was Soft Machine's point. I totally agree.

I'm not sure this will be just a civil case. There is talk of negligent homicide. Waiver or no waiver, if you kill a billionaire you're in deep shit.

I predict OceanGate will be made an example.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 04:27PM by bradley.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waiver or no
> waiver, if you kill a billionaire you're in deep
> shit.

Same goes if you kill anybody.

Did the company break any laws? I'm under the impression it did not. So the company will be sued, perhaps go out of business, but no one will go to jail.

Just like Wall Street.

OK, but the greater (explained) part of my concern is some sort of beforehand safety check-up, independent verification.

Ships at sea get verification thru various check-points, American Shipping Bureau, CG, and others; various entities check documents of crews, especially officers. Insurers also have interests.

Perhaps if there were effective safety verifications for the current matter, the tragedy could have been avoided.

The licensing concern I've shared here is about the (lack of) Honesty many or most of us see around ourselves all too commonly, vehicle license fraud is a multi- million & issue here bc of Washington high taxes & fees;Washington has a sales tax of about 9%, Oregon doesn't have any sales tax; Guess where many Washington residents buy their cars, appliances, tevisions, etc...Honest motorists are being exploited / taken advantage of with - by a gross shortfall of effective enforcement.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 04:58PM by GNPE.