Indeliblelink
\......👁&👁......./
Yep, it's game over. Estimate was the air was going to run out about this time. Poor sods.
Titanic tourist sub missing
- Thread starter not-bono-ever
- Start date
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
TBF in this particular case using whales as a unit of measurement could lead to unnecessary confusion.
gosub
~#
Apparently
This is a dodgy road to go down. Who should or shouldn't have to pay for emergency services and if those who should, can't, do you refuse to supply the services?
This isn't your opinion though, right?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
nogojones
spelling is overrated
pug
Well-Known Member
Exactly this.
Yossarian
⏭️
Negligent companies, for one
What about negligent individuals?
And who decides that negligence has taken place? How? What about suicide attempts? etc etc ...
I get that. But they can afford it, and it’s a business. A business should always pay for costs incurred. That should be the assumption as well as the rule.
Where I agree with you is that the individuals had every right to have a full emergency response - we all do foolish things and not everyone is lucky every time.
I looked at their website earlier. In the team, they have medical staff who sign this off. They will have lawyers. They have managers and salespeople...
None of them are competent to simply slide into the same role somewhere else.
Take a car accident. The individual driving and any passengers have every right to a full emergency response with no effort spared - doesn’t matter who they are, whether they broke the speed limit, or if it was a Lamborghini, they have that right. But if the car manufacturer or anyone involved in the sale and certification knew their product was unsafe they should lose their shirt, because they are responsible, and guilty of much worse than bad judgement.
Last edited:
It's not a business. You were suggesting that Rush's estate should be sued.
But the notion that businesses should pay for emergency services is flawed too isn't it? What about small ones who can't afford to?
Yossarian
⏭️
I would not have a problem with small, mom-and-pop submersible operators being sued out of existence if their shonky vessels left people stranded on the ocean floor, sparking a massive international search and rescue operation
pinkmonkey
2.4 hour party person
How absolutely and completely fucking grim, especially for whatever rescue submersible finds it (if they ever do) and then have to deal with what's inside. I just couldn't.
No.
Yes, his estate should be sued. There is no way his heirs should be allowed to profit from his grifting endeavours while all this expense has been incurred.
In terms of small businesses - well, if they recklessly cause loss of life or injury, then yes, they should be liable. If they don’t have the cash, they have assets to seize. That’s unfortunate but it’s the cost of doing business dangerously.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I'd recommend that such small ones don't carry out inherently, massively, dangerous activities without undertaking full and proper health and safety measures.
'Reasonably foreseeable' is a phrase that springs to mind.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Laxatives work better than a spoon.Never?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Ohh, and charging seems quite common in yankeeland - Emergency response fee - Wikipedia
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
not sure about getting oxygen but
sure the Americans might have a sub grabby machine lying around in storage from the cold war they pulled a Russian sub from the seabed once
dang the scrapped it
Glomar Explorer - Wikipedia
pinkmonkey
2.4 hour party person
If it had happened in the UK, the M.A.I.B. would've investigated, produced a report and then the company would have had the book thrown at them, there'd be a hefty fine and custodial sentences. Because it's an uncertified vessel and also if you take money off paying customers, that then makes it a boating business which has far stricter regulations than for private craft. There are different regulations to do with quality and certification of the vessel and you're required to have commercial liability insurance and someone in charge of the operation who has the right qualifications and this person is legally responsible for the safety of the passengers. I don't think a waiver would cut it. Wonder if he even had insurance? Will be interesting to see what the difference is legally with this over the other side of the pond.
Last edited:
Ok, but there needs to be some kind of agreement on where negligence has occurred and a system to assess it, doesn't there? That will involve courts, legal arguments and process. There's also a subjective angle. Some may argue that migrants who cram onto unsafe boats are also acting recklessly. Then you also have jurisdictional issues in cases where international waters are concerned. I don't disagree with you that these people (Oceangate and the prick CEO) should be crucified, but it's not as simple as saying 'all businesses should pay'.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I think it's unlikely (I haven't seen their food/water load spelled out anywhere) that they have enough fresh water for that. They might have had air for several days, but they seem exactly like the sort of people who'd forget to pack enough water to last at least as long as the air does.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No one has said that. Stop making things up.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
This suggests to me that you'd rather run out of air.
A gruesome death: the macabre science of dehydration
You are only ever a few days away from your demise.
bigthink.com
Of course yes. There has to be a legal process. I wasn’t suggesting there shouldn’t be.
I don’t think the migrants are responsible for the same reason the passengers here shouldn’t be blamed - they were just the passengers, and in both cases what various people on land think of their decisions and why they think it isn’t actually relevant. Those who operated the vessels/took profit/incurred costs/cut corners resulting in loss of life should certainly be liable in both cases.
Theres obviously a problem regarding regulation in international waters. We‘ve known that forever - it more frequently comes up regarding pay and working conditions. If anything good can come of this, it’ll be stronger blinding international agreements about exactly that.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I agree with you about this as a public policy issues, yes, it would be very difficult to say who gets help/who doesn't, who gets the bill etc. But in terms of how the story should be framed and discussed, my mind goes to tales of pissed/drugged up blokes who have to be rescued from mountainsides and the shellacking they get in the media... and to stretch the analogy, a company that might organise such pissed up, dangerous 'adventures', maybe with an added libertarian twist that 'nobody can tell us what to do'. Even though it's sad that these people have died - fucking awful for their families - it feels like the media narrative should be something similar. Pedantically, not an exact match, but still a case of tragic misadventure, a shockingly lax company and a few punters who, tbh, probably should have known better.
Similar threads
