nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Disobeying Safety Warnings - Should it be crime/punishable offence?

AudreyHepburn

Now that Hurricane has passed there is much discussion about the many people who not only put their own lives at risk by disobeying Met Eireann's safety warnings but also the lives of the rescue personnel sent out after them.

I personally see such actions as selfish and idiotic and I firmly believe that anyone who deliberately disobeys safety warnings to go swimming, kite surfing etc and subsequently calls out the emergency services to help them should at the very least be fined.

The Rescue 116 tragedy showed us exactly how dangerous the job our rescue services do at the best of times - the idea that people would have so little disregard for them that they willingly disobey safety warnings boils my blood.

What do my fellow boardsies think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

screamer

Imo there needs to be more general duty of care laws. Not just for emergency situations but also for things like pedestrians walking along dark roads at night in dark clothing. That's dangerous to themselves and others and they should not be allowed away with it. No duty of care for themselves but if knocked down the driver has to take all the blame.
Similarly for yesterday a fine, make them pay for the fallout and seize any equipment they used.

Macmillan150

Not in this case but weather warnings CAN be wrong. The country is still riddled with " road closed" signs when the road has been open with years. Do we still prosecute people who ignore them? What if it's an emergency and you need to be out in a storm? I remember my dad nearly being hit by a tree as he frantically worked through a storm to save our house from flooding (he kept going and saved the house).
People should be free to make some decisions for themselves.
The surfers were interfering with no one.
The happy pear crowd had to take down a picture of them swimming hours before the storm because people were indignant.
Kildare village was bullied into closing by outrage they would dare open.
The people driving who were hit by trees were surely more reckless.

FishOnABike

elperello wrote: »

Considering that this was a rare event and that we probably (though not definitely) have time to make changes before the next one I would advise against any quick fix legislation.
Better to have a period of reflection followed by a public consultation involving all relevant stakeholders and interested parties.

I'm not sure if this is an example of Poe's Law or not, maybe that means it definitely is. But, yeah, something must be done, and a committee is something. There's nothing a committee or focus group or whatever can't make better... won't somebody think of the children!

DaithiMa

Billy belt or the wooden spoon should be administered to all warning ignorers promptly. Who administers? Whoever is closest to them. 5 lashes of either one should teach them a lesson they will never forget.

Are Am Eye

Many of humanities greatest achievements were conducted while participants were taking extravagant risks. You'll sure find none by peoples who hiding under a duvet.

Akrasia

You take a risk, you take the consequences if it goes wrong

I would support a system similar to the USA where curfews are set at times of emergency. People can still go outside, but they can't expect emergency services to rescue them if they get into trouble.

If you're a thrill seeker who expects others to risk his/her life to save you if something goes wrong then you're an arsehole.

Someone mentioned suicide earlier. It should be obvious that nobody should be expected to risk their life to save someone who tried to end their own.

It is only extreme conditions that cause weather alerts. hill walkers who get caught out because of errors of judgement or bad luck are not the same as people who choose to leap into the ocean when a hurricane is smashing waves against the rocks

miss flutter ups

Unless people are risking their lives somewhere they can't possibly be observed, I think they should be brought to court and fined a fortune.

StinkyMunkey

dudara wrote: »

Not a criminal offense IMO, that's too nanny state. But neither should they expect any assistance

I disagree tbh, the fact remains that if some retard ignores warnings and does something totally idiotic the emergency services don't have the luxury of ignoring it.

If by your actions you knowingly go into a situation that could be dangerous or life threatening you should be made pay the financial cost of your rescue. Never mind the morality of putting other lives in danger.

Yesterday the authorities pleaded with people to practice caution, and the vast majority did. Some poor old souls were killed driving in the weather let alone being totally selfish twats playing with the elements.

People die all the time the world over trying to rescue people who have through no fault of their own needed rescuing, if someone dies because your being a selfish ****tard I say throw the book at them.

[Deleted User]

Akrasia wrote: »

It is only extreme conditions that cause weather alerts. hill walkers who get caught out because of errors of judgement or bad luck are not the same as people who choose to leap into the ocean when a hurricane is smashing waves against the rocks

Speaking of hills, the best time for winter climbing here in Ireland is usually when there is an orange warning for snow and ice. It's a sport that requires what we consider bad weather.

Arghus

No. It would be nanny statism taken to a ridiculous extreme.

This is a hot topic because of current events, it'll soon go back into the recesses of everyone's mind again.

Sam Quentin

I think all these divers and kite surfers have learned their lesson at this stage!? Leave them alone and move on.

Kermit.de.frog

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Many of humanities greatest achievements were conducted while participants were taking extravagant risks. You'll sure find none by peoples who hiding under a duvet.

Do you think the species putting not only their own lives, but the lives of emergency workers, at risk in Galway and other places were doing something to advance the cause of humanity?

[Deleted User]

I'd rather we dealt with more serious issues like the general rise in anti social scumbags around the country or that kinda stuff, instead of distracting ourselves talking about arresting people for leaving houses in a storm, something that will never, ever happen.

How would you even define it? Not allowed X meters from a water source in a storm? Are you allowed walk on the beach? What if you live in a coastal area and need to put the bin out. What if, like the people mentioned in the news, you're competent and in the sea long before the storm ever gets near you?

Load of nonsense.

Shemale

josip wrote: »

Not necessarily. Depending on the conditions and the skillset of the individuals concerned, the person in the sea might be at less risk.

Falling trees and wind blown debris were the real dangers yesterday. The people on land were the ones at risk from that.

Depending on the conditions? Fastnet Lighthouse recorded gusts of 103 knots just after 9am.

The guys on the bits of fibreglass with sails in swirling winds peaking at 190 kmph in open sea near rocks might be at less risk, given the two were rescued because they were 'in difficulty' I dont agree, but for the person on land that rang there would have been 2 more fatalities

Shemale

Macmillan150 wrote: »

The surfers were interfering with no one.

Apart from the coastguard and RNLI crew that stopped them from drowing.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/hurricane-ophelia/coast-guard-and-rnli-crews-rescue-two-kitesurfers-in-difficulty-off-east-coast-36231213.html

CalamariFritti

Absolutely not. I believe in individuality and responsibility and what seems madness to some is mundane to others. Having said that if someone deliberately (or foolishly) overestimates their abilities they shouldn't expect others to put themselves in harms way to recover from it.

enda1

Certainly not and it's a ridiculous precedent to consider.

Should people who knowingly have too much sugar be responsible for the payment treatment should they develope cancer?

Should the smoker who develops lung cancer pay for their chemo?

Footballer who does in his cruciate pay for the orthopaedic repair?

We all take risks and all knowingly take them with the knowledge that we live in a society with certain safety nets in place. It's a choice we need to make as a people but if you start to erode these safety nets we will diminish as a people and turn insular. We will take fewer risks in all walks of life be that in start-ups, research, sport...

We'll end up like the rightfully mocked school yard where running is banned and children must walk in the same direction. Citizen drones

Zuzie

I'd say put on an advertising campaign on tv and radio to raise awareness among people about the potential dangers of certain activities and precautions they should take, and put it to them about the dangers they ll put the brave men and women in our emergency services to if they dont heed. I do think a lot of it is just plain ignorance of the sea and mountains and lack of thought. However If they go out with a red warning in place, they should be fined.

Zuzie

In relation to my last post,I'm speaking generally here, not specifically referring to Ophelia. People go out all the time and get themselves into trouble...

whisky_galore

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Many of humanities greatest achievements were conducted while participants were taking extravagant risks. You'll sure find none by peoples who hiding under a duvet.

So were the people on Monday doing this for King and Country or to advance science in some way? :pac:

Maybe Michael D should present them with a medal?

Every month or so, some goon gets themselves lost in the mountains and the search and rescue have to be called out. Likewise when we have a fine spell, at least one person gets into trouble, so I'm not really confident about peoples' abilities to judge conditions.

weldoninhio

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So they die, I doubt anyone that’s going for a swim in a hurricane is gonna be the brains behind a cancer cure. And once a few die, it might put a bit of sense into the other idiots and stop them from doing it.

weldoninhio

Discodog wrote: »

It's simply bonkers that a Guard can't stop you from walking along a closed road or climbing on a diving board.

100%. If you decided you wanted to climb into the bear or tiger enclosure in a zoo, I’m sure the Gardaí would be able to stop you.

whisky_galore

Arsemageddon wrote: »

It has never been common practice to let the coastguard or RNLI know that you are heading our to sea, if that was the case those organisations would be snowed under with pointless paper work.

The only 'experts' on this thread are people who clearly have no experience of water sports or the sea.

Scuba divers heading out in boats regularly contact the coast guard, before setting out, leaving them know where they are and when they expect to be back and they radio when they get back to let them know everything went as planned.
They don't mind doing this at all. And I know because I have made those calls.

BattleCorp

II wouldn't make disobeying safety warning signs a criminal offence.

I'd just leave the fcuktards to their own devices. Zero effort in rescuing them.

The same goes for inexperienced dumb fcuks who go climbing mountains in December wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

Leave em there I say.

whisky_galore

BattleCorp wrote: »

Leave em there I say.

You know any rescue worker worth their salt will never do that.

Jawgap

I wouldn't make it a criminal offence but I would make them civilly liable for the cost of the call out.

It doesn't matter how dumb people are, the rescue services will always look to extricate them from their own stupidity up to and including risking their own lives in the process, and sometimes losing them too.

We expect it. We know the professional and volunteer services such as the Coastguard, RNLI, Fire Services, Air Corps etc will do their absolute damnedest to save us, the least we could do is not take the really stupid risks (we can still take stupid risks) so they can concentrate on the unfortunates.

Something like the storm we just had where people went out on and in the water (swimming) is a case in point - in those type of situations rescue should be available and they can pay the cost themselves at a later point.....I'm not sure why the public purse should facilitate such numpties.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Many of humanities greatest achievements were conducted while participants were taking extravagant risks. You'll sure find none by peoples who hiding under a duvet.

I doubt the surfers were going to invent or discover anything useful when they were out.

BattleCorp

whisky_galore wrote: »

You know any rescue worker worth their salt will never do that.

Good job they aren't depending on me so.

Seriously though, how stupid are people? One yacht had to be rescued twice during storm Ophelia. Come on.

RustyNut

If we are going to charge, fine people who ignore weather warnings then surly the first people to be gone after are motorists who drive during the warning . The facts speak for themselves, if nobody went out in their cars during this red warning then nobody would have been killed.

Do the fcuk them wind surfers (not kite surfers) people think that the people who end up under a fallen tree should be left to die or if they are rescued, recovered should their families be sent the bill or a big fine?

Just for clarity the wind surfers were never in any danger, didn't require rescue and didn't call out any rescue services.

andekwarhola

Discodog wrote: »

I hope that the surfers won't mind when they are drowning & a passer by assumes they are waving.

Almost poetic.