The French parliament is presently debating a proposed new law that would require French citizens who knowingly take risks overseas to pay for their rescue. French sailors who sail too close to Somalia, for example, might conceivably have to reimburse the government if they are hijacked by pirates and have to be rescued by a French operation - as has happened in the last year.
The French debate has added fuel to the current issues surrounding sailors crossing oceans solo, although this is not the specific focus of the French law. Still, the issue is a hot button for many on both sides of the question. Should governments continue to bear the costs of rescuing anyone at sea from any circumstance whatever? Regardless of what the person was doing there and what the cost may be? Since virtually all sailing and other activity on an ocean (or bay, or creek, or mountain - and perhaps even crossing a street) involves some risk, is it even possible to define the point at which a risk becomes unacceptable?
What do you think? Please raise your voice in this poll. Leave a comment if you can define the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk from society's perspective.
Comments
I’ve long argued that boaters’ insurance coverage should be required to include “assistance and rescue” insurance to a boater’s policy that would go into a managed national pool to reimburse local police and/or Coast Guard agencies for rescues or assistance. I know there are a lot of “what if” situations that could crop up, but they could be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Those boaters who refuse to be insured should understand the financial risk and be required to pay the cost if they need assistance. If they’re unwilling or unable to pay, their boat should be seized. They don’t deserve to be allowed on the water if they’re not willing to share responsiblity for insuring that ALL of us have access to aid when we need it.
Bill:
I think your idea may be a good one – having insurance to reimburse the govts. But, I wonder how much would that raise boaters insurance for the majority of us that run a very minimal risk of having to be rescued?
For instance, we sail in Lake Ontario, nearshore and almost never go out in bad weather. Should I have to pay more insurance to cover those who sail the oceans blue in all kinds of hazardous situations?
Like the Sunderland girl? She was in an area known for bad weather at the wrong time of year on a boat that had a history of breaking down. (wasn’t her father a shipbuilder???) Her parents should have to pay at least a portion of the cost of her rescue. I’m not sure I am comfortable with having to subsidize idiots and glory hunters by hiking my premiums.
Lorie:
I appreciate your perspective; I live on the western shore of Lake Huron in the “Thumb.” Every day during the boating season, I gaze on jet skiers, kayaks, small day sailers, outboard motor boats and on up cruising blithely up and down the lake from near-shore to out at the horizon. I doubt if many of them have given the slightest thought to what hazards might befall them while frolicking in the waters. Two years ago, a kayaker, whom I watched on a nearly daily basis pass by during the summer, was hit by a surprise storm while only a quarter mile off shore. The sheriff’s department, initial responders, found his kayak two miles out and his body several miles away. There was only recovery, no rescue. A sad story, that might not have been able to avoid. But the Sherif made every effort to rescue the man, whom I believe DESERVED rescue. My wife and I were caught in a similar situation only 10 miles offshore a few years ago on our very seaworthy Tartan 30. The storm grew in intensity within minutes. At one point I glanced at my knotmeter to see that my boat, with a rated hull speed of 6.43 K was coursing through the water at 12 knots! At one point shortly thereafter, I contemplated calling the local marina to give them our coordinates so they’d know where to start looking. I didn’t, and we didn’t need assistance…but I had every expectation that SOMEONE would come if I HAD called.
We shouldn’t have to lose that expectation because of the many (unfortunately) “sailors” who either abuse the the service through ignorance or who take advantage of a service they might feel the government “owes” them.
I would like to know that the service IS available if I should need it. If that means I must pay $100 more a year (or whatever) in insurance or a surtax on my boat registration, so be it. Yes, the major cost will go to recover the bodies of the stupid, the innocent, or the undeserving, but that’s not my call.
I know that this is not quite on point with Tom’s charge to us to “define the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk from society’s perspective,” but I just want to be sure that IF I do make the call for help, it’ll be there for me.
Don’t you? Don’t we all?
I don’t think that any sort of remuneration scheme for search and rescue is a good idea. I have three reasons:
1. A Coast Guard that provides, among other things, search-and-rescue services for mariners in distress, is one of the few legitimate functions of government. This is probably a characteristically–if not uniquely–American perspective. But I find is entirely unpalatable to be taxed at 34%, which goes to pay for food assistance and healthcare for those who pay no taxes and are not expected to reimburse any of the costs associated with that expense, then be expected to pay for my own rescue at sea if needed. If the cost of operating the US Coast Guard is a problem, then perhaps the USCG should spend less time harassing fishermen looking for drugs and counting life jackets on the oil skimmers in the Gulf.
2. If the proposal is to only require reimbursement where “unreasonable” risks are taken, then who is to define reasonable risks? The law (in this country) requires some minimum complement of safety equipment on board all vessels. If one is in compliance with the law, shouldn’t that preclude any finding of “unreasonable risk?” Abby Sunderland (whom I presume is the impetus for this new French law) was in compliance with the law. She was well stocked with safety equipment, and had the proper certifications, training, and experience. But obviously many consider her to have undertaken “unreasonable” risk. The problem is that there is no way to define what is reasonable and unreasonable risk by statute, and a facts-and-circumstances determination on a case-by-case basis will lead to an uneven and unbiased enforcement of the law.
3. Those who did not undertake “unreasonable” risks but who wind up in peril will likely hesitate to call for help, and the rate of deaths at sea will increase as a result. A rescue operation at sea is expensive. Fuel for helicopters and ships involved, the salary of the personnel involved, cost of supplies and medical equipment deployed at the scene. It would be a crippling financial burden if left to fall on all but the wealthiest individuals. And the exposure to that sort of liability would only increase the already-high rates for mariners insurance, leading even more boats uninsured.
Where else in society does this take place? My home doesn’t have sprinklers; is this an unreasonable risk? Should the fire department send me a bill if my house catches on fire? I have a truck built in 1986; it doesn’t have airbags or stability control systems. Should the highway patrol send my wife the bill if I get in a wreck in that truck instead of my regular car, which has all those safety features and more?
I think that answering legitimate calls for help at sea (legitimate meaning one is in real danger, not simply frightened or uncomfortable) should, as it has always been, be the unreimbursed role of any country’s Coast Guard.
I think the insurance companies are doing a fairly good job of alerting parents,spouses,associates,and governments to the present problems surrounding stupidity and piracy.If the reinsurance companies do not curtail the ignorance,the insurance companies should.
Why should anyone assume they will be rescued by using GPS?Just beccause rescuers know where you are in your futile or insane quest for fame,why should they endanger themselves or their associates?
It may be time to let them go out and try anything,then send a message to the unfortunate idiot to buck up,things could be worse.Yes,they, their family,or the corporation could pay for their stupidity.
These rules should be applied to mercenaries,mountain climbers,divers, base jumpers,Bering Sea fishermen.
I think whoever requests the rescue should pay for it:
If I call for help, I pay.
If a crewmember calls for help (and chooses to abandon ship without me) they pay
If my family calls on my behalf because I am overdue and have not been heard for, they pay.
If the government decides to launch a search for their own reasons, they pay.
A corollary is that I should not be required to carry the means to call for help if I have some other coherent plan.
If I decide the money would better be spent on active measures and self-sufficiency, such as better anchors, a stronger rig, and more damage control equipment, I should not be required to carry EPIRBs, ship-to-shore radio, satphones or any other passive mode — and potentially misleading — “safety” equipment.
I think this is especially relevant to those sailing to parts of the world where help is not available at a realistic cost and in a realistic timeframe.
1) Pass a law that says don’t be stupid.
2) After at sea/mountain/wilderness rescue, determine if person was being stupid.
3) Jail stupid person. Cost of rescue is bail for jail term.
Provide all possible assistance! It is the law of the sea and predates all nations. The cost issue is mostly bogus–if the Coast Guard isn’t rescuing people, it is practicing the same thing. Abide by the law or you are no sailor.
1- I do believe that everyone that ventures out on the water should have some form of insurance. Granted, most of the time that insurance is to replace things not time and effort. Life insurance is not stupid when heading out on the water be it river, lake or ocean.
2) What do people think the Coast Guards’ aroud the world have been implemented for? For helping people that can’t help themselves. This really is their primary mission.
3) We all are provided the same service day in and day out. We all expect the police, fire department or EMT’s to save our butts from some disaster whether we are the cause or an effect.
4) This can be the price of living in society, that we look out for others even the stupid ones in the hope that someone will look out for us when we can’t cope alone.
5) I’m a sailor and I also work commercially on the water; I try to be as safe as possible. But guess what “SHIT HAPPENS” to even the best prepared person. And the water brings out the best and the worst of us when it happens.
itseems to Me that all anyone cars about these days is the bottom line or what money we can make from what ever happens how about just doing the right thing to help anyone in trouble
So, should every person who has a wreck with their car related to recklessness have to pay the fire department and police to come get them, maybe so. Should we increase the burden of every sailor and add to the profits of corporations by requiring insurance for emergencies? What if you are denied the coverage? You want someone else to tell you that you can no longer sail when and where you want? If governments already require emergency beacons that automatically go off do you have to pay for the rescue even if you would not have set it off your self manually? What if the beacon malfunctioned? Will you be held against your will in another country until you pay your bill? Will other governments seize your boat to cover all or part of the cost? What if certain countries decide to run out and “rescue” you when there isn’t an emergency because they can seize your boat? To be insured will you also have to be licensed? How much profit does a government make off boat owners? Taxes, fees, etc., compared to the occasional rescue? This all turns into a very sticky situation with more bad outcomes then good.
I think that special insurance (or a rider added to normal policy) is appropriate for ‘extraordinary’ voyages by any sailing or motor vessel. To extend it to cover possible rescue efforts on behalf of the crew (not the vessel) seems prudent and reasonable.
Let the insurance coverage experts determine the cost of the policy based on risk, duration, location and proximity to rescue agencies or individual vessels.
I think like Mick — “extraordinary” voyages should be insured appropriately for rescue. Lloyd’s insures against all perils depending on risk. Shipping companies insure their boats and cargoes appropriate to the risks associated with a voyage. We already pay premiums based in part on cruising areas. The premium for inshore (3-mile) and 12-mile territorrial waters is relatively small (and perhaps in these waters one could persuasively argue for “traditional” search and rescue at no cost to the rescued); for longer voyages it increases. If you want to circumnavigate and expect you may encounter circumstances that could lead to your rescue, insure the risk — it’s part of the cost of a voyage.
I already pay for my rescue…The government calls it registration and taxes…To help them they make me carry alot of safety gear.
If you are rescued in an ambulance, you are sent a bill. I was injured escaping a building that was in violation of fire code and was sent an $800 bill for the ambulance that came to get me my health insurer paid for it all. There is a precedent for charging people for their use of this service and insurance on boats should pay the government for the cost of rescue.
Since most people who have boats buy insurance, the cost of maritime rescue is spread out over the people who use the water. Since boat insurance roughly scales with the size of boat and thus the distance from shore you can travel, which is roughly proportional to the cost of rescue, people who risk costing the state more money in aggregate pay more in aggregate than people who have small boats that stay near shore and have relatively cheap rescues.
The best way of distributing the cost of rescues would be to say that on a periodic basis, every boat owner pays the expected value for him to be rescued during that period. And that should be a component of your insurance premium. If you needed rescuing it has already been paid for by the total premiums collected.
If you have the insurance companies not pay for rescuing then the cost of rescues falls onto the general tax base. This means that people who never sail end up paying for rescues. This is not right. I would not want people without cars paying to clear car crashes off the road.
If you choose to sail without insurance then you should be liable for the full cost of your rescue. This will promote the purchasing of insurance, something that benefits all boat owners, because the larger the risk pool the lower the cost to the insurer and thus the lower the premium for each boat.