Pay for Your Own Rescue

[bewitched]

New legislation by the French Government:

Pay for your own rescue

[mintyspilot]

It is hard to fault the reasoning involved - if you wilfully go into a dangerous area or are involved in a "stunt", but the danger is that it will overspill on to ordinary seafarers because some bureaucrat is under pressure to cut costs or does not understand the situation.

I agree with the comments on Abbey's parents and child endangerment. I have been saying the same thing on here for some time now.

[swagman]

A similar debate was usually stimulated in the Australia media everytime the Australian authorities were called upon to go to the aid of those trying to cross the Southern Ocean and hitting some trouble.

I am sure the French regulations which describe 'people who have deliberately exposed themselves, without a legitimate motive stemming from their professional situation or a situation of emergency, to risks of which they could not have been unaware' would apply to all such Southern Ocean sailors.

As it happens I can recall Australian authorities when responding to media calls for recouped expenses, saying such rescues were excellent 'drills' and invaluable exercises for their people.

Maybe the current push to reduce costs in almost all walks of life might see this attitude change also.

Cheers
JOHN

[bewitched]

Oh crap..

I haven't re-kindled the Abbey debate have I?

please please please keep this to the 'paying for rescue' topic

[swagman]

Originally Posted by bewitched

Oh crap..

I haven't re-kindled the Abbey debate have I?

please please please keep this to the 'paying for rescue' topic

Why crap?
No you have not.
And my response was on subject.
JOHN

[bewitched]

misunderstanding - oh crap.... meaning oh dash it

not your response - previous poster

[Ex-Calif]

This thread has two risks - reviving the Abby debate, already going on somewhere else and becoming political which we don't want to happen around here.

So in the narrow margin of "Paying for Rescues" here's my 2 cents.

A government provides services. One of the services provided by most countries is maritime security, patrol and rescue.

I don't think the debate is whether or not to provide these services. The debate is how they might be funded. The three main ways governments fund things are.

1 - General Fund
2 - User group fees and taxes
3 - Pay for use fees

It is usually the case that a small user group, sailors and pilots come to mind, gets pressured to fund their activity, not from the general fund, but from user fees and taxes. If the user group is small enough the general public will push further and demand that the costs for that activity be a direct use fee charged to the user.

I think there is an argument for per use fees. Certainly no one wants their local fire department or police to be a pay for use government service but boating rescues are high visibility, high cost and usually benefit a very small number of people.

I could see any government assessing a tax on their own people through the boat registration that covers "all boaters" for at sea rescue. This is like an insurance policy at the government level.

I could further see countries like Australia charging a cruising fee that includes an element of the at see rescue costs. Again charging every sailor for the unfortunate few that need rescue.

Of course there are many sailors who will complain that they are safe sailors in no need of rescue so why charge them. The bottom line for me is sometimes bad things happen to good people and we as a community of boaters enjoy that rescue safety net so why not chip in for it.

However - Change always results in unintended consequence. Arguably ferry companies can avail of at sea rescue. If I am paying my share of the rescue burden, how about charging a fee via ferry tickets, to the general public.

In regards to the overly risky venture, there are regulations about putting your vessel and crew at risk. If the government wanted to recoup the costs, they could press charges and try to levy fines. I like that because it puts burden of proof on the government after the fact when the rescue is complete.

The other risky part is that governments love to collect user fees but somehow the accounting is too troublesome so they throw the user fees in the general fund and then continue to fund the activity from the general fund.

when you change a funding model for one thing it is easy to start thinking about privatizing the activity or adding more pay for use fees. Where do you draw the line?

One thing for sure in my mind is that for a civilized country to refuse to rescue their citizens is not only preposterous but uncivilized.

Let's be careful with this thread as it is difficult not to go political.

[bewitched]

Political wasn't where I wanted to go with the thread....it's about where this legislation will lead to if it is taken up in France and other countries.

I think you're right that the financial implications are probably the most significant to the readers of this forum

Financially, it may affect the cruising sailor in one way or another, whether that be a pay for use fee, a fee within a cruising permit or the requirement to take up insurance to cover such an eventuality. It's clear that at least the French Government does not feel that it acceptable for their tax-payer to foot the bill

Is this a bad thing - because it is an additional cost for a cruising sailor?

or is this a good thing - because it forces a certain responsibility for ones own actions?

[daddle]

What is the extent of the infrastructure on land, in cities, in the countryside, that saves the dirt-bound masses from their foibles? Pretty big, huh? All those firemen playing cards, waiting. Paramedics. Police. The cost is huge. It's what a civilized society does.

Also, the people and equipment used in these rescues are already purchased, the people are being paid. The incremental cost of an actual rescue is minor, barely significant. Even the big fancy ones.

There may be some place for international cooperation. Some small countries with only sheep and scenery may well be over burdened. Some countries register many boats to the owners great financial advantage but have no navy or coast guard. Some diverted ships or aircrafts maybe should be able to draw on a compensation fund.

But most fundamentally, in the big scheme of things, the cost is tiny.

[Pete7]

This isn't new, I have a good friend who was charged 1900 Euros to rescue a 7m rib which broke down 10 miles off the French coast when the single battery was boiled dry by the large outboard. Sadly we offered to wire in a second battery a fortnight before, but he was too busy. The French rescue services towed him in and handed him the bill.

Pete

[Ex-Calif]

Pete7 - Not sure if that was a rescue or a tow. Tows are traditionally a pay per use service.

Rescues in this context I think means taking the crew off and abandoning the boat.

[Steve Pope]

Sheep and scenery?? where on earth could that possibly be??? Sheep No's are down to the the low 30,000,000's from a high of 72,000,000's. no one wants the wool, and we can't afford the meat.
Back to the pay for rescue, the Safety business is huge and is only going to get bigger as the powers that be try to save us from our selves, or so "they" say! (nanny state) It is lucrative, just think of the millions of dollars outlaid by "safe" boaters for life jackets, epirbs, life rafts, flares that only have a short life, immersion suits, grab bags with the kitchen sink in them. The latest add for epirbs that I have seen says that with a GPS type epirb you can be saved within an hour, whereas a non GPS one you may have to wait for up to 2 hours, really!!! False hopes for most. As most of this stuff costs the earth and in reality is maybe used maybe 3% of the time and has to be constantly serviced and or replaced maybe the Industry should have a levy on their profits to keep their claims realistic. As has been said the infrastructure is already there, the NZ airforce is doing marine surveillance all the time, they even call up on VHF any yachts waiting at Minerva reef for a weather window to sail south to NZ and notify the customs of the names of the yachts, no's of people etc.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by daddle

Also, the people and equipment used in these rescues are already purchased, the people are being paid. The incremental cost of an actual rescue is minor, barely significant. Even the big fancy ones.
.

I always wonder this when the "cost" of things like a rescue gets quoted. For the most part the only extra cost between doing a rescue and the crew sitting on their butts is the fuel used.

So for those who support a "pay for" how do you propose to determine the cost?

And do you think giving a big bill to a rescued crusier is anything other than symbolic as how many could ever pay such a thing?

In the end do you think the threat of having to pay for a recue is going to change someones behavior in light that they were willing to take the chance with thier life to start with?

[Pelagic]

So I am curious… Is the Government now going to act as a Broker or Agent in an emergency rescue situation?

Determine first if the rescued can afford to pay, before releasing assets?

What about any ships in the vicinity, since this is now a commercial decision, are they going to be compensated for any lost time and fuel?

Then there is danger money to all involved….. Will that be on a graduated scale?

Can you get credits if you rescue someone else?

I think you get my point…. Very hard to administer

[daddle]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

So I am curious…Can you get credits if you rescue someone else?

What about the television rights?