6 ms·

This guy is putting himself, and others, at risk. This is not romantic or fantastic in any way when accidents happen. Imagine that this guy falls or loses any o

This guy is putting himself, and others, at risk. This is not romantic or fantastic in any way when accidents happen. Imagine that this guy falls or loses any object and falls over someone. This is a serious topic and it is life threatening with the only excuse of getting video views.

katastic 9y ago
Not to mention the _costs_ to society/economy to rescue risk-takers every time they get stranded or injured.
- Faaak 9y ago
  Frankly, if a rescuer takes some risks climbing a crane to rescue someone, then he shouldn't do it. I don't get it when people say: "he's putting rescuers at risks by getting stuck here". Climbing a crane is not complicated. Anyone with climbing and rope work can safely climb and rescue someone up there. I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.
  - ainiriand 9y ago
    You can ask a passerby of any of your activities if they want to be put at risk just because you are swinging from a crane, let's see if that compares with the same answer when you ask them if they want to take the risk of living in a city with car smoke. It is just not the same.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      If I was a passerby I'd say hell yeah I want to watch. And I definitely don't want to live in a smelly polluted city.
      - katastic 9y ago
        I think it's funny I got downvoted for bring up a real problem. New Hampshire, for example, is one of the few states that can send you the bill. And good for them, because in just two years, they had over 260 stranded people and cost the state >$400,000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-of-rescue/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-o... Cost is a known issue. Additionally sometimes search and responders die trying to rescue them. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washington-state-waterfall/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washing... That guy's kids don't have a father because someone decided to be an idiot while hiking. It's like hiking is some sort of extended daycare program where people assume they'll be saved by heroes if anything happens so they don't take even the most basic of provisions. People have romanticized nature so much they don't realize "nature" loves to kill people who aren't careful. Like that "into the wild" kid who went out with no real provisions or even a map... and died less than a couples miles from a ranger station with food, water, medicine, and radios. A simple map would have shown saved him. A 1 day seminar on basic survival techniques/facts would have saved him. Using his brain would have saved him. But he didn't get in touch with nature. He committed suicide. You don't play with a high voltage transformer unless you know what you're doing... and you don't hike into the middle of frozen hell unless you know what you're doing--unless you want to die. >Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: >When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[31] Daredevils and other "risk takers" are not only getting themselves killed, but they're also getting search-and-rescue volunteers killed, and costing the state money that could be going to anything else.
    - Faaak 9y ago
      In general, passerbys start taking photos and videos. Crane are situated in construction sites (I only go during the night or during the weekends), so if we crash, we'll only kill some ants. As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest. So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.
CalRobert 9y ago
True, but the question isn't whether there is risk, but whether it's acceptable. How does it compare to other risks we accept? We let people smoke outside where others walk by, or eat peanuts in public while some others are quite allergic, to name just two.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  We used to let people smoke indoors, but that changed in some places, and you aren't allowed to smoke if the area is v enclosed. Maybe those other things will change too. Are people w nut allergies sensitive to the presence of nuts nearby?
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > Are people w nut allergies sensitive to the presence of nuts nearby? Some, yes.
- ainiriand 9y ago
  Those are accidental risks, this one is voluntary. Also to die from second-hand smoking, while not impossible, it is a long journey of breathing cigar smoke.
  - CalRobert 9y ago
    Neither is voluntary in my example, unless "never going outside in a populated place" is a reasonable option. Anyway, I'm not really saying daredevilism is, or isn't, ok, just that comments saying it's a terrible risk are usually somewhat irrational, or at least inconsistent.
    - ainiriand 9y ago
      Maybe I expressed myself incorrectly. I am not saying that daredevilism is not ok just because it is dangerous. You can go to any inhabited area and do what you want. The problem here is using public spaces to perform your stunts. You are effectively putting others at risk in an activity that they are not taking part in voluntarily.
icebraining 9y ago
What's the danger he's putting other in, compared to a regular person driving a car? An Honda Civic at 60km/h has more kinetic energy than an 80kg person at terminal velocity. Should we reprove every car trip taken for leisure, lest it hit someone?
- dazc 9y ago
  If I'm walking past a tall building I think it's reasonable to expect that an Honda Civic is not suddenly going to drop from the sky above me?
  - mhb 9y ago
    You might also think you wouldn't get hit by a car in your second floor apartment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/01/14/heres-how-this-car-got-wedged-in-the-upper-wall-of-a-two-story-building/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/01/1...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Is it? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/11/car-falls-from-parking-garage-video-austin-texas https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/11/car-fa...
    - dazc 9y ago
      OK, now I'm paranoid.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Never heard the old saying "it rains cars and dogs"?
    - sizzzzlerz 9y ago
      OMG! Where's the video taken just moments before on the 7th floor? I know Texas isn't much for government regulations but I'd think building codes for parking garages would require, you know, barriers and walls. To keep people from driving off into oblivion.
stinos 9y ago
You've got a point, but statistically speaking this single guy is nothing in comparision with the actual real risks other people's acts put you in every single day. By getting in their car, on their bike, crossing you on stairs, flying planes above you, lighting candles in houses around you, ... And I'm not sure if your 'but those are accidental' argument makes sense. If the guy falls or drops something it will obviously be an accident as well. Is there really a difference between what he does and me getting on my bike and riding in the presence of pedestrians? I.e. if I really wanted to I could also walk, which would reduce the risk towards others. Should I stop riding my bike for that?
- Audible_logic 9y ago
  Kinda feels like a false equivalence to me. Yes, as a society we all put ourselves at risk as we drive and interact. Doesn't mean I want to be an possible participant in witnessing some adrenaline addict fall off a building. I don't want to see people die horribly in auto accidents either, but that seems like a compromise to use a car, something that actually has a use for me. Nothing about random daredevil getting a dose of adrenaline benefits me personally, so out of all of the possible horrible things that can be produced from human interaction, this one doesn't seem necessary.
  - stinos 9y ago
    benefits me personally People driving around me by car (whether I'm by bike or car or ...) usually also don't benefit me personally. On the contrary. Also there's a ton of car driving going on which to me seems completely unnecessary (e.g. I know people driving to a store 3 times a week, and I know for a fact the products they buy would be just as good if only bought once a week, and I'm not even speaking about the extra emissions of the car). I actually know of accidents caused by people in perfect health which as such in my opinion could just as well have taken their bike out in the sunny weather to go to the bakery 1 kilometre from their house. Apart from that, being no stranger to extreme sports and random 'weird' behaviour myself, I also think about it in another way: what this guy does is in no way beneficial to me or you but maybe it is beneficial for him. He did this already before sharing it with millions and I'm pretty sure that is not his main driving force. 'Adrenaline addiction' or whatever you want to call it is likely pretty real from him. At least it is for me. And what happens to me mentally when I don't get my shot is not nice. So yes, this behaviour is sort of necessary to be able to function normally and feel alive. Though I do try not to things which might put other people at risk.

katastic 9y ago

Not to mention the _costs_ to society/economy to rescue risk-takers every time they get stranded or injured.

Faaak 9y ago
Frankly, if a rescuer takes some risks climbing a crane to rescue someone, then he shouldn't do it. I don't get it when people say: "he's putting rescuers at risks by getting stuck here". Climbing a crane is not complicated. Anyone with climbing and rope work can safely climb and rescue someone up there. I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.
- ainiriand 9y ago
  You can ask a passerby of any of your activities if they want to be put at risk just because you are swinging from a crane, let's see if that compares with the same answer when you ask them if they want to take the risk of living in a city with car smoke. It is just not the same.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    If I was a passerby I'd say hell yeah I want to watch. And I definitely don't want to live in a smelly polluted city.
    - katastic 9y ago
      I think it's funny I got downvoted for bring up a real problem. New Hampshire, for example, is one of the few states that can send you the bill. And good for them, because in just two years, they had over 260 stranded people and cost the state >$400,000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-of-rescue/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-o... Cost is a known issue. Additionally sometimes search and responders die trying to rescue them. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washington-state-waterfall/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washing... That guy's kids don't have a father because someone decided to be an idiot while hiking. It's like hiking is some sort of extended daycare program where people assume they'll be saved by heroes if anything happens so they don't take even the most basic of provisions. People have romanticized nature so much they don't realize "nature" loves to kill people who aren't careful. Like that "into the wild" kid who went out with no real provisions or even a map... and died less than a couples miles from a ranger station with food, water, medicine, and radios. A simple map would have shown saved him. A 1 day seminar on basic survival techniques/facts would have saved him. Using his brain would have saved him. But he didn't get in touch with nature. He committed suicide. You don't play with a high voltage transformer unless you know what you're doing... and you don't hike into the middle of frozen hell unless you know what you're doing--unless you want to die. >Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: >When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[31] Daredevils and other "risk takers" are not only getting themselves killed, but they're also getting search-and-rescue volunteers killed, and costing the state money that could be going to anything else.
  - Faaak 9y ago
    In general, passerbys start taking photos and videos. Crane are situated in construction sites (I only go during the night or during the weekends), so if we crash, we'll only kill some ants. As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest. So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.

CalRobert 9y ago

True, but the question isn't whether there is risk, but whether it's acceptable. How does it compare to other risks we accept? We let people smoke outside where others walk by, or eat peanuts in public while some others are quite allergic, to name just two.

Chris2048 9y ago
We used to let people smoke indoors, but that changed in some places, and you aren't allowed to smoke if the area is v enclosed. Maybe those other things will change too. Are people w nut allergies sensitive to the presence of nuts nearby?
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > Are people w nut allergies sensitive to the presence of nuts nearby? Some, yes.
ainiriand 9y ago
Those are accidental risks, this one is voluntary. Also to die from second-hand smoking, while not impossible, it is a long journey of breathing cigar smoke.
- CalRobert 9y ago
  Neither is voluntary in my example, unless "never going outside in a populated place" is a reasonable option. Anyway, I'm not really saying daredevilism is, or isn't, ok, just that comments saying it's a terrible risk are usually somewhat irrational, or at least inconsistent.
  - ainiriand 9y ago
    Maybe I expressed myself incorrectly. I am not saying that daredevilism is not ok just because it is dangerous. You can go to any inhabited area and do what you want. The problem here is using public spaces to perform your stunts. You are effectively putting others at risk in an activity that they are not taking part in voluntarily.

icebraining 9y ago

What's the danger he's putting other in, compared to a regular person driving a car? An Honda Civic at 60km/h has more kinetic energy than an 80kg person at terminal velocity. Should we reprove every car trip taken for leisure, lest it hit someone?

dazc 9y ago
If I'm walking past a tall building I think it's reasonable to expect that an Honda Civic is not suddenly going to drop from the sky above me?
- mhb 9y ago
  You might also think you wouldn't get hit by a car in your second floor apartment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/01/14/heres-how-this-car-got-wedged-in-the-upper-wall-of-a-two-story-building/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/01/1...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Is it? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/11/car-falls-from-parking-garage-video-austin-texas https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/11/car-fa...
  - dazc 9y ago
    OK, now I'm paranoid.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Never heard the old saying "it rains cars and dogs"?
  - sizzzzlerz 9y ago
    OMG! Where's the video taken just moments before on the 7th floor? I know Texas isn't much for government regulations but I'd think building codes for parking garages would require, you know, barriers and walls. To keep people from driving off into oblivion.

stinos 9y ago

You've got a point, but statistically speaking this single guy is nothing in comparision with the actual real risks other people's acts put you in every single day. By getting in their car, on their bike, crossing you on stairs, flying planes above you, lighting candles in houses around you, ... And I'm not sure if your 'but those are accidental' argument makes sense. If the guy falls or drops something it will obviously be an accident as well. Is there really a difference between what he does and me getting on my bike and riding in the presence of pedestrians? I.e. if I really wanted to I could also walk, which would reduce the risk towards others. Should I stop riding my bike for that?

Audible_logic 9y ago
Kinda feels like a false equivalence to me. Yes, as a society we all put ourselves at risk as we drive and interact. Doesn't mean I want to be an possible participant in witnessing some adrenaline addict fall off a building. I don't want to see people die horribly in auto accidents either, but that seems like a compromise to use a car, something that actually has a use for me. Nothing about random daredevil getting a dose of adrenaline benefits me personally, so out of all of the possible horrible things that can be produced from human interaction, this one doesn't seem necessary.
- stinos 9y ago
  benefits me personally People driving around me by car (whether I'm by bike or car or ...) usually also don't benefit me personally. On the contrary. Also there's a ton of car driving going on which to me seems completely unnecessary (e.g. I know people driving to a store 3 times a week, and I know for a fact the products they buy would be just as good if only bought once a week, and I'm not even speaking about the extra emissions of the car). I actually know of accidents caused by people in perfect health which as such in my opinion could just as well have taken their bike out in the sunny weather to go to the bakery 1 kilometre from their house. Apart from that, being no stranger to extreme sports and random 'weird' behaviour myself, I also think about it in another way: what this guy does is in no way beneficial to me or you but maybe it is beneficial for him. He did this already before sharing it with millions and I'm pretty sure that is not his main driving force. 'Adrenaline addiction' or whatever you want to call it is likely pretty real from him. At least it is for me. And what happens to me mentally when I don't get my shot is not nice. So yes, this behaviour is sort of necessary to be able to function normally and feel alive. Though I do try not to things which might put other people at risk.