3 ms·

> few are aware that their personal safety is in the hands of one of the world’s most globalized, legally complex, and opaque industries I'm just having a real

by Rapzid 8y ago

> few are aware that their personal safety is in the hands of one of the world’s most globalized, legally complex, and opaque industries I'm just having a really hard time following the moral logic here.. To me it's like saying your life is in the hands of the fed when you go into a national park. You get blasted on a bottle of tequila, climb Half Dome and fall, but your life was in the hands of the fed? Most people I know would be cognizant that if you get super drunk on a cruise, site on the railing, and then fall from the railing with nobody around you may not be heard from again.. And ignoring the falling off the boat bit... Just _being_ on a boat in the middle of the ocean? Your not aware that your safety is pretty much in the hands of the cruise operator?

EliRivers 8y ago
Continuing the theme, are you also aware that on many cruises, sexually assaulting another passenger will be met by asking you to leave at the next port? That's a specific example related to me by a chap I know; an ex-copper who now heads security on a cruise ship operating out of Southampton in the UK. I forget which nation the ship's flag is, but basically any and all crimes committed on board are met with a shrug and a suggestion to offload the offending passenger at the next stop. Actions that would lead to lengthy custodial sentences if committed in the passenger's own home are basically without consequence; he's had to deal with theft, assault, sexual assault, people getting drunk and smacking around their spouse and children. Flag state doesn't want to know. On merchant vessels that just have a small crew and no passengers (i.e. almost all of them), it's even more lawless. In a U.S. national park, there is law. There is someone tasked with enforcing that law. At sea, at the level of individual interactions, not so much.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  It's usually the law of the ship's flag country that applies when in intl. waters. Given that most ships are registered in smaller countries with lax tax laws, it's not surprising there is more trouble prosecuting those than just declaring the passenger "Persona Non Grata" (and the unplanned stop is usually costly to the passenger) Not to say that if the crime is larger there is a greater chance of prosecution and/or other litigation.
  - hyperpape 8y ago
    It seems to me that the US could fix a large chunk of the problem of ignoring crime, and do it overnight. Refuse to allow cruise ships to dock in the US if they do not account for their criminal procedures and meet certain standards, and they will change.
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      US ignores other countries’ sovereignty. News at 11.
      - hyperpape 8y ago
        It seems to me that since these ships are landing in our ports and boarding passengers from our nation, it doesn't impact anyone else's sovereignty. Our sovereignty allows us to prohibit our citizens from traveling to our doing business with entire nations (whatever you think of that, it appears to be settled law). Cruise ships would be free to cover up sexual assault for cruises going from outside the US to outside the US. Any potential violation of sovereignty seems less real than the GDPR, for instance. It would be preferable to have meaningful international agreements for vessels, but several decades of experience show that won't happen in any meaningful way.
    - learc83 8y ago
      It would probably be better if the US stopped allowing US companies to cruise from US ports carrying primarily US passengers using boats flying foreign flags--all so the company can avoid US regulations.
      - toast0 8y ago
        The trick is, of course, if the boat at least makes a 'technical stop' in another country on the cruise, then it's totally fine to be a non US flagged boat.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Waterluvian 8y ago
The irony, in my opinion, is that the modern world has become so safe that people have come to expect safety. If you get hurt or die young, something must be wrong. A safety measure must be missing or someone has wronged you. The "default state of being" is seen as living a long happy life and anything short of that is an error state. But in reality the cosmos doesn't owe you a thing.
- taeric 8y ago
  The flip side, looking for how to make things safer has produced a world where early death is typically a sign that something is wrong. That is, the flippant attitude that life is dangerous would not have produced such a safe world.
- siruncledrew 8y ago
  > "Why do people still die as a result of them, despite the fact that technology exists to detect falls? And, after a person is swallowed by the ocean, what power do their loved ones have to find out what happened, hold any guilty parties responsible, or demand reform?" This line about safety encapsulates that point. There's so much safety and rules all around us that people come to expect safety provided for them, so there is less emphasis on maintaining one's own personal safety. This is a problem in itself that people decide they could let their guard down because someone else will take care of them. There's no 100% guarantee behind that, and the randomness of the cosmos ensures it won't always happen. There's less "free will" and more "supervised will". Of course not everything can be totally free, but if people want to preserve a notion of independence and self-autonomy, then the thinking surrounding personal safety, awareness, and responsibility should change. Like in the quote from the article above, the immediate reaction (from the author's POV) is to blame someone/something else. Sometimes, the reality is that nothing could be done. Welcome to world: there's pitfalls, and obstacles, and things that are not safe. People fall out of hotel balconies, off of train platforms, into manholes, off of bridges, into rivers, etc. There's an infinite number of ways to die that not all of them could be safeguarded or fenced off. That's the inherent risk of being alive that every living creature deals with. Overall, this article is basically creating a problem out of a non-problem, and the real story is that someone was served/drank too much alcohol at a bar. The article says: "Since 2000, 284 people have fallen off cruise ships..." followed by "Most of the nearly 30 million passengers who travel on a cruise each year...". Therefore, this means 1.3 people/mo fall off cruise ships... out of 2 500 000 passengers/mo. So there is a significantly greater chance of being struck by lightning (at 1:700 000 odds) than falling off a cruise ship each year [1]. [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts-about-lightning/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts...
pimlottc 8y ago
If the National Parks Service operated a bar on the Half Dome trail with an all-you-can-drink package, then yes, I do think people would consider them at least partially liable.
- ykevinator 8y ago
  That's what I was trying to say but you said it better. It's not black and white. 15 hours to call the coast guard is reckless when rum bar falls are inevitable.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  The NPS regularly arrests people doing extreme sports (like BASE jumping, or camping too long or where/when not permitted) at Yosemite. There’s an on site court and a jail. It’s become a highly policed Disney world over the last 50 years, catering to those whose idea of adventure is crowded family group tours and lugging your plush suburban lifestyle around in a camper. Also, generally you are held liable if you inflict suffering on someone when you are drunk. Why then should Yosemite, cruises, or the bartender be liable if you inflict suffering on yourself when you are drunk? Either you’re responsible for your own actions or you aren’t.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    The NPS regularly arrests people doing extreme sports (like BASE jumping, or camping too long I’m picturing a retired couple staying fifteen days (limit is usually 14) in the same spot, sipping a Mountain Dew while sitting in their camp chairs. Suddenly, one looks at the other and says, “I think we might be getting a bit old to keep doing this kind of craziness.”

by Rapzid 8y ago

EliRivers 8y ago

Continuing the theme, are you also aware that on many cruises, sexually assaulting another passenger will be met by asking you to leave at the next port? That's a specific example related to me by a chap I know; an ex-copper who now heads security on a cruise ship operating out of Southampton in the UK. I forget which nation the ship's flag is, but basically any and all crimes committed on board are met with a shrug and a suggestion to offload the offending passenger at the next stop. Actions that would lead to lengthy custodial sentences if committed in the passenger's own home are basically without consequence; he's had to deal with theft, assault, sexual assault, people getting drunk and smacking around their spouse and children. Flag state doesn't want to know. On merchant vessels that just have a small crew and no passengers (i.e. almost all of them), it's even more lawless. In a U.S. national park, there is law. There is someone tasked with enforcing that law. At sea, at the level of individual interactions, not so much.

raverbashing 8y ago
It's usually the law of the ship's flag country that applies when in intl. waters. Given that most ships are registered in smaller countries with lax tax laws, it's not surprising there is more trouble prosecuting those than just declaring the passenger "Persona Non Grata" (and the unplanned stop is usually costly to the passenger) Not to say that if the crime is larger there is a greater chance of prosecution and/or other litigation.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  It seems to me that the US could fix a large chunk of the problem of ignoring crime, and do it overnight. Refuse to allow cruise ships to dock in the US if they do not account for their criminal procedures and meet certain standards, and they will change.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    US ignores other countries’ sovereignty. News at 11.
    - hyperpape 8y ago
      It seems to me that since these ships are landing in our ports and boarding passengers from our nation, it doesn't impact anyone else's sovereignty. Our sovereignty allows us to prohibit our citizens from traveling to our doing business with entire nations (whatever you think of that, it appears to be settled law). Cruise ships would be free to cover up sexual assault for cruises going from outside the US to outside the US. Any potential violation of sovereignty seems less real than the GDPR, for instance. It would be preferable to have meaningful international agreements for vessels, but several decades of experience show that won't happen in any meaningful way.
  - learc83 8y ago
    It would probably be better if the US stopped allowing US companies to cruise from US ports carrying primarily US passengers using boats flying foreign flags--all so the company can avoid US regulations.
    - toast0 8y ago
      The trick is, of course, if the boat at least makes a 'technical stop' in another country on the cruise, then it's totally fine to be a non US flagged boat.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Waterluvian 8y ago

The irony, in my opinion, is that the modern world has become so safe that people have come to expect safety. If you get hurt or die young, something must be wrong. A safety measure must be missing or someone has wronged you. The "default state of being" is seen as living a long happy life and anything short of that is an error state. But in reality the cosmos doesn't owe you a thing.

taeric 8y ago
The flip side, looking for how to make things safer has produced a world where early death is typically a sign that something is wrong. That is, the flippant attitude that life is dangerous would not have produced such a safe world.
siruncledrew 8y ago
> "Why do people still die as a result of them, despite the fact that technology exists to detect falls? And, after a person is swallowed by the ocean, what power do their loved ones have to find out what happened, hold any guilty parties responsible, or demand reform?" This line about safety encapsulates that point. There's so much safety and rules all around us that people come to expect safety provided for them, so there is less emphasis on maintaining one's own personal safety. This is a problem in itself that people decide they could let their guard down because someone else will take care of them. There's no 100% guarantee behind that, and the randomness of the cosmos ensures it won't always happen. There's less "free will" and more "supervised will". Of course not everything can be totally free, but if people want to preserve a notion of independence and self-autonomy, then the thinking surrounding personal safety, awareness, and responsibility should change. Like in the quote from the article above, the immediate reaction (from the author's POV) is to blame someone/something else. Sometimes, the reality is that nothing could be done. Welcome to world: there's pitfalls, and obstacles, and things that are not safe. People fall out of hotel balconies, off of train platforms, into manholes, off of bridges, into rivers, etc. There's an infinite number of ways to die that not all of them could be safeguarded or fenced off. That's the inherent risk of being alive that every living creature deals with. Overall, this article is basically creating a problem out of a non-problem, and the real story is that someone was served/drank too much alcohol at a bar. The article says: "Since 2000, 284 people have fallen off cruise ships..." followed by "Most of the nearly 30 million passengers who travel on a cruise each year...". Therefore, this means 1.3 people/mo fall off cruise ships... out of 2 500 000 passengers/mo. So there is a significantly greater chance of being struck by lightning (at 1:700 000 odds) than falling off a cruise ship each year [1]. [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts-about-lightning/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts...

pimlottc 8y ago

If the National Parks Service operated a bar on the Half Dome trail with an all-you-can-drink package, then yes, I do think people would consider them at least partially liable.

ykevinator 8y ago
That's what I was trying to say but you said it better. It's not black and white. 15 hours to call the coast guard is reckless when rum bar falls are inevitable.
ilikehurdles 8y ago
The NPS regularly arrests people doing extreme sports (like BASE jumping, or camping too long or where/when not permitted) at Yosemite. There’s an on site court and a jail. It’s become a highly policed Disney world over the last 50 years, catering to those whose idea of adventure is crowded family group tours and lugging your plush suburban lifestyle around in a camper. Also, generally you are held liable if you inflict suffering on someone when you are drunk. Why then should Yosemite, cruises, or the bartender be liable if you inflict suffering on yourself when you are drunk? Either you’re responsible for your own actions or you aren’t.
- mikestew 8y ago
  The NPS regularly arrests people doing extreme sports (like BASE jumping, or camping too long I’m picturing a retired couple staying fifteen days (limit is usually 14) in the same spot, sipping a Mountain Dew while sitting in their camp chairs. Suddenly, one looks at the other and says, “I think we might be getting a bit old to keep doing this kind of craziness.”