10 ms·

Florida man arrested after trying to cross Atlantic in hamster wheel vessel

29 points by warrenm 3y ago

bell-cot 3y ago
At what point should the Coast Guard just say "Give us contact details for your next of kin, then go ahead. YOYO."? It's not like they'll be inundated with Darwin Award wannabe's anywhere near as creative and determined as this guy.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  Yeah I was curious what law is actually being broken by doing this? > [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage," the criminal complaint says. Since when is it illegal to do things that are unsafe in America? Why can I own a gun and fireworks and liquor and gas stoves and toxic chemicals then? > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. Sounds about right for Floridaman vibes.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. Vs. this guy's "water wheel" seems to fairly-mostly avoid those issues, if the CG could just say "YOYO" and forget about him.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too This sounds like something adults should be allowed to opt out of. As long as the rest of us can be mature enough to not call for heads when some of them inevitably die, there shouldn’t be moral hazard. (Or maybe you’re rescued but you foot the entire bill.)
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - criddell 3y ago
        Adults who are rational and mentally healthy, sure. If a person were on top of a tall building wearing a bed sheet as a cape, letting them jump would be a similar moral issue in my eyes. If this person was warned that he would not be rescued and the next day sent out a distress signal, do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help? Arizona's stupid motorist law, which "states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue," is the model legislation here [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law
    - elromulous 3y ago
      Exactly. Just like oceangate.
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      > As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Of all the stupid things regular people can do to add strain/cost to the united states' social systems, "unsafe voyage" seems pretty low on the list, both in cost and frequency. I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. > Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. I am not arguing that unsafe voyage is a bad idea. I am arguing that it's out of character for this country to ban a specific bad idea due to safety.
      - p_l 3y ago
        Generally it's about limited, numerically, rescue resources that might then be unable to respond to a more serious eventm
        alex_lav 3y ago
        There are a finite amount of firetrucks, ambulances and ER beds per municipality.
        p_l 3y ago
        And if you think number of ambulances/ER/firetrucks is limited, they feel positively unlimited compared to more specialist rescue resources (sea, mountain, air etc.)
      - fineIllregister 3y ago
        > I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. Fireworks are illegal in many states. Guns are regulated and there's widespread efforts for more.
        alex_lav 3y ago
  - froggysnail 3y ago
    Most people have guns, ammunitions, liquor, gas stove and toxic chemicals at home, and nothing happen.
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      Yes, exactly.
  - elcritch 3y ago
    The article says he was charged with “preventing boarding” and “disobeying the port captain”. Presumably if he’d chartered a tug to drop him off in international waters he could’ve been clear of the coast guard.
    - eschulz 3y ago
      Yeah, that seems to be it. The Coast Guard has quite a bit of power in US waters, and if they see this thing they're likely to investigate. Maybe they thought it was the latest tech from a drug cartel.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    > Mr Baluchi's voyage began as officials were preparing for the arrival of a major hurricane. > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. > On 1 September, he eventually surrendered and abandoned his vessel after being brought to a Coast Guard base in Miami. > Officials later determined that the "bomb" had been fake. > He is now facing federal charges of obstruction of a boarding, and violation of a Captain of the Port order. He wasn't arrested for an unsafe vessel, he was arrested for everything else it appears.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
  The problem is that this will turn into another one of those high profile search and rescue operations like the Titanic submersible. The Coast Guard is going to have to spend weeks looking for this dude’s debris under constant mass media scrutiny, wasting untold amounts of taxpayer dollars. No amount of “he made his own adult decision” is going to fix the optics of not helping his family on CNN begging the state to bring daddy's half-eaten remains back for a proper burial.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Bingo. Society is not okay with that.
- notnmeyer 3y ago
  exactly. the idea that they needed to save him from himself is pretty stupid. dude wants to try to run across the ocean in a hamster wheel? fuck yeah, let’s cheer him on.
- dtgriscom 3y ago
  My understanding is that if someone is at sea and in distress, saying "you asked for it" isn't a valid reason to ignore their SOS. So, if someone goes out in "an unsafe manner", then it's quite likely that real mariners (e.g. the Coast Guard) will have to risk their own lives to save Bozo's.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gandalfian 3y ago
You would think stormy weather would spin him like a tumble drier. Hard to see if it's weatherproof or just an open cage.
xg15 3y ago
How exactly does he steer that thing?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  He doesn't. One of his previous attempts to go from Florida to New York ended after he drifted 30 miles south of where he started.
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    In a very still environment, I would think steering would work by being off center, I can't imagine how he would go straight..
junar 3y ago
Criminal complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23937421-baluchi https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23937421-baluchi
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  > USCG officers then approached BALUCHI and the Vessel in a USCG small boat. USCG officers informed BALUCHI that he needed to disembark the Vessel onto their small boat since they were terminating his voyage due to it being manifestly unsafe. BALUCHI replied that he was armed with a 12-inch knife and would attempt to commit suicide should the USCG officers attempt to remove him from the Vessel. The USCG officers then returned to the USCG Cutter VALIANT, which remained on scene. ... > On or about August 27, 2023, the USCG Cutter VALIANT continued to make efforts to disembark BALUCHI utilizing their small boat. However, BALUCHI displayed two knives and threatened to hurt himself if officers boarded the Vessel. Moreover, BALUCHI threatened to blow himself up, along with the Vessel. USCG officers believed this to be a valid threat, as they observed BALUCHI holding wires in his hand. USCG officers contacted the U.S. Navy Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit at Kings Bay, Georgia to determine blast and fragmentation radius of the alleged bomb. > On or about August 28, 2023, the USCG Cutter CAMPBELL arrived on scene with the USCG Cutter VALIANT to provide support. The USCG Cutter CAMPBELL launched a small boat to attempt to deliver food, water, and predictions of the incoming hurricane to BALUCHI. USCG officers again ordered BALUCHI off the Vessel, but he again refused. It was then that BALUCHI informed the USCG officers that the bomb was not real. The complaint goes on. The Coast Guard spent a week on this guy. Seems like he wasn't obeying the rules and earned his arrest at a minimum. All of this while a hurricane was on its way.
- smegsicle 3y ago
  what's that redacted section for?
- zingababba 3y ago
  Funny, some crazy guy's perfectly fine hamster wheel vessel gets deemed manifestly unsafe however an eccentric entrepreneur's million dollar submarine ends up crumpling up some billionaires.
ndhfkashdben 3y ago
I don't understand why they have to intervene besides giving him warnings. At some point, tell him he's not their responsibility anymore if he refuses again and go do something more productive. Countless human hours spent preventing someone from doing something that would harm no one but himself. There are probably good Samaritan laws forcing public officers to provide "help" if they are informed of a situation and no way out of it. A family member that is a cop said to never tell anything in good faith to a cop because then they are forced by law to follow procedures, even if they don't want to otherwise they are the ones getting arrested/fired/suspended.
- mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
  He had 3 other tries that all ended with Coast Guard intervention. On this one he disobeyed Coast Guard orders and claimed he had a bomb. Chances are he was also in violation of rules/laws regarding water craft permits, identification and any/all safety protocols.
- viraptor 3y ago
  What you described are not good Samaritan laws. Those are about lowering legal responsibility for people doing their best to help someone in peril. I.e. you did your best and accidentally injured someone while trying to prevent their death, do can't be sued for the injury.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > would harm no one but himself. Is a danger for himself but also to other ships that could crash against that structure. The sea is a busy road and this thing can easily sink a small boat carried by the wind, or crush somebody if carried by a wave onboard of a bigger ship and falling over a worker. Plus recent spy issues of people mapping sensible locations while pretending to be a lost tourist, that must be addressed. Saving his life is just the cherry on top. To save the rescue team to risk their lives later is the main goal. The man is an idiot that should know better and respect the sea.
  - ndhfkashdben 3y ago
StarterPro 3y ago
So a man can't cross the Atlantic in a hamster wheel, but rich people can go to the bottom of the Atlantic? Unfair
- mikestew 3y ago
  Had he ever demonstrated that could get further than his own state, you might have a point. But those reading TFA all the way to the end know that it’s not the first time the Coast Guard has pulled him out of the water, and it’s not been far from where he started.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    What wasn’t clear from the article is if he needed to be pulled out of the water or if the coast guard “rescued” him because they just assumed he was insane. (Which seems reasonable). He does however seem to not want to be rescued and allows to hamster wheel himself to a probable death. I do wonder why he isn’t allowed to, people do all sorts of insane things and die doing it and they’re allowed to, such as difficult climbs without ropes.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      Probably because a few days at sea later... he'll pop his emergency beacon and the Coast Guard will spend a bunch of time and resources plucking him out of the water. With ocean currents, winds, etc., it seems vastly unlikely his contraption would have traveled any distance the ocean didn't allow anyway.
    - mikestew 3y ago
      "In 2021, he was arrested after being rescued while trying to ride from Florida to New York after drifting 30 miles south of his departure point." For those not familiar with U. S. geography, New York is north of Florida, not south.
    - mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
      The article clearly stated he is facing charges for obstruction of boarding so the Coast Guard had probable cause to board and he refused and said he had a bomb. Given that this is his third/fourth attempt at hamster wheeling in the Atlantic they probably knew exactly who it was when they got the call.
qingcharles 3y ago
70 miles off shore is international waters. Most countries limit extends 12 miles these days. (excluding resource extraction) Why does the coastguard have jurisdiction? Because it was launched from the USA? At what point is your vehicle a ship? i.e. is a surfboard a ship?
- hollerith 3y ago
  Here a defense of the Coast Guard's actions. Oceanic trade generates great economic value and requires seafarers. Seafaring is inherently dangerous, but the rate of death of seafarers is much less than it would be if it weren't for coast guards, one of whose main functions is rescuing seafarers in distress. This rescuing function is expensive, so one of the rules of the sea that the countries of the world have agreed on is to make it illegal to do anything that puts too great an economic stress on the rescuing function. It is OK with me. Try to mount a poorly-planned and poorly-funded journey to the South Pole and the same thing will happen to you if they catch you--for the same reason.
- warrenm 3y ago
  pretty sure, USCG jurisdiction extends to at least 200nm from the coastline - per https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-...
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Not usually, that 200nm you mention is for resource extraction (EEZ as they say in the article you linked). i.e. pulling oil from the seabed.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      and it is explicitly the coast guard's job to enforce EEZ rules. one of their primary roles.
      - qingcharles 3y ago
f0e4c2f7 3y ago
Video documenting a previous attempt: https://youtu.be/da6_LjiIzXk?si=-b1ygiWXsf1IEWxO https://youtu.be/da6_LjiIzXk?si=-b1ygiWXsf1IEWxO
PlunderBunny 3y ago
I wonder if someone can do some back-of-the-envelope maths to figure out how much energy (calories) he would need to burn to cross the Atlantic, and therefore how much food he would need. I suspect his voyage isn't possible, even in calm weather, because the amount of energy required increases the amount of food required, which increases the weight, which increases the amount of food... a rocket liftoff problem with no solution.
- quitit 3y ago
  One could form an impressive list of the ways he would certainly die, there's always drowning, exposure, sleep deprivation, thirst, hunger and all of the intricacies that could be grouped under catabolism processes. The seafaring types might have a definitive answer.
- CapitalistCartr 3y ago
  MREs are only meant to be eaten for up to three weeks, but casting caution to the winds . . . At four MREs per day (510 to 740 grams ea.), plus six liters of fresh water, one week supply would weigh 60 kg. Making five knots for 10 hours per day would be generous. At that blistering velocity, 4500nm would take thirteen weeks, needing 780kg of food & water. Which would prevent his wheel from turning. Of course, if he knew how to plot a course, he'd have the winds at his back.
- lolc 3y ago
  Actually, Alain Bombard[0] demonstrated that one can live off the land on sea :-) Not that this Florida man had any chance of repeating the achievement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard
paulddraper 3y ago
> "My goal is to not only raise money for homeless people, raise money for the Coast Guard, raise money for the police department, raise money for the fire department," he told WOFL-TV in Orlando in 2021. > "They are in public service, they do it for safety, and they help other people."
decremental 3y ago
[dead]
lolc 3y ago
This guy would have died if he managed to get off shore enough to be past anybody noticing him. He'd be blown along by the winds mostly, being so high and light. So if he didn't plan it well, he has no chance. And by the article, he didn't plan at all. Check out "Naufragé volontaire : Sans vivres sur l'Atlantique" by Alain Bombard[0] if you want to read what a crossing on a small vessel entails. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard
ManuelKiessling 3y ago
I knew it was going to be a wild story when I read „Florida“.

29 points by warrenm 3y ago

At what point should the Coast Guard just say "Give us contact details for your next of kin, then go ahead. YOYO."? It's not like they'll be inundated with Darwin Award wannabe's anywhere near as creative and determined as this guy.

alex_lav 3y ago
Yeah I was curious what law is actually being broken by doing this? > [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage," the criminal complaint says. Since when is it illegal to do things that are unsafe in America? Why can I own a gun and fireworks and liquor and gas stoves and toxic chemicals then? > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. Sounds about right for Floridaman vibes.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. Vs. this guy's "water wheel" seems to fairly-mostly avoid those issues, if the CG could just say "YOYO" and forget about him.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too This sounds like something adults should be allowed to opt out of. As long as the rest of us can be mature enough to not call for heads when some of them inevitably die, there shouldn’t be moral hazard. (Or maybe you’re rescued but you foot the entire bill.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - criddell 3y ago
      Adults who are rational and mentally healthy, sure. If a person were on top of a tall building wearing a bed sheet as a cape, letting them jump would be a similar moral issue in my eyes. If this person was warned that he would not be rescued and the next day sent out a distress signal, do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help? Arizona's stupid motorist law, which "states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue," is the model legislation here [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law
  - elromulous 3y ago
    Exactly. Just like oceangate.
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    > As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Of all the stupid things regular people can do to add strain/cost to the united states' social systems, "unsafe voyage" seems pretty low on the list, both in cost and frequency. I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. > Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. I am not arguing that unsafe voyage is a bad idea. I am arguing that it's out of character for this country to ban a specific bad idea due to safety.
    - p_l 3y ago
      Generally it's about limited, numerically, rescue resources that might then be unable to respond to a more serious eventm
      - alex_lav 3y ago
        There are a finite amount of firetrucks, ambulances and ER beds per municipality.
        p_l 3y ago
        And if you think number of ambulances/ER/firetrucks is limited, they feel positively unlimited compared to more specialist rescue resources (sea, mountain, air etc.)
    - fineIllregister 3y ago
      > I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. Fireworks are illegal in many states. Guns are regulated and there's widespread efforts for more.
      - alex_lav 3y ago
- froggysnail 3y ago
  Most people have guns, ammunitions, liquor, gas stove and toxic chemicals at home, and nothing happen.
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    Yes, exactly.
- elcritch 3y ago
  The article says he was charged with “preventing boarding” and “disobeying the port captain”. Presumably if he’d chartered a tug to drop him off in international waters he could’ve been clear of the coast guard.
  - eschulz 3y ago
    Yeah, that seems to be it. The Coast Guard has quite a bit of power in US waters, and if they see this thing they're likely to investigate. Maybe they thought it was the latest tech from a drug cartel.
- Alupis 3y ago
  > Mr Baluchi's voyage began as officials were preparing for the arrival of a major hurricane. > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. > On 1 September, he eventually surrendered and abandoned his vessel after being brought to a Coast Guard base in Miami. > Officials later determined that the "bomb" had been fake. > He is now facing federal charges of obstruction of a boarding, and violation of a Captain of the Port order. He wasn't arrested for an unsafe vessel, he was arrested for everything else it appears.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
The problem is that this will turn into another one of those high profile search and rescue operations like the Titanic submersible. The Coast Guard is going to have to spend weeks looking for this dude’s debris under constant mass media scrutiny, wasting untold amounts of taxpayer dollars. No amount of “he made his own adult decision” is going to fix the optics of not helping his family on CNN begging the state to bring daddy's half-eaten remains back for a proper burial.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Bingo. Society is not okay with that.
notnmeyer 3y ago
exactly. the idea that they needed to save him from himself is pretty stupid. dude wants to try to run across the ocean in a hamster wheel? fuck yeah, let’s cheer him on.
dtgriscom 3y ago
My understanding is that if someone is at sea and in distress, saying "you asked for it" isn't a valid reason to ignore their SOS. So, if someone goes out in "an unsafe manner", then it's quite likely that real mariners (e.g. the Coast Guard) will have to risk their own lives to save Bozo's.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gandalfian 3y ago

You would think stormy weather would spin him like a tumble drier. Hard to see if it's weatherproof or just an open cage.

xg15 3y ago

How exactly does he steer that thing?

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
He doesn't. One of his previous attempts to go from Florida to New York ended after he drifted 30 miles south of where he started.
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  In a very still environment, I would think steering would work by being off center, I can't imagine how he would go straight..

junar 3y ago

Criminal complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23937421-baluchi https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23937421-baluchi

slowmovintarget 3y ago
> USCG officers then approached BALUCHI and the Vessel in a USCG small boat. USCG officers informed BALUCHI that he needed to disembark the Vessel onto their small boat since they were terminating his voyage due to it being manifestly unsafe. BALUCHI replied that he was armed with a 12-inch knife and would attempt to commit suicide should the USCG officers attempt to remove him from the Vessel. The USCG officers then returned to the USCG Cutter VALIANT, which remained on scene. ... > On or about August 27, 2023, the USCG Cutter VALIANT continued to make efforts to disembark BALUCHI utilizing their small boat. However, BALUCHI displayed two knives and threatened to hurt himself if officers boarded the Vessel. Moreover, BALUCHI threatened to blow himself up, along with the Vessel. USCG officers believed this to be a valid threat, as they observed BALUCHI holding wires in his hand. USCG officers contacted the U.S. Navy Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit at Kings Bay, Georgia to determine blast and fragmentation radius of the alleged bomb. > On or about August 28, 2023, the USCG Cutter CAMPBELL arrived on scene with the USCG Cutter VALIANT to provide support. The USCG Cutter CAMPBELL launched a small boat to attempt to deliver food, water, and predictions of the incoming hurricane to BALUCHI. USCG officers again ordered BALUCHI off the Vessel, but he again refused. It was then that BALUCHI informed the USCG officers that the bomb was not real. The complaint goes on. The Coast Guard spent a week on this guy. Seems like he wasn't obeying the rules and earned his arrest at a minimum. All of this while a hurricane was on its way.
smegsicle 3y ago
what's that redacted section for?
zingababba 3y ago
Funny, some crazy guy's perfectly fine hamster wheel vessel gets deemed manifestly unsafe however an eccentric entrepreneur's million dollar submarine ends up crumpling up some billionaires.

ndhfkashdben 3y ago

I don't understand why they have to intervene besides giving him warnings. At some point, tell him he's not their responsibility anymore if he refuses again and go do something more productive. Countless human hours spent preventing someone from doing something that would harm no one but himself. There are probably good Samaritan laws forcing public officers to provide "help" if they are informed of a situation and no way out of it. A family member that is a cop said to never tell anything in good faith to a cop because then they are forced by law to follow procedures, even if they don't want to otherwise they are the ones getting arrested/fired/suspended.

mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
He had 3 other tries that all ended with Coast Guard intervention. On this one he disobeyed Coast Guard orders and claimed he had a bomb. Chances are he was also in violation of rules/laws regarding water craft permits, identification and any/all safety protocols.
viraptor 3y ago
What you described are not good Samaritan laws. Those are about lowering legal responsibility for people doing their best to help someone in peril. I.e. you did your best and accidentally injured someone while trying to prevent their death, do can't be sued for the injury.
pvaldes 3y ago
> would harm no one but himself. Is a danger for himself but also to other ships that could crash against that structure. The sea is a busy road and this thing can easily sink a small boat carried by the wind, or crush somebody if carried by a wave onboard of a bigger ship and falling over a worker. Plus recent spy issues of people mapping sensible locations while pretending to be a lost tourist, that must be addressed. Saving his life is just the cherry on top. To save the rescue team to risk their lives later is the main goal. The man is an idiot that should know better and respect the sea.
- ndhfkashdben 3y ago

StarterPro 3y ago

So a man can't cross the Atlantic in a hamster wheel, but rich people can go to the bottom of the Atlantic? Unfair

mikestew 3y ago
Had he ever demonstrated that could get further than his own state, you might have a point. But those reading TFA all the way to the end know that it’s not the first time the Coast Guard has pulled him out of the water, and it’s not been far from where he started.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  What wasn’t clear from the article is if he needed to be pulled out of the water or if the coast guard “rescued” him because they just assumed he was insane. (Which seems reasonable). He does however seem to not want to be rescued and allows to hamster wheel himself to a probable death. I do wonder why he isn’t allowed to, people do all sorts of insane things and die doing it and they’re allowed to, such as difficult climbs without ropes.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Probably because a few days at sea later... he'll pop his emergency beacon and the Coast Guard will spend a bunch of time and resources plucking him out of the water. With ocean currents, winds, etc., it seems vastly unlikely his contraption would have traveled any distance the ocean didn't allow anyway.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    "In 2021, he was arrested after being rescued while trying to ride from Florida to New York after drifting 30 miles south of his departure point." For those not familiar with U. S. geography, New York is north of Florida, not south.
  - mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
    The article clearly stated he is facing charges for obstruction of boarding so the Coast Guard had probable cause to board and he refused and said he had a bomb. Given that this is his third/fourth attempt at hamster wheeling in the Atlantic they probably knew exactly who it was when they got the call.

qingcharles 3y ago

70 miles off shore is international waters. Most countries limit extends 12 miles these days. (excluding resource extraction) Why does the coastguard have jurisdiction? Because it was launched from the USA? At what point is your vehicle a ship? i.e. is a surfboard a ship?

hollerith 3y ago
Here a defense of the Coast Guard's actions. Oceanic trade generates great economic value and requires seafarers. Seafaring is inherently dangerous, but the rate of death of seafarers is much less than it would be if it weren't for coast guards, one of whose main functions is rescuing seafarers in distress. This rescuing function is expensive, so one of the rules of the sea that the countries of the world have agreed on is to make it illegal to do anything that puts too great an economic stress on the rescuing function. It is OK with me. Try to mount a poorly-planned and poorly-funded journey to the South Pole and the same thing will happen to you if they catch you--for the same reason.
warrenm 3y ago
pretty sure, USCG jurisdiction extends to at least 200nm from the coastline - per https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-boundaries.html https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/us-maritime-limits-and-...
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Not usually, that 200nm you mention is for resource extraction (EEZ as they say in the article you linked). i.e. pulling oil from the seabed.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    and it is explicitly the coast guard's job to enforce EEZ rules. one of their primary roles.
    - qingcharles 3y ago

f0e4c2f7 3y ago

Video documenting a previous attempt: https://youtu.be/da6_LjiIzXk?si=-b1ygiWXsf1IEWxO https://youtu.be/da6_LjiIzXk?si=-b1ygiWXsf1IEWxO

PlunderBunny 3y ago

I wonder if someone can do some back-of-the-envelope maths to figure out how much energy (calories) he would need to burn to cross the Atlantic, and therefore how much food he would need. I suspect his voyage isn't possible, even in calm weather, because the amount of energy required increases the amount of food required, which increases the weight, which increases the amount of food... a rocket liftoff problem with no solution.

quitit 3y ago
One could form an impressive list of the ways he would certainly die, there's always drowning, exposure, sleep deprivation, thirst, hunger and all of the intricacies that could be grouped under catabolism processes. The seafaring types might have a definitive answer.
CapitalistCartr 3y ago
MREs are only meant to be eaten for up to three weeks, but casting caution to the winds . . . At four MREs per day (510 to 740 grams ea.), plus six liters of fresh water, one week supply would weigh 60 kg. Making five knots for 10 hours per day would be generous. At that blistering velocity, 4500nm would take thirteen weeks, needing 780kg of food & water. Which would prevent his wheel from turning. Of course, if he knew how to plot a course, he'd have the winds at his back.
lolc 3y ago
Actually, Alain Bombard[0] demonstrated that one can live off the land on sea :-) Not that this Florida man had any chance of repeating the achievement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard

paulddraper 3y ago

> "My goal is to not only raise money for homeless people, raise money for the Coast Guard, raise money for the police department, raise money for the fire department," he told WOFL-TV in Orlando in 2021. > "They are in public service, they do it for safety, and they help other people."

decremental 3y ago

[dead]

lolc 3y ago

This guy would have died if he managed to get off shore enough to be past anybody noticing him. He'd be blown along by the winds mostly, being so high and light. So if he didn't plan it well, he has no chance. And by the article, he didn't plan at all. Check out "Naufragé volontaire : Sans vivres sur l'Atlantique" by Alain Bombard[0] if you want to read what a crossing on a small vessel entails. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard

ManuelKiessling 3y ago

I knew it was going to be a wild story when I read „Florida“.